Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Ruling on gun ban may have impact on Connecticut assault weapons law

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Enfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    313

    Ruling on gun ban may have impact on Connecticut assault weapons law

    http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/...cut-540291.php

    A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense wherever they live has focused attention on whether Connecticut's landmark 1993 ban on assault-style weapons could be vulnerable to legal challenge.

    The decision casts doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but also indicates that some limitations on Second Amendment rights might escape legal challenge. The 5-4 ruling, with liberals in the minority, was led by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, whose decision sent the issue back to a lower federal appeals court.

    Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the legislative Judiciary Committee, said that in light of the high court's ruling Connecticut lawmakers will have to study the possible repercussions and may even rewrite the ban on such weapons as the MAC-10, TEC-9, Colt AR-15 and the Colt Sporter.

    "It seems to represent a broad attack on states' rights," McDonald said in a phone interview.

    But Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who successfully defended the assault-weapon ban at the Superior Court and state Supreme Court level, issued a statement Monday indicating that he anticipates no immediate impact on Connecticut law. In July 1995, the state Supreme Court upheld the assault-weapon ban.

    And the other co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee downplayed the likely impact of the ruling. Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven said Monday that since Connecticut doesn't have an outright ban, current law may stay in place.

    "What today's decision says, basically, is you can't make it virtually impossible for private citizens to own guns," Lawlor said. "We in Connecticut don't ban guns. We adopt reasonable rules.

    "People can argue about the assault-weapon ban, but there's a federal ban on machine guns and no one's argued that," he said, referring to the 1989 federal law outlawing AK-47s and Uzis.

    McDonald predicted the Monday ruling will embolden gun-rights groups to challenge more local and state restrictions.

    "It's an opportunistic effort by the right wing of the court to undermine responsible restrictions on gun ownership," he said. "It clearly is going to result in widespread litigation and likely efforts to roll back many of the more recent efforts by the state Legislature."

    He said that since the high-court ruling sends the Chicago ban back to the courts, it will probably result in a great deal of confusion throughout the country.

    "They haven't given clear parameters on what restrictions will be permitted under the ruling," McDonald said. "It looks like a badly fragmented court issued the opinion today. The conservative wing has cobbled together a bare minimum number of votes to reach consensus on this litigation."

    "I think over the next several months we are going to have to review our current laws, particularly our assault weapon ban to determine whether it is jeopardized under this new decision and if it is, to proactively respond as quickly as possible to achieve the same result," McDonald said.

    Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, in a joint statement Monday with Chris W. Cox, executive director, called the Supreme Court decision "a great moment" in American history and a reaffirmation of the Second Amendment right to bears arms.

    "But, Supreme Court decisions have to lead to actual consequences or the whole premise of American constitutional authority collapses. Individual freedom must mean you can actually experience it," they said. "This decision must provide relief to law-abiding citizens who are deprived of their Second Amendment rights."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    "People can argue about the assault-weapon ban, but there's a federal ban on machine guns and no one's argued that," [Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven] said, referring to the 1989 federal law outlawing AK-47s and Uzis.

    Huh? There is no "federal ban" on machine guns. All one needs to own one (in those states that don't outlaw them) is a $200 tax stamp. As for AK-47s and Uzis, if they have an automatic selector switch, you get a tax stamp. If they don't, they're legal (except, of course, in those states that outlaw certain firearms because they look scary).

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Britain, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    107
    "What today's decision says, basically, is you can't make it virtually impossible for private citizens to own guns," Lawlor said. "We in Connecticut don't ban guns. We adopt reasonable rules..."

    Reasonable rules, my big furry ass...we can't own a select-fire weapon in this state but can own any full-auto-only, big-ass honkin' machine gun we want...

    Yup, and that 'assault weapons ban' has just about dried-up the EBR market. Haven't seen one in Hoffmans or Newington Gun Exchange in ages, and that company here in New Britain (Stag Arms) will NEVER sell anything.....<sarcasm off>

    Stupid, worhtless, feel-good crap...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Lawlors a fool

    What I hope comes out of this ruling is this:

    1. The RIGHT to self protection is ensured for each person regardless of which of the 50 states they happen to find themselves in.
    2. The RIGHT for each person to choose which arms they want to bear is a personal decision and NOT up to the state.
    3. The RIGHT of a person to purchase a firearm should not be limited to the state they are in, since this RIGHT transcends state boundaries. Meaning if I wanted to go down to a big gunshow somewhere, the fact that I am a resident of CT should not be a consideration.
    4. The RIGHT of a person to defend themselves, to practice the art of self defense, and the right to keep ones hearing from being damaged should make the use of suppressors no more difficult than the use of say a laser sight or custom grip. Even the namby pamby European countries that still allow firearms to the public allow suppressors to keep the place quiet.

    Actually the more I think about it, this ruling should obviate the need for the F in the BATFE - and anything that puts a nail in their coffin is good by me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •