Motion for Summary Judgment

(The Following is a Joint CCDL and CCS Address)

Dear CCDL and CCS members and key donors,

This past Friday on August 23rd, the 2nd Amendment challenge to Connecticut’s new firearms law took a significant step forward with the filing of plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting memorandum of law. A motion for summary judgment is a legal device that asks the court to decide a case expeditiously “on the papers,” without the need for discovery and a trial. Cases that are appropriate for this type of early disposition are those where the key facts are not disputed by the parties and the case turns solely on the court’s interpretation of one or more questions of law.

As stated in plaintiffs’ brief, “The firearms and magazines that Connecticut bans are lawfully manufactured (many in Connecticut itself) and are lawfully purchased by millions of Americans after passing the National Instant Criminal Background Check … as well as state-required checks. … They are in common use by plaintiffs and millions of law-abiding citizens for self-defense, sport, and hunting… Restrictions on such guns and magazines are anything but long-standing, and remain outliers nationwide. The laws of most states and federal law have no restrictions on magazine capacity or the number of rounds that may be loaded in a magazine, nor do they restrict guns that some choose to call “assault weapons.” As such, plaintiffs’ brief argues, “like the handgun ban in Heller, the ban on common firearms and magazines here is categorically void under the Second Amendment.”
Further, plaintiffs’ brief argues, the new Connecticut firearms law is unconstitutional because it “arbitrarily establish[es] categories of persons who can and cannot buy the weapons” providing preferred treatment to certain retired government and private security personnel. And, finally, the brief argues, the statute is void because it is unconstitutionally vague. The next step in this case will be the filing of the State’s opposition brief, and potentially the State’s own cross motion for summary judgment, both of which are due in early September.

As of now, our challenge to the State’s evisceration of rights long held inviolable is well-positioned to correct the legislature and governor’s misguided course — whether that correction occurs at the district court or eventually on appeal. We are enormously proud of the individual plaintiffs – June Shew, Stephanie Cypher, Rabbi Mitchell Rocklin, Peter Owens, Andrew Mueller, and Brian McLain – as well as of retailers Hiller Sports, LLC and MD Shooting Sports LLC and the amici law enforcement personnel — who have invested themselves personally in overturning this patently unconstitutional law. We are especially proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with you – the loyal and brave patriots throughout this State — in our fight to protect the fundamental rights of all citizens.

(Read our MSJ brief here: Motion.Summary.Judgment.pdf)

Warm regards,

Scott Wilson,
President- CCDL, Inc.

and

Bob Crook,
Director- CCS

12 thoughts on “Motion for Summary Judgment

  1. This is great news. I am proud to be an American, a US veteran, and a member of the CCDL.

  2. If the law is deemed unconstitutional, what is the effect on CT firearms retailers? Would retailers be allowed to sell the previously vilified items during the litigation process?

  3. Scott must say that I am proud to be a member of CCDL, and proud in deed of the resolute position both you personally, and all other members collectively to fight this very important battle against the illegal acts of the State of Connecticut Legislation against the rights of the citizens of Connecticut. It should go without saying that anyone that does not wish to exercise their rights as a citizen of the state or as an American Citizen, should also have the right not to bear arms, but that that personal right should not and can not violate the rights of those citizens that do. Go the way you must, but do not hinder or obstruct those that have chosen differently.

    Art Mazeau

  4. Pingback: Motion for Summary Judgment | CCDL Blog - The Smoking Chamber : The Smoking Chamber

  5. I had to read that original post twice, when it mentioned “certain private security” as for the most part security officers are treated as a disposable commodity in this new law. Then I remembered that if you work at a nuclear power plant you can have pretty much whatever you want.

    This makes me conflicted in some regards, because while I think the whole law needs to be repealed (as well as some previous ones, but that is another matter), it really bothers me the way private security in general were treated in this new law. I can be assigned to guard a bank or a state building and must still adhere to the ban. There was even an early suggestion to criminalize body armor for everyone but police.

    I have asked several lawmakers I meet if they will call my wife and explain to her why they want me dead, none of them have taken up my invitation

    On a much more positive note: All and all, a good job by CCDL and the legal team..

  6. Not to count chickens before they are hatched but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,If on the chance this law is tossed out, what would that do to the 93 law? Good luck.

  7. I am no longer a member of CCDL for reasons we won’t go into. I am proud to have donated to the cause and stand behind this legal action 100% I will also donate again as I am able. Thank you and all that have gotten us this far…

Comments are closed.