Latest Litigation Update

The attorneys in our appeal of Shew .v Malloy have filed a reply to the brief filed by the State of Connecticut in August. If you need a refresher, you can find that brief here. You can also find all the posts related to our lawsuit over CT’s unconstitutional gun laws here.

If you remember, the State’s “brief” was a whooping 178 pages of fiction. Even though our reply is only 47 pages, I think you will agree it is concise and factual, and refutes all of the State’s claims. I just want to thank everyone who has donated their time, energy and money to get to this point. It hasn’t been easy, and it hasn’t been cheap. Legal expenses are ongoing, so unfortunately so are our requests for donations. You can donate to our Litigation Fund at the link near the top of the page, or here.

Now, here’s the link to download our reply: 166 – reply brief in CT (pdf)

4 thoughts on “Latest Litigation Update

  1. The state seems to have relied upon the Steven’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which was rejected in Heller. The fact the state has exempted military personnel attests to this. Steven’s rejected interpretation was the 2nd Amendment was collective and intended for states to form militias. However, this absurd belief was rejected by the majority on the court. However, Connecticut the liberal, socialist bastion clings to defeated theories.

  2. Just a few thoughts.
    Regarding the “militia” arguement, prior to the current anti-gun climate, there was a federal gun program that made surplus and obsolete service rifles available, at nominal cost, to the general public. This made perfect sense, as these were the self same weapons most former military personnel (the very same body which would, in time of emergency, be expected to form the militia) had been trained on, and were most familiar with. They were also chambered for ammunition which was widely available and would be, for the forseeable future. Similarly with parts and accessories.
    From a safety perspective, again, these are the weapons with which the most people have the most familiarity and the most training.
    Regarding “modifications” this is incredibly vague. As you mentioned, almost any semiautomatic rifle can be illegally modified to fire automatic. In fact, it can occasionally happen through excessive wear. We saw this in the reserves, where we were expected to burn up hundreds of thousands of rounds through M-1s. Doesn’t last long but, for a few seconds there you have an illegal weapon, before the firing pin breaks or a misfeed occurs.
    As far as “high capacity magazines” go, the standard magazine out of the box, from the vast majority of service pistols, both military and police, as well civilian, come with 15 round magazines. They are not “high capacity” they are “industry standard”

  3. Speaking of modifying rifles to shoot full auto, American Rifleman magazine had an article many years ago about John Browning designed modifications to both bolt actions and lever actions to shoot full auto.

Comments are closed.