NSSF files suit in CT

sundog · July 9, 2013, 08:27 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...est=latestnews

This is good news. I do not remember NSSF being legally active like this in the past. I can only hope that they have attacked the new CT law in a manner that will make a difference.

**Aguila Blanca** · July 9, 2013, 09:04 AM

If they get an honest court, they have a good argument. I was following bith CT and NY as they pulled out all the stops on their midnight politics games to get these draconian new laws passed. Connecticut did it by eliminating any committee assignments or public hearings on the new bill on the basis that it was "emergency" legislation. This was in late March or very early April, IIRC. Sandy Hook was mid-December, so the law was being drafted and voted on 3-1/2 months after the isolated incident, and there had been no indications, suggestions, or threats of anyone trying to commit a copycat attack. So ... what, exactly, was the "emergency"? A law that so drastically affects fundamental human/civil rights ("fundamental" according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald) should be subjected to the most vigorous scrutiny and debate, not enacted in the dark of night (literally!) without even giving the lawmakers time to read it, let alone discuss it.

The problem is that I doubt there's an objective judge anywhere in the CT court system. They are ALL card-carrying liberals.

eldermike · July 9, 2013, 09:15 AM

Simple argument, they broke the law to pass a law.

Al Norris · July 9, 2013, 09:49 AM

This case was filed at the federal district level, so it is not beholden to any State political slant.

Having written that however, we need to be mindful that nearly all of the Federal courts are in outright rebellion against the holdings in Heller and McDonald. The outliers being the CA7, Judge Legg - a district court Judge at CA4 (overturned at CA4) and Judge Howard - also a district court Judge at CA4.

At nearly every step, the courts have used what amounts to a Rational Basis Scrutiny (the lowest form of judicial scrutiny - at which nearly every law being challenged, is upheld) test of the challenge, but dressing it in Intermediate Scrutiny language.

Unless or until the SCOTUS takes up another 2A case (and rules in favor of the challenge), expect this trend to continue.

**Aguila Blanca** · July 9, 2013, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Norris

This case was filed at the federal district level, so it is not beholden to any State political slant.

Oops.

I should have read the link. I saw something on this yesterday, and what I saw wasn't clear that the suit was filed in Federal court. I thought it was in a Connecticut state court.

My bad. That's what I get for ass-u-ming.

KyJim · July 9, 2013, 09:02 PM

The NSSF "claims the emergency legislation was illegally passed in April without proper public input, time for adequate review by members of the General Assembly, or a statement of facts explaining why lawmakers needed to bypass the usual legislative process." This looks like a claim based on state and not federal law. Even though NSSF also claims a Second Amendment violation, there is a good chance a federal court might decline to hear the state law claims since they are arguably not similar enough and do not involve the same nucleus of operative facts.

Federal courts have discretion to hear state law claims only if they are sufficiently connected to the federal claim. This is called pendent jurisdiction.

Al Norris · July 13, 2013, 11:06 PM

The Current 2A Cases thread has been updated to include #84 - NSSF v. Malloy. The docket is now available at the Internet Archive as well as the initial complaint.

dakota.potts · July 15, 2013, 11:32 PM

Even if the case is successful, how long could it be until there's relief? 5 years? I have to wonder if their goal wasn't just to satisfy the largest part of their constituency, knowing that if it got struck down it would take so long it wouldn't matter for them anymore.

csmsss · July 16, 2013, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Even if the case is successful, how long could it be until there's relief? 5 years? I have to wonder if their goal wasn't just to satisfy the largest part of their constituency, knowing that if it got struck down it would take so long it wouldn't matter for them anymore.

Indeed. The legislative equivalent of rope-a-dope. From their perspective they are, at worst, buying time and, in their best case scenario. SCOTUS will change composition and repeal/revise their Heller/McDonald nightmare for them.

**Aguila Blanca** · July 16, 2013, 11:12 AM

It could be delaying the inevitable, or it could make a difference. Connecticut's new law made thousands or previously-legal AR-15 pattern [sporting] rifles into instant "assault weapons." But the law gave a grace period extending until January 1, 2014, for owners of said "assault weapons" to either register them, destroy them, turn them in, or sell them out of state. If ANY of the lawsuits against the new law succeed in either having it declared invalid or staying its implementation, it could mean that Connecticut owners of these instant "assault weapons" either won't have to register them, or will have more time to decide whether to do so or to move them out of the state.

62coltnavy · November 27, 2013, 11:50 PM

Checking up on current cases. Docket is way out of date--Rule 12 motions were to be filed by September, but nothing has been posted since August. Status anyone?

July 9, 2013, 08:27 AM	#1
sundog Senior Member Join Date: November 22, 1999 Location: Green Country, OK Posts: 782	NSSF files suit in CT http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...est=latestnews This is good news. I do not remember NSSF being legally active like this in the past. I can only hope that they have attacked the new CT law in a manner that will make a difference. __________________ safety first

July 9, 2013, 09:04 AM	#2
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,466	If they get an honest court, they have a good argument. I was following bith CT and NY as they pulled out all the stops on their midnight politics games to get these draconian new laws passed. Connecticut did it by eliminating any committee assignments or public hearings on the new bill on the basis that it was "emergency" legislation. This was in late March or very early April, IIRC. Sandy Hook was mid-December, so the law was being drafted and voted on 3-1/2 months after the isolated incident, and there had been no indications, suggestions, or threats of anyone trying to commit a copycat attack. So ... what, exactly, was the "emergency"? A law that so drastically affects fundamental human/civil rights ("fundamental" according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald) should be subjected to the most vigorous scrutiny and debate, not enacted in the dark of night (literally!) without even giving the lawmakers time to read it, let alone discuss it. The problem is that I doubt there's an objective judge anywhere in the CT court system. They are ALL card-carrying liberals.

July 9, 2013, 09:15 AM	#3
eldermike Senior Member Join Date: January 24, 2013 Location: NC Posts: 545	Simple argument, they broke the law to pass a law.

July 9, 2013, 09:49 AM	#4
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	This case was filed at the federal district level, so it is not beholden to any State political slant. Having written that however, we need to be mindful that nearly all of the Federal courts are in outright rebellion against the holdings in Heller and McDonald. The outliers being the CA7, Judge Legg - a district court Judge at CA4 (overturned at CA4) and Judge Howard - also a district court Judge at CA4. At nearly every step, the courts have used what amounts to a Rational Basis Scrutiny (the lowest form of judicial scrutiny - at which nearly every law being challenged, is upheld) test of the challenge, but dressing it in Intermediate Scrutiny language. Unless or until the SCOTUS takes up another 2A case (and rules in favor of the challenge), expect this trend to continue.

July 9, 2013, 09:02 PM	#6
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	The NSSF "claims the emergency legislation was illegally passed in April without proper public input, time for adequate review by members of the General Assembly, or a statement of facts explaining why lawmakers needed to bypass the usual legislative process." This looks like a claim based on state and not federal law. Even though NSSF also claims a Second Amendment violation, there is a good chance a federal court might decline to hear the state law claims since they are arguably not similar enough and do not involve the same nucleus of operative facts. Federal courts have discretion to hear state law claims only if they are sufficiently connected to the federal claim. This is called pendent jurisdiction.

July 13, 2013, 11:06 PM	#7
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	The Current 2A Cases thread has been updated to include #84 - NSSF v. Malloy. The docket is now available at the Internet Archive as well as the initial complaint.

July 15, 2013, 11:32 PM	#8
dakota.potts Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2013 Location: Keystone Heights, Florida Posts: 3,084	Even if the case is successful, how long could it be until there's relief? 5 years? I have to wonder if their goal wasn't just to satisfy the largest part of their constituency, knowing that if it got struck down it would take so long it wouldn't matter for them anymore.

July 16, 2013, 11:12 AM	#10
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,466	It could be delaying the inevitable, or it could make a difference. Connecticut's new law made thousands or previously-legal AR-15 pattern [sporting] rifles into instant "assault weapons." But the law gave a grace period extending until January 1, 2014, for owners of said "assault weapons" to either register them, destroy them, turn them in, or sell them out of state. If ANY of the lawsuits against the new law succeed in either having it declared invalid or staying its implementation, it could mean that Connecticut owners of these instant "assault weapons" either won't have to register them, or will have more time to decide whether to do so or to move them out of the state.

November 27, 2013, 11:50 PM	#11
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	Checking up on current cases. Docket is way out of date--Rule 12 motions were to be filed by September, but nothing has been posted since August. Status anyone?