Judge upholds Connecticut gun control laws

[abean4187]

Looks like we lost this battle. So tired of hearing about public safety when there is zero evidence showing that these will actually increase safety.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/31/us-usa-guncontrol-connecticut-idUSBREA0U06H20140131

 

[krucam]

Revolvers, bolt guns and shotguns are ok. What more could you need? [/sarcasm]

The Common Use test needs to be brought out SOON.

 

[oldman12]

Article wrote Jan 30th

 

[whistlersmother]

The judge acknowledges the law burdens the plaintiffs' 2A rights, but says "public safety trumps".

If that is the case, then stop-n-frisk should be Constitutional - it burdens the 4A, but its for public safety.
If that is the case, then all defendants should be compelled to testify against themselves - it burdens the 5A, but its for public safety.

The hypocrisy of the court is just maddening.

 

[Mr H]

Article wrote Jan 30th

Yup... not 'news'

But I agree, it was a ill-considered decision

 

[oldman12]

Yup... not 'news'

But I agree, it was a ill-considered decision

I agree very poor decision.

 

[abean4187]

Article wrote Jan 30th

Ha, woops, didn’t notice that. For some reason it came up in my recent news list.

 

[Bagpiperer]

The judge acknowledges the law burdens the plaintiffs' 2A rights, but says "public safety trumps".

If that is the case, then stop-n-frisk should be Constitutional - it burdens the 4A, but its for public safety.
If that is the case, then all defendants should be compelled to testify against themselves - it burdens the 5A, but its for public safety.

The hypocrisy of the court is just maddening.

Same with public protests: they might become riots. Just remember, it's for the children, and one life might even be saved.

 

[teratos]

I think it is a good decision.








If you are a commie, tyranny loving, Kool-Aid drinking monarchist.

 

[eruby]

I think it is a good decision.








If you are a commie, tyranny loving, Kool-Aid drinking monarchist.

Oh, there's white text. I thought you'd gone insane.

 

[Vince55]

The judge acknowledges the law burdens the plaintiffs' 2A rights, but says "public safety trumps".
If that is the case, then stop-n-frisk should be Constitutional - it burdens the 4A, but its for public safety.
If that is the case, then all defendants should be compelled to testify against themselves - it burdens the 5A, but its for public safety.

The hypocrisy of the court is just maddening.

And I would like to know how those laws increase public safety??? It's just something to say to appease the liberals in that state the same as owemalley's SB281.

 

[teratos]

Oh, there's white text. I thought you'd gone insane.

 

[swinokur]

The term is judicial cowardice is it not?

 

[iH8DemLibz]

The fix is in.

When enough of these "impartial" judicial decisions are on the books, "Someone" will say: That's it boys and girls. Pony up your firearms. It's what The People want.

Except, what The People want won't include what us people want.

 

[teratos]

The fix is in.

When enough of these "impartial" judicial decisions are on the books, "Someone" will say: That's it boys and girls. Pony up your firearms. It's what The People want.

Except, what The People won't include what us people.

You mean the armed people? The people who arguably have more trigger time than most police officers? The ones who work on accuracy? The people who know their firearms like the backs of their hands? The People the Bill or Rights refers to? Those people?


I think it is a significant error in judgement, excuse the pun.

 

[danb]

I think it is a good decision.








If you are a commie, tyranny loving, Kool-Aid drinking monarchist.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

You mean the armed people? The people who arguably have more trigger time than most police officers? The ones who work on accuracy? The people who know their firearms like the backs of their hands? The People the Bill or Rights refers to? Those people?


I think it is a significant error in judgement, excuse the pun.

I don't want to be judgmental, but these judges have wandered down this particular path for a particular reason.

And it's never just one, rogue judge. It's a lot of judges and it's on a huge scale.

How can so many judges be so blind unless it's on purpose?

As for folks with trigger time, they're betting those folks will never pull it off.

Legal and Gun puns embedded.

 

[pcfixer]

I don't want to be judgmental, but these judges have wandered down this particular path for a particular reason.

And it's never just one, rogue judge. It's a lot of judges and it's on a huge scale.

How can so many judges be so blind unless it's on purpose?

As for folks with trigger time, they're betting those folks will never pull it off.

Legal and Gun puns embedded.

The question is answered by the Progressive agenda to fundamental transformation.

Best answer I have read in opinion's:

[It’s] a bit like saying books can be banned because people can always read newspapers. That is not a persuasive or legitimate way to analyze a law that directly infringes an enumerated constitutional right. Indeed, Heller itself specifically rejected this mode of reasoning: “It is no answer to say . . . that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed.”

 

[Gryphon]

The judge acknowledges the law burdens the plaintiffs' 2A rights, but says "public safety trumps".

If that is the case, then stop-n-frisk should be Constitutional - it burdens the 4A, but its for public safety.
If that is the case, then all defendants should be compelled to testify against themselves - it burdens the 5A, but its for public safety.

The hypocrisy of the court is just maddening.

^ This^

 

[Gryphon]

I think it is a good decision.








If you are a commie, tyranny loving, Kool-Aid drinking monarchist.

I [finally] see what you did! Thanks for the laugh!