Now every liberal state will probably ban them unless the Supremes step in.

Quote:By EDMUND H. MAHONY,
emahony@courant.com
4:33 pm, January 30, 2014


HARTFORD — Gun control advocates were buoyed Thursday by a federal court decision in Hartford that upholds Connecticut's toughest-in-the-nation assault weapons ban, calling it a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government's interest in reducing gun violence.

"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."


http://touch.courant.com/#section/-1/art...-79106565/

I have no issue with someone having a basic pistol or rifle for home defense...a simple shot gun is the best home defense ever...but I see no need/reason for a citizen to have something like an AK-47, AR-15, Tec-9 style assault weapon...I mean, even in a semi-auto style their not too hard to modify into full auto.

I also fully support carry permits...but I think guns and bars don't mix (see TN)

From a public-policy standpoint, Connecticut has made itself a less-safe and less-free place to live as a result of this law.

But as a proponent of states'-rights, I give grudging approval to the court's decision.

His statement indicates he applied the wrong standard of review. He applied intermediate scrutiny instead of strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is applied when fundamental rights (e.g. things in the bill of rights like the 2nd amendment) are infringed. He should have asked whether the government had a 1) compelling governmental interest in restricting "assault weapons"; 2) that the law was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest; and 3) the law is the least restrictive means of achieving that goal.

Hopefully, it will be overturned and reviewed at the correct standard.

(02-01-2014 02:02 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  His statement indicates he applied the wrong standard of review. He applied intermediate scrutiny instead of strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is applied when fundamental rights (e.g. things in the bill of rights like the 2nd amendment) are infringed. He should have asked whether the government had a 1) compelling governmental interest in restricting "assault weapons"; 2) that the law was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest; and 3) the law is the least restrictive means of achieving that goal.

Hopefully, it will be overturned and reviewed at the correct standard.

Can't put it better than that.

Is anyone still unsure that our courts have been taken over by Marxists? Is anyone still unclear that this is a result of Democrats in power?

(02-01-2014 02:09 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Is anyone still unsure that our courts have been taken over by Marxists? Is anyone still unclear that this is a result of Democrats in power?

Damn straight!

(01-31-2014 08:47 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  but I see no need/reason for a citizen to have something like an AK-47, AR-15, Tec-9 style assault weapon...

What about a Mini-14? Am I allowed one of those, Mr. Moral High Ground?



Notice that cosmetically, it's no different than the Ruger 10/22 that I had whenever I was 10 years old.



Yet the Mini-14 (first picture) just so happens to fire the same caliber and has the same rate of fire as your so-called "assault weapons", yet has absolutely nothing "assault" about it.

Or better yet, how about an M1A in .308?



Same action as the Mini-14, same rate of fire, but MUCH more devastating. 5.56x45 is a pea shooter compared to .308/7.62x51.

You'll notice that your "assault weapon" argument quickly deteriorates whenever you come across someone that actually knows something about guns.

Conn. people should sell their houses and just buy surplus tanks to live in.

Seema pretty easy to make the argument that "burdening" one's second amendment rights is the same as infringing upon them.
The problem isn't that CT wants to band those weapons, it's the utter nonsense of their definition of assault weapon. They might have well said they were banning scary looking weapons and anybody that is scared of any particular gun can have it banned.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Quote:but I see no need/reason for a citizen to have something like an AK-47, AR-15, Tec-9 style assault weapon...

I see no reason for a citizen to have four ounces of medical grade marijuana for recreational purposes.

(01-31-2014 10:09 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  From a public-policy standpoint, Connecticut has made itself a less-safe and less-free place to live as a result of this law.

But as a proponent of states'-rights, I give grudging approval to the court's decision.

But aren't there statistics that show that households with firearms are twice as likely to experience gun violence?

(02-02-2014 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 10:09 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  From a public-policy standpoint, Connecticut has made itself a less-safe and less-free place to live as a result of this law.

But as a proponent of states'-rights, I give grudging approval to the court's decision.

But aren't there statistics that show that households with firearms are twice as likely to experience gun violence?

And cities/towns with high amounts of illegals will have higher numbers of people killed by them along with other crimes.

Connecticut has just made sure that only criminals will have the types of guns that they banned. Feel safer?

(02-02-2014 11:56 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 10:09 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  From a public-policy standpoint, Connecticut has made itself a less-safe and less-free place to live as a result of this law.

But as a proponent of states'-rights, I give grudging approval to the court's decision.

But aren't there statistics that show that households with firearms are twice as likely to experience gun violence?

And cities/towns with high amounts of illegals will have higher numbers of people killed by them along with other crimes.

Connecticut has just made sure that only criminals will have the types of guns that they banned. Feel safer?

Really? So the " out of my cold dead hands" is just a gimick?

(02-02-2014 12:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 11:56 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 10:09 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  From a public-policy standpoint, Connecticut has made itself a less-safe and less-free place to live as a result of this law.

But as a proponent of states'-rights, I give grudging approval to the court's decision.

But aren't there statistics that show that households with firearms are twice as likely to experience gun violence?

And cities/towns with high amounts of illegals will have higher numbers of people killed by them along with other crimes.

Connecticut has just made sure that only criminals will have the types of guns that they banned. Feel safer?

Really? So the " out of my cold dead hands" is just a gimick?

Not sure what you mean by that...

(02-02-2014 12:11 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 12:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 11:56 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 10:09 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  From a public-policy standpoint, Connecticut has made itself a less-safe and less-free place to live as a result of this law.

But as a proponent of states'-rights, I give grudging approval to the court's decision.

But aren't there statistics that show that households with firearms are twice as likely to experience gun violence?

And cities/towns with high amounts of illegals will have higher numbers of people killed by them along with other crimes.

Connecticut has just made sure that only criminals will have the types of guns that they banned. Feel safer?

Really? So the " out of my cold dead hands" is just a gimick?

Not sure what you mean by that...

What I mean is that if people honestly believe that the best way to protect themselves is to carry a weapon then they shouldn't let a stupid little law change that.

Isn't that what Charlton Heston meant when he used that quote?

While I think Conn. is wrong...I support a State deciding to do WTF it wants.

(02-02-2014 01:05 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 08:47 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  but I see no need/reason for a citizen to have something like an AK-47, AR-15, Tec-9 style assault weapon...

What about a Mini-14? Am I allowed one of those, Mr. Moral High Ground?



Notice that cosmetically, it's no different than the Ruger 10/22 that I had whenever I was 10 years old.



Yet the Mini-14 (first picture) just so happens to fire the same caliber and has the same rate of fire as your so-called "assault weapons", yet has absolutely nothing "assault" about it.

Or better yet, how about an M1A in .308?



Same action as the Mini-14, same rate of fire, but MUCH more devastating. 5.56x45 is a pea shooter compared to .308/7.62x51.

You'll notice that your "assault weapon" argument quickly deteriorates whenever you come across someone that actually knows something about guns.

No, you can't, I don't like your attitude...no gun for you...come back one year.

(01-31-2014 08:47 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I have no issue with someone having a basic pistol or rifle for home defense...a simple shot gun is the best home defense ever...but I see no need/reason for a citizen to have something like an AK-47, AR-15, Tec-9 style assault weapon...I mean, even in a semi-auto style their not too hard to modify into full auto.

I also fully support carry permits...but I think guns and bars don't mix (see TN)

What you "see no need/reason for" is immaterial.

(02-02-2014 01:03 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:05 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 08:47 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  but I see no need/reason for a citizen to have something like an AK-47, AR-15, Tec-9 style assault weapon...

What about a Mini-14? Am I allowed one of those, Mr. Moral High Ground?



Notice that cosmetically, it's no different than the Ruger 10/22 that I had whenever I was 10 years old.



Yet the Mini-14 (first picture) just so happens to fire the same caliber and has the same rate of fire as your so-called "assault weapons", yet has absolutely nothing "assault" about it.

Or better yet, how about an M1A in .308?



Same action as the Mini-14, same rate of fire, but MUCH more devastating. 5.56x45 is a pea shooter compared to .308/7.62x51.

You'll notice that your "assault weapon" argument quickly deteriorates whenever you come across someone that actually knows something about guns.

No, you can't, I don't like your attitude...no gun for you...come back one year.

LOL

I'd note that your argument was decimated to the point that you had to turn to sarcasm.