Crucial ruling upholds Connecticut gun laws

If the conservative justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are hellbent on striking down any reasonable limits on the Second Amendment they will come up with a case and a justification to do so.

With its recent ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court continued to erode the ability of states to pass reasonable firearm controls, seemingly blind to the lethality of modern firearms and the crisis of gun violence in the country.

After the Bruen decision, gun advocates saw an opportunity to attack laws passed in Connecticut and other states that ban or limit AR-15 type semi-automatic assault rifles. With bipartisan support, the Connecticut General Assembly outlawed the sale and ownership of such assault weapons and high-capacity magazines after a gunman, in 2012, killed 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Those owning such guns when the law passed could retain them.

Citing the Bruen ruling, the National Association for Gun Rights filed a federal lawsuit claiming the Connecticut law violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In denying a motion for an injunction to block Connecticut’s law, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond

Arterton delivered a well-reasoned, powerful 74-page decision on Aug. 3. While loyal to the high court’s rationale in Bruen, it provides a convincing argument as to why the Connecticut regulations are constitutional.

Lawyers defending gun-control laws in other states, and federal judges looking for guidance in such cases, would do well to turn to Judge Arterton’s decision. It could also help guide lawmakers who seek to pass gun-control laws while keeping within constitutional boundaries. Credit goes also to the office of Attorney General William Tong in aptly defending the Connecticut law.

Unfortunately, if the conservative justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are hellbent on striking down any reasonable limits on the Second Amendment they will come up with a case and a justification to do so.

In Bruen, the high court struck down a New York gun-licensing rule. Applicants had to show a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community” in order to obtain a general carry license. The Supreme Court ruled individuals had a right under the Second Amendment to obtain and carry a firearm for self defense without having to prove any special need.

The Bruen decision set a new and difficult to interpret standard for assessing the constitutionality of gun-control laws, stating that such laws must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The plaintiffs challenging Connecticut’s ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines argued they were not consistent with historical tradition.

The irony is rich. If the justices were truly concerned with history, they would recognize that when men in powdered wigs and knickers passed the Second Amendment, it was to sustain “well regulated Militia(s),” which long ago passed into history. Further, the “Arms” they were talking about were single-fire muskets.

Judge Arterton did her best to faithfully employ the right to self-defense and “historical tradition” tests. She concluded Connecticut’s rules passed constitutional muster in both cases.

She found the assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, which are designed to shoot, kill and injure many people in quick fashion, were not a legitimate weapon of civilian self-defense and that the plaintiffs could not provide evidence of them being used in that fashion. Instead, the evidence Arterton evaluated showed such weapons are sought out for their militaristic characteristics and used in mass shootings.

Further, Arterton found, banning these assault rifles falls in line with the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons, such as machine guns and grenades.

If the logic of Arterton’s decision prevails, and it should, states will retain the ability to pass reasonable gun-control rules and the door will be open to a federal assault weapons ban. But if the Supreme Court insists on continuing to move the goalposts, the laws in Connecticut and similar laws in other states could face future challenges.

But for today, at least, Connecticut’s laws remain in effect. That should be celebrated.