Shew v. Malloy Filed With SCOTUS – Press Release

for Immediate Release:

(Groton, CT) – The Connecticut Citizens Defense League along with fellow plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States (Shew v. Malloy). The appeal challenges part of Public Act 13-3 (An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety) that was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature back in 2013.

The plaintiffs are challenging the ban on certain firearms that look similar to assault rifles. The plaintiffs claim that these are common semi-automatic firearms that only shoot once when the trigger is pulled; identical to others not banned. Real “assault rifles” are full-automatic and can fire multiple times when the trigger is pulled. Real assault rifles are already highly regulated by both federal and state government, and civilian ownership is quite rare.

The plaintiff’s challenge has been narrowed to focus strictly on the banned firearms and not magazines that contain 10 rounds or more as originally argued. The legal strategy behind this tactic is to offer the Supreme Court consideration to solely address this single issue with the hope that they will hear the case.

A similar case is expected to be filed soon in New York that may broaden the challenge to address magazines.

Comments from CCDL President Scott Wilson:
“We are thankful to finally have our petition filed with the Supreme Court. We have waited patiently for nearly three years to get to this stage, and we hope that the court will hear our arguments”.

“The firearms that have been banned under Public Act 13-3 are common firearms that are owned and enjoyed by millions of Americans throughout the country. They are excellent tools for home defense, and great for competition, hunting and target shooting. The law also bans firearms and features that enhance safety and allow physically disabled persons to exercise their rights and enjoy these same activities”.

“The Connecticut Citizens Defense League wishes to thank our fellow plaintiffs (especially June Shew) for being a part of this journey for justice. We also wish to thank our devoted members, numerous gun clubs, retailers, private individuals and of course the NRA-ILA for their help and support in getting us to this stage”.

“Public Act 13-3 infringes upon rights guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitution. Connecticut residents deserve to have these rights restored and protected by the Supreme Court”.

The filed petition (486 pages) may be downloaded here: Shew v. Malloy SCOTUS Petition as filed (pdf)


About the CCDL: The Connecticut Citizens Defense League was formed in 2009 by a small group of concerned citizens as a non-partisan organization to advocate second amendment rights in the state of Connecticut. Since their founding, the group has grown to nearly 22,000 members from across the state.

Thanks to this large supportive base, the CCDL has become a fixture at the state capitol, and well-recognized by committees that see firearms related bills.

As the go-to organization in the state they are consulted regularly by lawmakers who have questions and concerns about pending legislation or existing laws. For more information on the CCDL please visit

Press Contact:

Scott Wilson


Supreme Court challenges are extremely expensive. The total bill for DC v Heller was $3.5 million.
CCDL is an all-volunteer, free to join non-profit organization (501c4).
As such all the money to fund this fight for your constitutional rights comes solely from donations. If you can afford to, please donate to our Litigation Fund.
Thank you.

11 thoughts on “Shew v. Malloy Filed With SCOTUS – Press Release

    • Why? Do you think that the government can regulate a right? I don’t need them to tell me what my rights are, I know what they are. And I know that anything that gov’t officials do to regulate it is garbage and is void. And CCDL won’t argue the 10 rd mag limit? Oh well.

  1. Hear it, don’t hear it….I don’t pin my hopes on SCOTUS doing the right thing, or state governments following The Constitution, so I really don’t care. I am safely in possession of my “banned” items and have been since 1994. The state of Kommiecticut has no idea what I may or may not have. I am an active participant in The Armed Civil Disobedience of Non-Compliance, and as such, render all unconstitutional and intolerable acts NULL & VOID.


    Your move, tyrants. Come for our guns and bring plenty of body bags. When we are done with those carrying out your illegal orders….


  2. So just leave out an essential part,the mag ban?
    If the whole issue isn’t addressed its a waste of time & money.

    • If you try the exact same thing that just failed in other cases, as recently as a few months ago in Friedman v. Highland Park, then that is REALLY a waste of time and money. For some reason the SCOTUS is not hearing cases of AWB+mag capacity. Is it the mag capacity part they don’t like? Is it the AWB? Is it the combination of the 2? Only thing we pretty much know for sure is the Supreme Court is NOT going to even listen to a case with both AWB and mags. So we try and tackle just the AWB part of it, and let someone like Colorado or NY that have already had a little success on the mag issue tackle that. The important thing is to get the case heard and won. Doesn’t matter what state or combination of states gets it done. A win in CT, NY, CO, MD or wherever is a win for gunowners nationwide.

      • I don’t think they are willing to hear both parts at once, and being from Maryland, I want them to rule on both. But I feel they decided to try something different, which could be a smart move

  3. Pingback: » The Yankee Gunner Podcast – 062The Yankee Gunner

Comments are closed.