Judge Rejects Temporary Block of Connecticut Sandy Hook Law

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Judge rejects attempt to temporarily block Connecticut's landmark gun law passed after Sandy Hook

...U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton in New Haven ruled the National Association for Gun Rights has not shown that the state's ban on certain assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines, or LCMs, violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms or that such weapons are commonly bought and used for self-defense.

Connecticut officials "have submitted persuasive evidence that assault weapons and LCMs are more often sought out for their militaristic characteristics than for self-defense, that these characteristics make the weapons disproportionately dangerous to the public based on their increased capacity for lethality, and that assault weapons and LCMs are more often used in crimes and mass shootings than in self-defense," Arterton said...

The National Association for Gun Rights, based in Loveland, Colorado, criticized the ruling and vowed an appeal.

"We're used to seeing crazy judicial acrobatics to reason the Second Amendment into oblivion, but this ruling is extreme even for leftist courts," it said in a statement. "This is an outrageous slap in the face to law-abiding gun owners and the Constitution alike."...

The National Association for Gun Rights said Arterton is refusing to follow the clear guidance of that ruling and "twisting the Supreme Court's words in order to continue a decade-long practice of trampling the Second Amendment as a second-class right."

Arterton's ruling means Connecticut's law will remain in effect while the lawsuit proceeds in court...

I think this is the case they are referencing... Firearm Rights Group Challenges Post-Sandy Hook Gun Law

...The lawsuit filed by the organization and New Milford resident Patricia Brought claims "millions of law-abiding citizens own and use for lawful purposes semi-automatic firearms such as the Banned Firearms currently possessed by Plaintiffs."

The lawsuit goes onto to claim the state statutes use "politically charged rhetoric" to describe "large capacity" magazines." It says the magazines pass the "common use" test and are not excessive, but infringe on the plaintiffs' right to keep and bear arms...

Here's a link to the case... NAGR, Brought vs. Lamont, et al..

[BAJ475]

Judge rejects attempt to temporarily block Connecticut's landmark gun law passed after Sandy Hook

I think this is the case they are referencing... Firearm Rights Group Challenges Post-Sandy Hook Gun Law

Here's a link to the case... NAGR, Brought vs. Lamont, et al..

Every judge that tries to justify their decision based on commonly bought and used for "self-defense" instead of "lawful purposes" should be impeached and then hung or shot for violating their oath to defend and support the constitution. Where in the 2A is the right to keep and bear arms limited to self defense? If one looks to history, the purpose of the 2A was to enable the people to dispose of tyrants, i.e. security of a free state, and we are way behind in doing so.

[Bhobbs]

Loaded with interest balancing and bastardization of the common use test. Good to see the lower courts are unimpeded by the Supreme Court.

[JiuJitsu]

I read her decision. It pretended to be well reasoned and started fine. That is until it concluded each section with painful and nauseating mental gymnastics to somehow warp multiple SCOTUS 2A case law precedents into upholding ridiculous bans on the most popular rifles and magazines in America.

Well done, Judge Idiot. You will be overturned. Congrats.

[Sgt Raven]

Mark W Smith latest video on this

https://youtu.be/FhF29bTKkxI

[AlmostHeaven]

I read her decision. It pretended to be well reasoned and started fine. That is until it concluded each section with painful and nauseating mental gymnastics to somehow warp multiple SCOTUS 2A case law precedents into upholding ridiculous bans on the most popular rifles and magazines in America.

Well done, Judge Idiot. You will be overturned. Congrats.

The more disrespectfully of Supreme Court precedent and intellectually dishonestly the lower courts behave, the more likely all six conservative Justices stick together like in NYSRPA v. Bruen to issue decisions restoring the Second Amendment.

I do not see these terrible district court decisions as a negative in the grand scheme of gun rights.

[Bhobbs]

All the tests in the world only work if the lower courts are actually forced to use them. The negative isn’t the bad district court rulings. The negative is the inability of SCOTUS to prevent them. Sure, one or two might get overturned years later but SCOTUS can’t take every case. There has to be some mechanism to force the lower courts into compliance. There currently is no mechanism.

[Rickybillegas]

All the tests in the world only work if the lower courts are actually forced to use them. The negative isn?t the bad district court rulings. The negative is the inability of SCOTUS to prevent them. Sure, one or two might get overturned years later but SCOTUS can?t take every case. There has to be some mechanism to force the lower courts into compliance. There currently is no mechanism.

And in some quarters they are setting up the idea that current SCOTUS is a 'rogue' court that refuses to acknowledge 'common good' which is I'm sure some of their justification for ignoring them.

[Rickybillegas]

And in media and D spin machine, they are setting up current SCOTUS as a 'rogue' court which refuses to acknowledge 'common good', which I'm sure is a justification for some judges to ignore them.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

And in some quarters they are setting up the idea that current SCOTUS is a 'rogue' court that refuses to acknowledge 'common good' which is I'm sure some of their justification for ignoring them.

And in media and D spin machine, they are setting up current SCOTUS as a 'rogue' court which refuses to acknowledge 'common good', which I'm sure is a justification for some judges to ignore them.

It's more of a 'rationalization' than a 'justification.' A rationalization is an 'excuse' which provides an emotional appeal. A justification indicates a line of 'reasoning' which should hold together at some level, even if it's ultimately found insufficient or based on inadequate or incorrect premises.

We see this in the Heller decision and it's the basis upon which Scalia took the dissent's argument apart. It's why we tend to talk about their 'feelz' and denigrate the arguments presented in that 'our side' tends to use facts and reason, while 'their side' tends to rely on emotion. As an example, take a look at an Op-Ed piece posted today in The Tennessean... What the Second Amendment really says about regulation of firearms | Opinion and note that it even starts, in its first sentence, with...

A steady slaughter of innocents by disturbed individuals bearing military-style weapons with high-capacity magazines makes one wonder how the Second Amendment was ever set on its head to justify our recklessly permissive policies on guns...

Care to guess which 'side' of the Heller decision the author favors and how the rest of the piece argues? And, that's by a retired attorney who, ostensibly, argues based on... uh... reason?

That's the difference you're seeing, an increasing use of rationalization, and why these lower court decisions have become more untenable, don't seem to make any sense, and why we are seeing chaos emerge in the legal system to the point where even the media is (rhetorically) asking... Why the Nation?s Gun Laws Are in Chaos... and states are taking a dichotomous approach to tightening and loosening restrictions on firearms.

In a sense, it is what we have long held, that the ultimate result of "Living Constitutionalism" will be... chaos. Why? Because it's not based on reasoning, but based on emotions of the moment to achieve a desired outcome with that outcome being susceptible to an ever-changing and untamed public opinion. It's why I like to quote the Barnette decision from 1943...

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

...in that it offers a succinct explanation of why the Founders gave us a 'republic' as opposed to a 'popular democracy.'

[Rickybillegas]

Yes, rationalization, not justification. Important distinction.

It's also why they're scared of the real stats and studies that show mostly that gun control doesn't work (or within statistical margin of error). Remember what Kathy Hochul said; "I don't need numbers to tell me gun control works".

[AlmostHeaven]

Everyone here overthinks the foundational basis of modern liberal thought.

The core principle on which progressive ideology stands is the self-righteousness of the adherent. Leftists truly believe in the outright ethical, moral, and intellectual superiority of themselves. If societal metrics have become worse after the implementation of left-wing policies, reactionary forces and nefarious actors must be undermining justice, and the government must enact even more laws to destroy the evil obstacles standing in the way of socialist utopia. Democrats believe the very sustainability of civilization itself hinges on whether their ideas come into effect.

This sense of unquestionable correctness makes the modern left in America the greatest enemy to the survival of the Republic and existence of liberty.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

Well... What can you expect if they desire Puritania?