Jump to content


Photo

Shew et al v. Malloy et al - Challenging Connecticut AWB


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 May 2013 - 02:36 AM

This didn't take long. Suit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (CTD) on May 22nd against Dan Malloy and company. Challenging the "Act Concerning Gun Violence and Children's Safety" (which is at the expense of, well, read below). Several individual plaintiffs here, ALL compelling. One is an 80 year old widowed woman who lives alone. Another, a bona fide Jewish Rabbi who is also a Captain in the U.S. Army Reserves. Another, a woman who survived cancer at age 12 but lost an arm in the process. Then there's the SEAL with multiple sclerosis. The man who suffered a stroke and has all but lost function in an entire side of his body. Finally, a 73 year old widower who lives with his son's family. One thing in common is that they ALL have Connecticut permits to carry. The business plaintiffs are FFLs whose business has actually been harmed by this. Then association plaintiffs, CCDL and CCS. Oh boy Dan Malloy, who happens to be a named plaintiff along with the head of the CT State Police, the "Chief" SA, and every SA in the entire state...you have (to paraphrase Lee Goodman) a storm of excrement headed your way.

Even before the complaint starts with the facts of the matter, it flat out states that the Act is a facial violation of the Second Amendment. Count one challenges the magazine ban under the Second and 14th Amendments (McDonald...dunno why Heller or McDonald were not cited). Count two challenges the AWB under the Second and 14th (McDonald again). Count three alleges the mag ban violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th. Count four alleges the AWB violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th.

This is where it gets really good *cackle*. Count five alleges unconstitutional vagueness, violation of the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment, as to the definition of "assault weapons," citing inaccurate names where the Act specifically cites the "Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47" (as in full-auto, NFA Title II, already banned in CT) as a banned weapon...it's already banned if it's a legit AK-47 that's Russian full-auto spec! Plus could the average person tell if their non-Title II AK-47 falls under that, assuming it's even legal which it is not, and the name of the inventor is not engraved on it either? Nooooo. The Act also cites a model of a Remington pump action as one having "features of a semiautomatic rifle that are banned" (paraphrased). A pump action has features that are banned in semi autos? Yeah a lot of thought went into this...and we're not done. Then there's the "Springfield Armory BM59" specifically cited in the Act as a banned weapon (with no mention of features), but one small problem...that it's both a Springfield Armory product and a Beretta product, same model name, different manufacturing period, different rifle, is it a copy? Who knows! Wow these people are idiots, they may as well just hand a check over now but we're not done yet! Under the same count and citing , it also cites the language "in production prior to or on the effective date of this section" but doesn't refer to which list (the specific or "copies" list) of firearms banned and the average person has no idea when the gun was in production. This one keeps going and ripping apart more vague terms but I'll move on. The same count alleges unconstitutional vagueness in the definition of "large capacity magazines" specifically "can be readily restored or converted to accept." I really love the brilliance in this...Plaintiffs' counsel argues and I'm paraphrasing here, "How is one to tell that, if a magazine is disassembled and it is simply a pile of parts, whether it is readily restorable or converted to accept more than 10 rounds? The average citizen cannot be expected to know whether it can or cannot be much less make the alterations him or herself.").

Here's the complaint (I hope everyone has Adobe Reader 9.0 or above)
Attached File  Shew.et.al.v.Malloy.et.al.pdf   1.92MB   369 downloads

Docket Link: http://ia801705.us.a...021.docket.html
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#2 RockerXX

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 11

Posted 26 May 2013 - 03:07 AM

Be interesting to see how it pans out, there is certainly a bunch of nonsense in the law but that doesn't necessarily mean the courts will give us a favorable ruling on the 'legality' of bans in general, more likely they will just kick this one to curb because it's horribly worded and not address the bans in general...

What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!


#3 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 May 2013 - 03:16 AM

Most likely. The most compelling portion of the complaint is the narrative of how the plaintiffs are unable to defend themselves because of this law though. I dunno I don't know much about the judiciary out there but its a case nonetheless. Plus a bunch more sheriffs joined in on the federal lawsuit against the SAFE Act claiming they can't even enforce it. That one has a bit more traction.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#4 gangrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,069 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 26 May 2013 - 06:18 AM

Sounds like a winning case in CT. I hope, however, they didn't just give the state a roadmap as to how to craft an AWB that won't get tossed...

NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#5 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 26 May 2013 - 07:58 AM

I think that is in the appeals court that ruled that the mostly no issue may-issue LTC was constitutional. I don't see this going anywhere real soon. But, it is another step that has to be taken.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#6 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,238 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 26 May 2013 - 08:46 AM

Complaint doc was a good read. Wake me up in two years when this concludes...

#7 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 20 June 2016 - 08:40 AM

Is this the one they declined to hear today?



#8 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 21 June 2016 - 02:08 PM

Yes that and the NYSPRA case (I can't recall the new named Plaintiff, like it even matters anymore). I think they may be waiting on Kolbe, Tyler, or Peruta to determine what level of scrutiny to apply to 2A cases. Those are the juiciest ones in the pipeline right now but CA4 en banc won't be back with a decision in Kolbe until next year. CA6 en banc should be back soon with its decision in Tyler. I guess we'll find out in November if we want any of these cases going to SCOTUS or staying in their jurisdictions, far from us. Problem is if Hillary gets a crack at SCOTUS, she will eviscerate the Rule of Four as she will get fill the open seat, Thomas and Kennedy will likely retire soon. Breyer and Ginsburg will likely retire (they have far more respect for the Constitution than Sotomayor and Kagan). Those seats will be filled with flaming liberal activists (think CA9 but far worse). Her Justices will decide which cases they wanna hear with no input at all from Roberts or Alito. My daughter will be in her late 40s and I'll be gone (hopefully, I'd rather not die in a nursing home) by the time there's even an opportunity to change the composition of the Court. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#9 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 21 June 2016 - 02:22 PM

Her Justices will decide which cases they wanna hear with no input at all from Roberts or Alito. My daughter will be in her late 40s and I'll be gone (hopefully, I'd rather not die in a nursing home) by the time there's even an opportunity to change the composition of the Court.

 

Keep it up, skinny, and you're going to drive a lot of members here to voluntarily admit themselves into a mental health facility for treatment of depression--and lose their FOIDs and CCLs in the process.  :frantics:


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#10 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 21 June 2016 - 03:15 PM

I hate reality, but I must accept the possibility. Besides, it's not like we're gonna be completely neutered insofar as gun rights. Dumping Heller would be ballsy. Even restricting handguns at all would be questionable. No lower court has been ballsy enough to attempt to substantively restrict handguns. They've affirmed the rosters, but never a new law further restricting handguns. Not to my knowledge. The woman's agenda extends far beyond chilling the Second Amendment right. She says she wants to dig into Citizens United. Yeah, ok, sure. She's saying "Hey, corporations bankrolling my campaign, I'm not gonna allow that when I'm elected." They wouldn't be giving her money if she actually wanted to dump CU because of "corporations influencing elections." It's to chill political speech, as CU was filed suit when the FEC dropped the hammer over "Hillary: The Movie." The woman has a wicked agenda and it isn't limited to massive gun control measures intended to disarm the populace (angry, yet disarmed populace is of no threat to those in power). Her agenda is to keep fringe lefties in power for as long as the Republic exists... which won't be long if we continue down this road, as we will likely be annexed into the Caliphate. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)