Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Litigation Update:
In CCDL’s continuing effort to keep our members informed of the progress of our lawsuit, here is the latest information we have.
If you’ve missed anything, you can read previous updates here.

As expected, the defendants in our lawsuit against the State of Connecticut have filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss our case. All told, there are over 150 pages, and that doesn’t include all the various document exhibits that were also submitted. We’ll post those when we get them.

Remember, CCDL is an all volunteer, FREE organization. We rely 100% on the generosity of our members to fund this lawsuit as well as everything else we do to fight for rights of Connecticut gun owners. Please, take some time to read the documents above and see what we’re up against.
We’re committed to fighting this, but it takes time and money. If you can afford it, please donate to our Litigation Fund. Every penny goes straight into the battle to regain your rights.

11 thoughts on “Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

    • Thanks for the update. I read a bit into 78-1 and wanted to vomit! The arrogance in the language alone should make THEM null and void. While they present strong language in their “version” of the truth, they are still wrong…Carrying on, no matter what!!

      • Yeah, barely made it through the first couple of pages too. Browsed around a bit to see what other “crap” was in the PDF’s. Had to stop. Too sickening. I cannot believe the wording in these documents. What a crock. This is pure anti-gun agenda in action and nothing more. They cannot possibly be serious in thinking that criminals will abide by the new law(s). That is totally absurd coming from a bunch of turd(s). Hey that rhymes (nearly so).

  1. Pingback: » Update on CCDL litigation. Defendants file motion for summary judgement.The Yankee Gunner

  2. Thank you for the update, I note the comment about the m1-carbine in document 78-3.pdf

    “Moreover, if an M1 Carbine with a large capacity magazine was possessed in Connecticut prior to the passage of the Act, it can continue to be lawfully possessed if the owner registers it by January 1, 2014.” which will put untold numbers of our citizens at risk.

  3. “There are over 31,000 firearm-related deaths and 75,000 firearm-related injuries annually, and in many instances the victim is an innocent child. Military-style assault weapons and large capacity magazines substantially contribute to these numbers”

    According to the FBI, in 2011, rifles only accounted for 323 of a total 8,583 firearm related homicides. That includes ALL rifles. Thinking rationally, the numbers related to the newly defined “Military-style assault weapons and large capacity magazines” should be even less. I don’t understand how the state can openly exaggerate this as a substantial contribution. When broken down into the FBI’s five major firearm categories, a total possible maximum of 3.8% is far from substantial.

  4. From 78-1, talking about AR’s…

    “These firearms and magazines are disproportionately used in
    crime relative to their market presence, and feature prominently in some of the most serious types of crime like murder, mass shootings, and killings of law enforcement officers.”

    This statement is so wrong it makes my head hurt.

  5. Looks like they re-wrote Heller I lol … the true opinion only had 1 mention of M-16s .. and it did not say that it was OK to ban them…what did people expect of the commies and fascists to write?

  6. Its amazing to me how they can still blame the “firearm” of being the killer! It takes someone to pull that trigger and that someone is usually mentally unstable or a “gangbanger”. How about enforcing our existing criminal laws and policing our neighborhoods to rid the illegal guns from our streets. Bleeding heart liberals will NEVER do this at the risk of being political incorrect and losing the votes they get from non productive members of our society. We are law abiding citizens who keep and bear our firearms in a safe, law abiding fashion and should not be criminilized.

  7. I fogot to check, did any of the stats mentioned in these document refer to a legitamate source? Since I know the answer is no I didn’t bother to check. But one does wonder.

Comments are closed.