A federal judge has upheld the State of Connecticut’s sweeping gun control laws enacted last year in response to the Sandy Hook “gun-free zone” shootings, the Associated Press reported Thursday. United States District Court Judge Alfred Covello at Hartford issued a 47-page ruling in the case of Shew v. Malloy admitting “While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights," but then claiming "it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control.” Judge Covello, a George H.W. Bush nominee, reasoned the law should stand because “the legislation here does not amount to a complete prohibition on firearms for self-defense in the home.
Decision and Order.
8 comments:
And so we see yet again, how statutory laws and judicial rulings destroy that which the government and her personnel, want destroyed.
You can add this one's name to the list for trial, since by admission, he obviously knows what he is doing, isn't what is required of him by oath.
Was there any really any question that this would be the finding of the federal philosopher kings?
Heller decision is CLEAR that it is no answer to say it passes muster to ban pistols because shotguns are "allowed". The ban on pistols fell as unconstitutional when the exact same argument made in CT was made in DC.
So either this robed king is ignoring Heller precedent or he is ignoring incorporation of it ( McDonald) as enforceable against the states. So which is it?
Heller goes so far as to say outright that government cannot ban entire classes of arms.
Personally, I am suck and tired of the. "Years and years to work its way through the appeals process " garbage. It's already BEEN years and years since Heller was decided. McDonald is years and years past as well.
This judge commits open treason, defies SCOTUS precedent and longstanding order of jurisprudence in order to legislate from the bench.
There is NO justice in American court systems when judges act like Obama - simply ignore laws they disagree with- and contrive idiotic excuses for how and why they do so.
The Silent Speaker has the DUTY to see this judge removed from the bench and that court stripped if all funding until such time as it can openly demonstrate it's cleaned house and willingly abides by "settled law".
Judges absent any kind of responsibility for actions like this will indeed force a civil war - eventually.
Hell, a judge might as well say that slavery itself may well be burdensome but that public safety affords government the power to impose it.
This "ruling" reads like it was written for the "Onion".
Absolutely pathetic.
What does self defense in the "Home", have to do with anything? Is my life worth less, if I go to town? Can this judge even read? The flaming piece of shit!
I'm sick of the term "government interest". The government has no "interest" of its own. It's "interests" are what we say they are.
So this prick acknowledges that plaintiff's 2nd Amendment rights are burdened, then goes on to basically say "but that's ok as long as the burden is in service to government interests". Shall not be infringed, you prick.
@ 11.57 who sez, "...You can add this one's name to the list for trial, since by admission, he obviously knows what he is doing..."
Umm, 'scuze me... he does not need a 'trial' since he's already admitted his guilt. Hang the SOB and call it a day.
Swift - in the home is a Heller reference.
Once the grabbers lost on individual, lost on militia, lost on interest balancing approach etc etc etc and then lost on incorporation, they have latched on to. "In the home" as the extent to which the right applies.
The. 7 th ruled opposite - that it's pretty OBVIOUS that these rights apply " outside ".
There is so much wrong with this decision that a person really couldn't get it any more wrong if they actually tried to. It's possible this is just trying to buy time until after novembers election - even at the risk of looking absurdly foolish.
While Heller is a good read on the 2nd Amendment, it is still full of fiction. Anonyous said that the Heller decision is CLEAR. Well, the Constitution is even more clear
People think that Heller was a win for the 2nd Amendment but Heller will, in the end, be the downfall of the 2nd Amendment. Heller asserts the government's right to infringe on the 2nd Amendment as long as it was in the interest of the Government - just not those particular guns at that particular time.
Post a Comment