Second Circuit Issues Egregious Decision on Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban

On August 22, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in the Connecticut “assault weapons” ban that dramatically illustrates why Supreme Court intervention is beyond necessary.

In the combined case of Nat’l Ass’n for Gun Rights v. Lamont; Grant v. Rovella, the Court issued a 67-page decision affirming the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction in both cases.

In other words, it is allowing the state’s unconstitutional ban on a wide variety of commonly owned firearms that it has classified as “assault weapons” along with “large capacity magazines” to stand.

We conclude that Plaintiffs have not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claims….We additionally conclude that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the balance of equities and public interest tip in their favor.

Public interest is an interest-balancing test that is expressly forbidden by the Bruen doctrine, yet still fully embraced by this court. In fact, the court states outright that it is the analysis it prefers:

For their part, Plaintiffs rely only on the assertion that “securing Constitutional rights is always in the public interest.” We agree that the potential denial of a party’s Constitutional rights is surely a significant consideration. But the fact that a plaintiff alleges Constitutional harm does not end our balance of-the-equities inquiry.

Perhaps the most egregious affronts in this case are the appearance of applying the Bruen Supreme Court precedent and the nonsensical assertions about the operation of firearms that defy common sense.

The challenged Connecticut statutes were enacted in the wake of the tragic 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. Named the “Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety” (2013 Conn. Pub. Acts 13-3), it penalized law-abiding citizens across the state for the criminal act of one individual.

The court admits, “The cumulative effect of the challenged firearms restrictions is that Connecticut now prohibits most people in the state from acquiring or possessing ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large capacity magazines’ as defined below.”

The court excuses this infringement by telling residents that other firearms are available to own, writing, “At the same time, Connecticut allows firearms that, while dangerous, as all firearms are to varying degrees, are not so uniquely designed to create mayhem.”

The court makes a huge intellectual leap that some features on firearms are somehow worthy of special distinction as “dangerous” even though they are actually designed to make firearms safer to use. Noteworthy here:

• Pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, and forward pistol grips facilitate quickly “spray[ing] . . . a large number of bullets over a broad killing zone, without having to aim at each individual target.”
• Barrel shrouds are ventilated covers that shield the operator from the burning temperatures caused by firing multiple rounds, enabling the operator to hold the overheated barrel during continuous firing.
• Telescoping, collapsing, and folding stocks shorten firearms and make them easier to conceal.
• Flash suppressors reduce firearms’ visible signature when firing and help shooters avoid detection.

Problematic within the scope of this case is the Connecticut definition of “assault weapon” (which also varies both arbitrarily and capriciously, from state to state, obviating at least one of many reasons that necessitate intervention by the Supreme Court).

Broadly, Connecticut defines “assault weapon” to include many, but not all, types of fully automatic and semiautomatic firearms. Its prohibitions apply to selective-fire firearms; types of semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns with military-style features; and various examples of semiautomatic firearms specified by name with military-style features (and their commercially available or do-it-yourself copies and duplicates).

Firearms owners will understand that such a broad definition includes tens of millions of popular firearms across the nation that are legally owned by law-abiding individuals. In fact, semi-automatic firearms are now the most commonly owned type of rifle, pistol, and shotgun. Connecticut law also bans certain features along with a number of firearms by name, very similar to New Jersey. And just to be sure, it has an “other” category to catch anything it doesn’t like or looks scary.

Were it not for the massive infringement, the court’s definition of “barrage” would be almost amusing:

Firearms that come with or can accommodate large capacity magazines permit a shooter to fire more than eleven rounds without pausing to reload, enabling the firing of a barrage of bullets.

(For those that might have missed it, a barrage is ‘more than 11’.)

Throughout the decision, the Court dispenses with precedent set previously in Heller, even though it cites to the case 35 times.

It’s hard to read an opinion that throws out Supreme Court precedent on the Second Amendment as not being an attempt at gaslighting, when the opinion itself states: “We thus engage in analogical reasoning that invokes historical practice without resorting to judicial interest balancing.”

In appearing to apply the Bruen precedent, the Court states, “…we will simply assume without deciding that the desired firearms and magazines are bearable arms within the meaning of the Second Amendment and that their acquisition and possession is presumptively entitled to Constitutional protection.”

Yet, after telling the reader they are proceeding to step two of the Bruen analysis, they turn to appeals to emotion:

“We find in the record no direct historical precedent for the contemporary, growing societal concern over and fear of mass shootings resulting in ten or more fatalities.” After admitting that, “Mass murders have occurred throughout history,” the court finds plenty more emotional-based decisions as to why the AR-15 should be banned, even stating a subjective and totally fabricated reasoning that, “…unlike an ordinary handgun, [it] has features that actually limit its usefulness for self-defense.”

And yet there are tens of millions of these firearms in possession by Americans, undermining the court’s assumption.

Finally, after teasing out historical analogues, engaging in yet more interest-balancing, the court concludes with perhaps the least objective and lawfully-grounded conclusion ever penned, there are plenty of other weapons one can buy:

Connecticut residents remain able to purchase and possess more than 1,000 firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting. Among others, the challenged statutes permit Connecticut residents to own and possess popular semiautomatic handguns like the Glock 17 and M9 Barretta, and popular semiautomatic hunting rifles like the Ruger Mini-14 and the Ruger 10/22 Target.

This opinion is at its core a legal document backing and supporting the disarmament of law-abiding citizens.