Connecticut’s regulation banning so-called “assault weapons” is likely one of the most egregious within the nation. That’s why the Second Modification Basis (SAF), together with the Connecticut Residents Protection League (CCDL) and three personal residents filed the lawsuit Grant V. Rovella difficult the regulation.
Now, SAF has submitted a reply temporary to the U.S. Supreme Court docket suggesting that if the courtroom follows the right historic stage of the Bruen framework, this and different bans on frequent semi-automatic rifles can be declared unconstitutional.
As some background, SAF initially filed its cert petition in November final 12 months urging the Excessive Court docket to take the case and determine as soon as and for all that AR-15-style rifles are most definitely in “frequent use” and due to this fact protected by the Second Modification. In Connecticut it’s a crime to promote, switch, or possess so-called “assault weapons” within the state. Connecticut’s regulation specifies some firearms by title and identifies numerous options to outline what it believes constitutes an “assault weapon.”
As SAF Government Director Adam Kraut identified, AR-15 and comparable semi-auto rifles aren’t precisely uncommon in the USA.
“There are tens of tens of millions rifles in circulation throughout America that meet Connecticut’s made-up definition of ‘assault weapon,’” Kraut stated in a information launch saying the temporary submitting. “On condition that these firearms are not any completely different than another semi-automatic firearm owned by residents for self-defense, there is no such thing as a doubt these arms are in ‘frequent use’ and are definitely coated underneath the Second Modification. The Supreme Court docket has already acknowledged {that a} firearm can’t be banned whether it is in frequent use for lawful functions, which is strictly what is going on in Connecticut and elsewhere throughout the nation.”
Within the temporary, SAF argues, “On condition that tens of millions of People personal AR-15s and comparable rifles, and most achieve this for defensive functions…making use of the proper ‘frequent use’ customary, and situating it on the correct historic stage of Bruen’s framework, might change the result of this case.”
“As this Court docket held nearly 20 years in the past, the Second Modification protects the precise to own these arms which are ‘in frequent use,’” the temporary states. “But the choice beneath upheld a ban on widespread semi-automatic rifles just like the AR-15 based mostly on little greater than the Connecticut legislature’s evaluation that—opposite to the judgment of the American individuals—the rifles are too ‘harmful.’ A number of courts have upheld comparable legal guidelines, however they haven’t coalesced round a constant rationale as a result of there’s none; these legal guidelines are flatly unconstitutional underneath this Court docket’s precedents.”
Finally, Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and govt vp, needs the Supreme Court docket to, as soon as and for all, clear up the confusion brought on by decrease courts and strike down Connecticut’s AWB and others.
“That is SAF’s second ‘assault weapons’ ban problem we’ve got earlier than the Supreme Court docket for consideration,” Gottlieb stated. “The record of banned firearms in Connecticut—and elsewhere throughout the USA—make peaceful gun house owners felons for merely proudly owning sure sorts of arms for self-defense. This obstruction to the Second Modification rights of People can’t be allowed to face, and we’re optimistic the Court docket will agree to listen to a minimum of one among our lawsuits in relation to those infringements on the precise to maintain and bear arms.”
