Edward Peruta
Regular Member
Will State Gun Laws Get Shot Down?
Connecticut Law Tribune
Monday, July 05, 2010
Copyright 2010, ALM Properties, Inc.
Will State Gun Laws Get Shot Down?
High court ruling could spur challenge to assault weapons ban
By DOUGLAS S. MALAN
Last week, Carlton S. Chen, general counsel at Colt’s Manufacturing Co. in West Hartford, was celebrating the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. “I think it will have a major effect because the ability of law-abiding citizens to own handguns for legitimate purposes will be a benefit to gun manufacturers” in terms of sales, Chen said.
But he doesn’t believe the ruling will have much of an impact in terms of his home state’s firearms laws. “In Connecticut, no,” Chen said. “I’d be surprised if there’s a challenge to any gun laws.”
That’s because the state is relatively friendly to handgun owners’ rights, said Chen, who is an avid shooter and member of several gun clubs.
But Torrington attorney Rachel M. Baird, who litigates gun ownership cases, predicted that “there’s going to be a huge amount of litigation” in the state as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.
She pointed to particular language in Connecticut General Statutes 29-28(b) that describes the gun permitting process that likely will be challenged by groups such as the National Rifle Association. The law says that local authorities “may” issue a temporary permit upon application as long as the applicant meets 10 eligibility factors, one of them being that the applicant does not have a felony on their criminal record.
Authorities also must find an applicant “suitable” for a gun permit, a standard that differs among jurisdictions, Baird said.
The ruling in McDonald, she said, “places the ‘may’ [language] at issue as constitutional, places the ambiguous standard of ‘suitability’ at issue as constitutional and places the burden on the state to demonstrate that within each of the eligibility factors is an overriding governmental interest” to deny a person the right to keep and bear arms.
Across Connecticut and the rest of the country, attorneys, lawmakers and right-to-bear-arms advocates studied the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling.
In 2008, the Supreme Court, in striking down a Washington, D.C., law that limited firearms ownership, said that Second Amendment protections apply directly to individual gun owners. Last week, in McDonald, which addressed handgun bans in the Chicago area, the Supreme Court held that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the states as well as the District of Columbia.
‘New Era’
Unlike Chicago and Washington, D.C., Connecticut law already allows residents without a felony conviction to keep handguns in their home without needing a permit to do so.
To carry a handgun outside of the home, residents must obtain a temporary gun permit from their local police chief. After obtaining the temporary permit, the resident must apply for a state permit and then complete a course in gun safety approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety.
“Aside from paying two permit fees, it really isn’t a bad process,” said Chen, whose job entails testifying before the legislature on gun control legislation. “I don’t think it’s something that’s going to be challenged” in light of McDonald.
But others weren’t so sure.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, based in Newtown, Conn., hailed the Supreme Court ruling. General counsel Lawrence G. Keane said that “a new era of civil rights begins today.”
Keane told the New Canaan Patch online news site that his group does support mandatory background check for gun owners. However, he said, it is eyeing a challenge to mandatory waiting period requirements and a bans that stops anyone younger than 21-years-old from owning a firearm. Both restrictions are in effect in Connecticut. “The burden is on the government to show that there is a need for that restriction,” he said.
Much of the discussion in the state focused on weather the state’s sweeping assault weapons ban, which went into effect in 1993, would have to be revisited.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal 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.
But Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the legislative Judiciary Committee, said that in light of the high court’s ruling, Connecticut lawmakers may have to rewrite the ban, which lists by brand name specific weapons that cannot be owned in the state, including two Colt models.
McDonald told the Connecticut Post that the U.S. Supreme Court decision “seems to represent a broad attack on states’ rights.”
However, state Rep. Michael Lawlor, the other co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, said he did not believe the ruling would affect any current Connecticut laws.
“I think what the Supreme Court has said is reasonable regulation of firearm ownership is OK,” said Lawlor, as quoted in the New Haven Register. “In Connecticut, citizens have the right to possess arms for self-defense or sporting purposes…There are going to be some rules attached to that, and I think they’re reasonable and they’re not affected by this decision.”
Lawlor mentioned the background check and a mandatory training course among the reasonable rules.
Chen, the Colt GC, agreed that the first challenges will likely occur in parts of the country outside Connecticut with stringent gun ownership restrictions.
For example, Chen noted that when he brings a Colt firearm down to his patent attorney in New York City, he must first obtain written permission from the city’s police commissioner to legally possess the gun within the city limits. “It will be really interesting in the coming months and years,” said Chen, “when plaintiffs start homing in on states with the most draconian laws, like California and New York.”
Connecticut Law Tribune
Monday, July 05, 2010
Copyright 2010, ALM Properties, Inc.
Will State Gun Laws Get Shot Down?
High court ruling could spur challenge to assault weapons ban
By DOUGLAS S. MALAN
Last week, Carlton S. Chen, general counsel at Colt’s Manufacturing Co. in West Hartford, was celebrating the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. “I think it will have a major effect because the ability of law-abiding citizens to own handguns for legitimate purposes will be a benefit to gun manufacturers” in terms of sales, Chen said.
But he doesn’t believe the ruling will have much of an impact in terms of his home state’s firearms laws. “In Connecticut, no,” Chen said. “I’d be surprised if there’s a challenge to any gun laws.”
That’s because the state is relatively friendly to handgun owners’ rights, said Chen, who is an avid shooter and member of several gun clubs.
But Torrington attorney Rachel M. Baird, who litigates gun ownership cases, predicted that “there’s going to be a huge amount of litigation” in the state as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.
She pointed to particular language in Connecticut General Statutes 29-28(b) that describes the gun permitting process that likely will be challenged by groups such as the National Rifle Association. The law says that local authorities “may” issue a temporary permit upon application as long as the applicant meets 10 eligibility factors, one of them being that the applicant does not have a felony on their criminal record.
Authorities also must find an applicant “suitable” for a gun permit, a standard that differs among jurisdictions, Baird said.
The ruling in McDonald, she said, “places the ‘may’ [language] at issue as constitutional, places the ambiguous standard of ‘suitability’ at issue as constitutional and places the burden on the state to demonstrate that within each of the eligibility factors is an overriding governmental interest” to deny a person the right to keep and bear arms.
Across Connecticut and the rest of the country, attorneys, lawmakers and right-to-bear-arms advocates studied the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling.
In 2008, the Supreme Court, in striking down a Washington, D.C., law that limited firearms ownership, said that Second Amendment protections apply directly to individual gun owners. Last week, in McDonald, which addressed handgun bans in the Chicago area, the Supreme Court held that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the states as well as the District of Columbia.
‘New Era’
Unlike Chicago and Washington, D.C., Connecticut law already allows residents without a felony conviction to keep handguns in their home without needing a permit to do so.
To carry a handgun outside of the home, residents must obtain a temporary gun permit from their local police chief. After obtaining the temporary permit, the resident must apply for a state permit and then complete a course in gun safety approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety.
“Aside from paying two permit fees, it really isn’t a bad process,” said Chen, whose job entails testifying before the legislature on gun control legislation. “I don’t think it’s something that’s going to be challenged” in light of McDonald.
But others weren’t so sure.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, based in Newtown, Conn., hailed the Supreme Court ruling. General counsel Lawrence G. Keane said that “a new era of civil rights begins today.”
Keane told the New Canaan Patch online news site that his group does support mandatory background check for gun owners. However, he said, it is eyeing a challenge to mandatory waiting period requirements and a bans that stops anyone younger than 21-years-old from owning a firearm. Both restrictions are in effect in Connecticut. “The burden is on the government to show that there is a need for that restriction,” he said.
Much of the discussion in the state focused on weather the state’s sweeping assault weapons ban, which went into effect in 1993, would have to be revisited.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal 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.
But Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, co-chairman of the legislative Judiciary Committee, said that in light of the high court’s ruling, Connecticut lawmakers may have to rewrite the ban, which lists by brand name specific weapons that cannot be owned in the state, including two Colt models.
McDonald told the Connecticut Post that the U.S. Supreme Court decision “seems to represent a broad attack on states’ rights.”
However, state Rep. Michael Lawlor, the other co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, said he did not believe the ruling would affect any current Connecticut laws.
“I think what the Supreme Court has said is reasonable regulation of firearm ownership is OK,” said Lawlor, as quoted in the New Haven Register. “In Connecticut, citizens have the right to possess arms for self-defense or sporting purposes…There are going to be some rules attached to that, and I think they’re reasonable and they’re not affected by this decision.”
Lawlor mentioned the background check and a mandatory training course among the reasonable rules.
Chen, the Colt GC, agreed that the first challenges will likely occur in parts of the country outside Connecticut with stringent gun ownership restrictions.
For example, Chen noted that when he brings a Colt firearm down to his patent attorney in New York City, he must first obtain written permission from the city’s police commissioner to legally possess the gun within the city limits. “It will be really interesting in the coming months and years,” said Chen, “when plaintiffs start homing in on states with the most draconian laws, like California and New York.”
Last edited:
