Litigation Update

The State of Connecticut just filed it’s “brief” in our appeal of the Shew v. Malloy decision.
At 178 pages long, it’s anything but brief. I have not had time to read it all yet, but what I’ve read so far would be laughable if it didn’t involve the infringement of our Constitutional rights. Here are just some of the highlights from the Table of Contents.

  • The Banned Assault Weapons and Magazines are Unusually Dangerous, and Have Been Restricted or Banned Outright In Many Jurisdictions For Much Of Their Existence
  • Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines Are Designed For Combat, and Have the Same Killing Capacity as Modern Military Weapons
  • Civilian Use of Assault Weapons Has Been Regulated Or Banned Outright For Much Of The Time These Weapons Have Been In Existence
  • The Evidence Demonstrates That Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines are Used Disproportionately In Crime, and That They Result In More Injuries and More Serious Injuries Than Other Weapons
  • Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines Are Not Commonly Used For Purposes Protected By The Second Amendment
  • Assault Weapons Are Not Commonly Owned
  • Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines Are Not Appropriate For, Or Commonly Used In, Self Defense
  • Even If The Act Implicates Second Amendment Rights, It Is Constitutional
  • Connecticut Has A Compelling State Interest In Reducing Gun Death And Injury & The Act Is Substantially Related To Connecticut’s Interest In Reducing Gun Death And Injury
  • Neither Heller Nor Any Other Precedent Supports Plaintiffs’ Absolutist Interpretations Of The Second Amendment

Once you get done laughing, you can go read the twisted logic our tax-dollars have paid to use against us in court. The full brief may be downloaded here. Shew v. Malloy_Brief of Appellees with Special Appendix (pdf)

16 thoughts on “Litigation Update

  1. How many mental institutions has the state reopened for Doctors and Judges to send people who need help and to keep them away from the general public? That would start to address the mass shooting in our state. In addition, which state reps have introduced new legislation that gives doctors and judges the guidelines for locking up people that are unstable?

  2. REALLY?>>>(Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines Are Not Commonly Used For Purposes Protected By The Second Amendment). I bet they wished they had them in the first American Revolutionary War.

  3. Not one of those is correct. If they get a judge that knows anything about so called “assault weapons” Or has ever been to the statistics section of FBI.gov they will laugh at those highlights from the table of contents, all of them!

  4. Thanks for summarizing the main points … I’m still reading that Dang Obummer Health Care law .. almost done, only 1/3rd to go — figure in another year I would have read it all.

  5. “Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines Are Designed For Combat, and Have the Same Killing Capacity as Modern Military Weapons”

    OK, if one were to assume this to be true, which it isn’t, then why does our State Police have such “weapons?” Who are they at war with?

  6. Did not read the State’s brief. Commenting on the summary only.

    1. All guns are unusually dangerous. The Act’s banned guns are not banned in “many other” domestic jurisdictions. Perhaps the State is referencing UK and Saudi law.
    2. The AR-15 does not have the same “killing capacity” as the M-16. Again the author’s sloppy word choice is intentional. It seems the State’s logic centers on rounds before reloading. In that case, a K-Bar knife has a greater “killing capacity than a M-16 because no reloading of the K-bar is necessary.
    3. This is just not true. Again though, the State uses sloppy definitions, in this case “Assault Weapons”. Automatic weapons were banned in 1934. Modern Sporting Rifles/semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines were never banned except in places like DC and NYC.
    4. The vast majority of gun crime, injury and death is perpetrated by cheap, easily concealable Saturday night special type weapons. Mass killings make good headlines, but they are a negligible portion of gun crime. This argument is flat out wrong, and if a lawyer made it in a signed pleading he should be subject to Rule 11 sanctions.
    5. The Second Amendment does not implicate “protected purposes”. All I read is “shall not be infringed”. This argument is a waste of paper.
    6. The AR-15 is immensely popular. It is common. So is the large capacity Glock. No facts from the State, just more weasel words (i.e. :”assault weapons”) and LIES.
    7. What the State classifies as assault weapons are ideal for self defense. 30 is better than 10 when faced with the Cheshire home invaders, or whomever the State selects next for early release. More subterfuge by compound statement here as well. Of course assault rifles are not commonly used in self defense. They are bulky and expensive. But they are ideal in this role.
    8. This is the most dangerous argument. The Second Circuit is notoriously liberal. They will likely find that CT can do this to us. Vote them out.
    9. The State must make this argument as a showing of compelling interest is required to infringe on our rights. Best chance here is to show that the legislature didn’t do their work and demonstrate, with studies and findings, that the ban would save lives.
    10. Our position is not absolutist. More blow hard rhetoric from the intellectually bankrupt State. Absolutism says we need nukes because the Army has them. All we are asking for is the popular, civilian modern sporting rifles that were sold and manufactured in Connecticut for years.

  7. Ok….this sounds just like the “ruling” from Maryland. (Almost verbatim)
    If one looks at Rifle sales(as a whole) over the past decade….you will discover the AR-15 (and similar designs) as THE most popular rifle choice. As for the term “Assault Weapon”,it DOES NOT APPLY to the AR-15.(an ASSAULT WEAPON is: a firearm capable of Automatic,Semi-Automatic/Burst Fire modes)
    As for the “Standard Capacity” magazines. They were designed to be used with these particular rifle and are especially effective for Home Defense,against Single or, (much more likely) Multiple threats/attackers.
    It is not beyond my understanding,why the state of Connecticut would file such a ridiculous brief. The answer seems crystal clear:They, (the State of CT.) Means to disarm law abiding citizens. Thus weakening our power to influence political decisions that affect us directly. If a government is just,it should have NO fear of it’s citizens rising in revolt.
    The United States Constitution is not a “living,breathing” document, as some suggest. It was written in a very specific way to guarantee our inalienable rights against tyranny.
    Those rights HAVE BEEN VIOLATED by the State of Connecticut.
    We MUST continue the fight against this injustice. Or our way of life will perish.

  8. Only time will tell whether or not the Shew litigation team is up to the challenge that this proceeding presents. The team must be adept in order to substantiate a set of facts and evidence that will sway the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District to hold that CT’s P.A. 13-3, as a mended, is unconstitutional pursuant to the U.S. S.Ct.’s holdings in DC v. Heller 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) and binding on the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010). Please consider the following and if one can structure an argument in Shew’s favor, then offer such to the litigation team.
    .
    1. The single most fatal blow to Second Amendment advocates is the HOLDING (See Heller I’s Syllabus at 2. last sentence) that is set out in the Heller I’s opinion, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2817 (2008) that reads:
    .
    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., [174] at 179, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” [Emphasis added]
    .
    If properly briefed, there is absolutely NO possibility that a court would find that any law prohibiting or banning “assault weapons” and “LCMs” – that is to say enumerated “arms” – are unconstitutional provided the court could be convinced that the legislature’s intent, either expressed or deemed, was that such arms as dangerous. The only quibbles would be (1) whether or not the “and” word is construed to mean both elements are required in lieu of the “or” word as either or the other elements to allow the prohibition; and (2) the least number of rounds that any given court would accept.
    .
    2. However, I do not understand what seems to me a contradiction between what the S.Ct. held in ¶ 1 above and the following: (See 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2815-2816 (2008) below. See also, Heller I’s Syllabus at 1. (f) last sentence.)
    .
    We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns [sic] (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns [sic] being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment *2816 does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.[25] [Emphasis added]
    .
    Nor am I able to reconcile the two holdings. Nor am I knowledgeable and skilled enough to subordinate ¶ 1’s holding, which would most likely be the argument used by anti 2A, to ¶ 2’s holding.
    .
    For ¶ 1 where Heller I reads “… dangerous and unusual weapons.” but Blackstone reads “… dangerous or unusual … but 3 B.Wilson-Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804) reads “… dangerous and unusual …” (Note: I could not find the other citations on the internet.)

  9. Pingback: (CT) Connecticut response to gun law challenge reveals plan to gut Second Amendment | CalGunLaws | On Target Legal Resources Online

  10. I am not laughing and you should not be either.
    You are dealing with lying traitors who want to eventually disarm you all.

    You should be forming militias in the Spirit of you history.

    The only ones laughing are the politicians and the leftist liberal, progressive idiots who think that more gun control will make their delusional fantasy of a utopia society, a little closer.

Comments are closed.