Supreme Court Declines To Hear Challenge

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**

U.S. SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO HEAR CHALLENGE TO CONNECTICUT’S BAN ON POPULAR SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – The United States Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a lower court’s ruling refusing to strike down on Second Amendment grounds Connecticut’s ban on certain semi-automatic firearms including the most popular rifles in the Nation. The Connecticut Citizens’ Defense League (CCDL) and other plaintiffs challenged Connecticut’s ban in 2013, arguing that the ban openly flouts the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that law-abiding citizens have an individual right to keep commonly owned firearms in their homes for self-defense.

According to Scott Wilson, President of the CCDL, the banned firearms are very rarely used by criminals, and the only things that distinguish them from non-banned firearms are external features such as thumbhole stocks and pistol grips that promote safe and accurate use. While criminals typically do not use the banned firearms, law-abiding citizens do. Mr. Wilson stated that “the firearms the State has chosen to ban are very frequently used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as home-defense, hunting, and target shooting. In fact, one of the banned firearms, the AR-15, is the best-selling rifle in the United States.”

The federal courts have split over the correct way to analyze Second Amendment challenges after Heller, with most courts applying a fairly weak form of review ordinarily reserved for less-important rights. The Plaintiffs, Mr. Wilson said, had hoped the High Court would step in and reaffirm that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class” right. The lower court’s decision in this case was particularly indefensible, as the unconstitutionality of Connecticut’s ban follows directly from the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heller. Mr. Wilson suggested that the Court’s decision to decline review may have been influenced by the recent, unfortunate death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the author if the Heller decision.

“We fully intend to renew our challenge to Connecticut’s blatantly unconstitutional ban as soon as there are five Justices sitting on the Supreme Court committed to the proper understanding of the Second Amendment.”

Scott Wilson Sr.
President
CCDL, Inc.
www.ccdl.us

5 thoughts on “Supreme Court Declines To Hear Challenge

    • I agree. One more “event” will cause the anti self defense, gun hating, liberal progressive majority of sheeple in the “Constitution State” to drown out the cries of freedom loving Constitutionalists in CT. Add to that, the media and traitors running the state and you have a state ripe for a confiscation attempt.

      History teaches us that when folks stand in lines to register their firearms, confiscation eventually follows.

      There is not enough unity amongst gun owners in CT, because, I have said if before and I will say it again…..if even 95% of legal gun owners in CT told Malloy, Blumenthal, Murphy, etc. Collectively decided to register NOTHING…. things would have turned out differently and not at the point it is now.

      There comes a time when folks need to unite and collectively start drawing the line in the sand and refuse to budge….history has shown that by choosing that path may be a violent one, but, our founding fathers expected us to stand up and fight if need be when an enemy is trying to rob your and your children’s and grandchildren freedom that was given us by the shed blood of patriots willing to give all to live free.

  1. Wow, no real surprise here. This should have waited until AFTER the election IMO since without Scalia it was just a waste of time. We better pray Clinton does NOT get elected folks or it is game over.

  2. SCOTUS has become the final negotiator of Constitutional rights rather than a defender of those rights. It plays the game for showmanship, then comes up with “compromises” that it thinks best for society, without any regard for the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

    We all understand the 2nd to be for the protection of both the States’ rights and individual rights to own firearms for organized and unorganized militias respectively, and for personal protection. This is evident by the words of the founding fathers and more specifically the Federalists Papers. For once, instead of judicial arguments being made limited to personal protection, crime statistics, or whatever; I’d like to see arguments made of the citizens’ rights to own military style rifles for militia use.

Comments are closed.