Shew v. Malloy, oral arguments cancelled

[Boom Boom]

Big update on Shew v. Malloy in CT, a lawsuit challenging CT's recent expansion of its AWB. The judge has cancelled oral arguments on pending motions and is jumping straight to issuing a decision. Some details here on the CT Citizen's Defense League website, http://ccdl.us/blog/tag/shew-v-malloy.

ORDER: After thorough review of the well-crafted and well-articulated position of the movants, and the responses thereto, the most recent of which was filed on January 15, 2014, the court concludes that oral argument on the pending motions is not necessary. The issues have been comprehensively briefed and the court is prepared to resolve the pending motions without further argument. The order setting the date for argument in this case is hereby vacated. The court will issue a decision on the merits forthwith.

Signed by Judge Alfred V. Covello on 01/21/14.(Covello, Alfred)

 

[Inigoes]

Ugh

I hope the case isn't dismissed over standing

 

[abean4187]

So, is this good or bad for us?

 

[Boom Boom]

Nobody knows yet. The interesting detail is that judge cancelled oral arguments at the last minute and is jumping straight to a decision (pending).

 

[ryan_j]

The judge was appointed by George H.W. Bush. But you'll never know how they rule.

 

[press1280]

Odds are this will be appealed no matter what, so this is a good thing.

 

[jrosenberger]

Odds are this will be appealed no matter what, so this is a good thing.

Unless it's dismissed on some BS lack of standing, has to go up to the 2nd circuit, and then come back down for another round on the merits. See, for example Dearth v Holder.

 

[press1280]

Unless it's dismissed on some BS lack of standing, has to go up to the 2nd circuit, and then come back down for another round on the merits. See, for example Dearth v Holder.

I'm just hoping for something other than Palmer (sit on it for 4 years plus).

 

[Brooklyn]

I'm just hoping for something other than Palmer (sit on it for 4 years plus).

After canceling oral arguments?... think that's likely?

 

[Easytarget18]

I'm just hoping for something other than Palmer (sit on it for 4 years plus).

Nope, 8 days.....and a loss....I will let our resident legal eagles make conclusions...

http://ccdl.us/blog/tag/shew-v-malloy

http://ccdl.us/blog/uploads/2014/01/decision-and-order-1.30.14.pdf

 

[Storm40]

more...
...it's legal because the legislature says it is
...heller doesn't mean what it says, also, neither does the 2nd amendment
...the gov't doesn't have to offer evidence
...the constitution means nothing to me

feeling more and more demoralized with every defeat

 

[FlatsFlite]

Blame it on the higher court, and don't legislate from the bench.

That's the way i read it.

 

[Kharn]

Blame it on the higher court, and don't legislate from the bench.

That's the way i read it.

Agreed, the judge was sticking with circuit precedent and not rocking the boat in the slightest.

 

[K-Romulus]

Basically defers to the legislature on the regulatory details and does not get into weighing the strength of the purported justifications for the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hopalong]

Lose fast. Get to higher courts quicker.

 

[ShoreShooter]

The system is breaking down.

Due, I believe, to a weak Supreme Court.

We have legislatures and Congress passing clearly illegal / unconstitutional acts (gun control, Obamacare, et.) but not being held in check by the courts. We have a President illegally acting beyond authority, not being held in check in the courts.

 

[K-Romulus]

If anything, we should welcome the clarity as a silver lining to these clouds. The AK/AR patterns are over 50 years old. Like other industries, the firearms industry may be having new innovation imposed on it by the regulatory regime. We need a company (or just plan an American) to innovate self-defense firearms in a way that leaves these anti-gunowner legislators in the dustbin of history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brooklyn]

They are playing Hot Potato.

 

[RightNYer]

As long as a law doesn't infringe upon the right of a woman to kill her baby or the right of a man to bugger another man in the a*s, the courts aren't concerned.

 

[MJD438]

2A-2Step once again...