A federal appeals court Thursday refused to block two Connecticut gun control laws despite arguments that they violated the Second Amendment.
The laws faced two separate challenges from the National Association for Gun Rights, the Second Amendment Foundation, and others, who asked the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to temporarily block the laws.
But on Thursday, a three-judge panel of the court declined to do so, saying the laws were constitutional because they preserved “numerous legal alternatives for self-defense” despite their restriction of “unusually dangerous weapons.”
The challenged laws included a 2013 ban on certain firearms and large capacity magazines—passed in response to the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, CT—and a 2023 law that further restricted access to what gun control advocates call “assault weapons.”
The groups opposing the laws based their challenge largely on the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which said that laws restricting guns must be rooted in U.S. “history and tradition.” They also cited District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark case from 2008 that held that the Second Amendment “confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
But the challengers’ request for a preliminary injunction pausing the laws during litigation was rejected, first by the district court and then, Thursday, by the Second Circuit, which held that the groups were unlikely to succeed in showing the laws violated their Second Amendment rights.
In his opinion for the court, Judge John M. Walker Jr. said Connecticut’s laws fall within “the historical tradition of limiting the ability to ‘keep and carry’ dangerous and unusual weapons.”
While there may not be direct analogues from Connecticut’s law to historical laws, Walker said, “The Founders faced no problem comparable to a single gunman carrying out a mass murder in seconds.”
Under Bruen, he wrote, when there is no direct comparison because of “unprecedented societal concerns and dramatic technological changes,” analysis “may adopt a ‘more nuanced’ approach.” With that approach, he said, Connecticut’s laws are “‘relevantly similar’” to historical restrictions—and therefore likely do not violate the Second Amendment.
In a statement following the decision, the National Association for Gun Rights and others denounced the opinion as inconsistent with the Second Amendment and Supreme Court rulings.
“This opinion is a brazen act of defiance against the Supreme Court,” said Hannah Hill, vice president of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “Oral arguments before the female dominated panel felt like going before the legal version of The View—utterly hostile to both principle, common sense, and the Bill of Rights. This ruling absolutely follows that theme.”
The National Association for Gun Rights says it plans to return to the district court, where the case will be heard on the merits.
Disclaimer: This post is sourced from an external website via RSS feed. We do not claim ownership of the content and are not responsible for its accuracy or views. All rights belong to the original author or publisher. We are simply sharing it for informational purposes.
