Gun Groups Head To Court

Tomorrow, December 9th, 2014 The Connecticut Citizens Defense League, the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, and all the other litigants in Shew v Malloy (our lawsuit against CT’s unconstitutional gun laws) will be in New York City before the Second Circuit Court Of Appeals.
Oral arguments will be heard in Courtroom 1703 of the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse located at 40 Foley Square in New York City. The hearings start at 1pm, but there are 4 cases ahead of ours, including the NY challenge to their (un)SAFE Act. Spectator seating is limited, so if you want to sit in the courtroom you need to get there early.
This is a federal court proceeding, not a rally, so please dress and act accordingly if you are going to attended. Also no weapons or recording devices (including cell phones) will be allowed in the courtroom. Arguments for our challenge are expected to last approximately 20 minutes.
We plan to be back in time to attend the member meeting in Middletown at 7pm, where we’ll discuss how things went.

Oral Arguments – December 9th

As we told you a few weeks ago our appeal against CT’s unconstitutional gun laws is finally on the docket. Well, now we have a date.

On Tuesday December 9th, 2014 arguments will be heard in Shew v Malloy in Courtroom 1703 of the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse located at 40 Foley Square in New York City. The hearings start at 1pm, but there are 4 cases ahead of ours, including the NY challenge to their (un)SAFE Act. Spectator seating is limited, so if you want to sit in the courtroom you will need to get there early. Also, please remember this is a federal court proceeding, not a rally. Please dress and act accordingly if you are going to attended.

We’ll update again as we get closer to the date.

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)

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)

Litigation Updates

Meet The Plaintiffs
Don’t forget tonight (January 14th) lead attorney Brian Stapleton and all of the plaintiffs in Shew v Malloy will be at our regular monthly meeting.

Oral Arguments Begin 01/30/14
This is the first piece of what we have been waiting for! The Oral arguments are set for 1/30/2014 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom One, 450 Main St., Hartford, at the Abraham A. Ribicoff
Federal Building before Judge Alfred Covello. The proceedings are open to the public.(If you want a seat in the courtroom, you will need to arrive early).
Courthouse rules:

  • All persons entering the courthouse MUST show a government-issued photo ID.
  • Cellphones, laptops, tablets, or other electronic devices are NOT allowed in the courthouse.
  • Firearms, knives, or weapons of any type are not allowed in the courthouse.

More court information may be found at their website:
UPDATE 1/21/2014: The judge has canceled oral arguments, and intends to issue a decision based on the evidence submitted. There will be no hearing on 1/30/2014

Document Dump
I have a bunch of documents from the case for your reading pleasure. Most are from our side, the last one is from the state.

Speaking Of Lawsuits

Earlier I mentioned the NSSF lawsuit being dismissed. Well, in related news, OUR lawsuit was assigned a court date today.
I was waiting for a little more info, but since CCDL President Scott Wilson just mentioned it on John Rowland’s radio show on WTIC, I’ll go ahead and give you what little I know so far.
The hearing is set for January 30, 2014 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom One of the Abraham A. Ribicoff Federal Building, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Alfred V. Covello.

UPDATE 1/21/2014: The judge has canceled oral arguments, and intends to issue a decision based on the evidence submitted. There will be no hearing on 1/30/2014

Judge Rejects Lawsuit

No, not our lawsuit, but the one brought by the National Shooting Sports Federation.
As most of you know, there have been several different lawsuits based on CT’s recent passage of unconstitutional gun laws, including the one CCDL is a part of. Each lawsuit addresses a different part of the problem. The NSSF’s lawsuit attacked the improper way the law was passed using the “Emergency Certification” process.

Yesterday Chief U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall ruled that the NSSF lacked the standing to challenge the law. Now, to be perfectly clear, that doesn’t mean the judge sided with the state or ruled that the process was legal, she just ruled that the NSSF was not directly impacted by the process, so they couldn’t sue. You can read more about legal standing here, and you can read the full court ruling at the link below.

No word yet on if the NSSF plans to appeal the ruling, but we’d like to thank them for all the effort so far, as well as their support of our own lawsuit.

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.

Meeting Reminder – 9/10/2013

Reminder: CCDL holds its monthly general membership meeting at 7pm on the 2nd Tuesday of each month at the Elks Lodge in Middletown, CT. Our next meeting is Tuesday, September 10, 2013. All CCDL members are welcome and encouraged to attend.

Meeting Agenda
Since our litigation lawyer could not make the last CCDL meeting due to his efforts meeting case deadlines, lead attorney Brian T Stapleton will be here this month to update our members on the progress of the litigation against the State of Connecticut. He will also be taking limited questions from the audience. A lot has happened since his last visit in May, so be sure to come join us! 
Attorney Brian T Stapleton is a partner with the New York based law firm of Goldberg Segalla.

We will also again be selling raffle tickets at the meeting. Tickets are $20 each and we can not take credit cards at the meeting. The raffle is to raise money for our litigation fund. The grand prize is a custom motorcycle, and there are plenty of firearms and other prizes too. If you took tickets to sell to others at the last meeting, they MUST be returned sold or unsold at this meeting. The drawing will be held September 21, 2013 after our Poker Run.

We sell CCDL merchandise at the meeting, buy it there and save on shipping.
Back by very popular demand, we have another run of special limited edition CCDL shot(gun shell) glass for sale at this meeting. These are $5 each, and this time we have green as well as more of the original red. These will be sold at the meeting only, we are not putting them on the website or shipping them.

And don’t forget, we collect canned goods/non-perishables at all our meetings to be donated to local charities.

Middletown Elks
44 Maynard St
Middletown, CT 06457
September 10, 2013 7:00pm-9:00pm
Please park in the event lot to the left of the building (looking at it from Maynard St) and enter the upstairs banquet hall at the front of the building.

View Larger Map

Motion for Summary Judgment

(The Following is a Joint CCDL and CCS Address)

Dear CCDL and CCS members and key donors,

This past Friday on August 23rd, the 2nd Amendment challenge to Connecticut’s new firearms law took a significant step forward with the filing of plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting memorandum of law. A motion for summary judgment is a legal device that asks the court to decide a case expeditiously “on the papers,” without the need for discovery and a trial. Cases that are appropriate for this type of early disposition are those where the key facts are not disputed by the parties and the case turns solely on the court’s interpretation of one or more questions of law.

As stated in plaintiffs’ brief, “The firearms and magazines that Connecticut bans are lawfully manufactured (many in Connecticut itself) and are lawfully purchased by millions of Americans after passing the National Instant Criminal Background Check … as well as state-required checks. … They are in common use by plaintiffs and millions of law-abiding citizens for self-defense, sport, and hunting… Restrictions on such guns and magazines are anything but long-standing, and remain outliers nationwide. The laws of most states and federal law have no restrictions on magazine capacity or the number of rounds that may be loaded in a magazine, nor do they restrict guns that some choose to call “assault weapons.” As such, plaintiffs’ brief argues, “like the handgun ban in Heller, the ban on common firearms and magazines here is categorically void under the Second Amendment.”
Further, plaintiffs’ brief argues, the new Connecticut firearms law is unconstitutional because it “arbitrarily establish[es] categories of persons who can and cannot buy the weapons” providing preferred treatment to certain retired government and private security personnel. And, finally, the brief argues, the statute is void because it is unconstitutionally vague. The next step in this case will be the filing of the State’s opposition brief, and potentially the State’s own cross motion for summary judgment, both of which are due in early September.

As of now, our challenge to the State’s evisceration of rights long held inviolable is well-positioned to correct the legislature and governor’s misguided course — whether that correction occurs at the district court or eventually on appeal. We are enormously proud of the individual plaintiffs – June Shew, Stephanie Cypher, Rabbi Mitchell Rocklin, Peter Owens, Andrew Mueller, and Brian McLain – as well as of retailers Hiller Sports, LLC and MD Shooting Sports LLC and the amici law enforcement personnel — who have invested themselves personally in overturning this patently unconstitutional law. We are especially proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with you – the loyal and brave patriots throughout this State — in our fight to protect the fundamental rights of all citizens.

(Read our MSJ brief here: Motion.Summary.Judgment.pdf)

Warm regards,

Scott Wilson,
President- CCDL, Inc.


Bob Crook,
Director- CCS