Thursday, December 5, 2013

Connecticut Laws Upheld in Big Defeat for Gun Rights

A federal judge has dismissed a gun industry group lawsuit challenging a wide-ranging firearms law passed by Connecticut in response to the shooting deaths of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.
U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in New Haven ruled Monday that the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc. does not have legal standing to challenge how the legislature and governor approved the law in April.
The foundation sued Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, legislative leaders and other officials in July, claiming the ‘‘emergency’’ legislation was approved illegally without proper public input, without time for adequate review by lawmakers and without an explanation of why the usual legislative process needed to be bypassed.
The law, which expanded a ban on assault weapons and prohibits large-capacity ammunition magazines, still faces other legal challenges by gun rights advocates.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is considering whether to appeal Hall’s ruling to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, said Lawrence Keane, the foundation’s senior vice president and general counsel.
‘‘We’re obviously disappointed,’’ Keane said Tuesday. ‘‘The legislature voted on a 139-page bill that they never read, and we were denied our First Amendment right to advocate for changes in the actual bill that was voted on.’’

31 comments:

  1. Why do you call lower court rulings that certainly aren't the final word a big defeat?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even the NSSF losers called it that, Greg.

      Delete
    2. That doesn't answer the question.

      Delete
    3. What do you call it, Greg? I call it a big defeat. That's my opinion. In your tedious pain-in-the-ass way you're probably going to ask for proof next.

      Delete
    4. I call it one temporary ruling on its way to the Supreme Court.

      Delete
    5. That's sort-of how I feel about Heller. But that doesn't make it any less important.

      Delete
    6. Heller wasn't a lower court ruling.

      Delete
  2. Greg keeps asking for me to reprint his comments. Not sure why but here they are again:


    Greg's statements on ignoring, breaking the law:


    Greg Camp November 4, 2013 at 2:39 AM

    When the law is unjust, it is no law at all. Home invasions are a violation of privacy, and yes, I call these actions invasions, "legal" or not.


    So you decide which laws you will follow, or not? Sounds like breaking the law to me.
    ________________________________________________________

    Greg Camp October 5, 2013 at 5:56 PM

    Mine gets carried concealed. And yes, if I ever have occasion to go to Starbucks, it will be with me.

    This was after Starbucks asked their customers to leave their guns at home. Seems another example that Greg will defy anyone's rules and regulations.
    _________________________________________________________

    Greg Camp October 8, 2013 at 6:31 AM

    I think the United States should invade California and impose regime change on that failed state.

    I'd say that's a promotion for breaking the law.
    _________________________________________________________

    Greg Camp October 5, 2013 at 5:54 PM

    Stupid rules require increasing cleverness to circumvent.


    Seems he's actively looking for ways to break the rule of law.
    ________________________________________________________


    Anonymous September 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM

    Some people would call assaulting a drug dealer civic minded.


    Greg Camp September 8, 2013 at 5:17 PM

    Agreed.


    I would call it a thug assaulting another person. Call the cops.
    _________________________________________________________

    Greg Camp September 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM

    In an ideal world, beating up someone is the wrong action, but we don't live in an ideal world, and I have more feeling for the friend struggling with addiction than I do for the dealer.


    It would be one thing if this happened in front of you, but you said you would go looking for him. Doesn't sound like a law abiding citizen to me.
    _________________________________________________________

    Greg Camp August 30, 2013 at 8:07 AM

    I've said it before: He should be given a lethal injection of boiling lard.


    That's not what the law prescribes. Greg has his own ideas.
    ________________________________________________________

    Greg Camp August 27, 2013 at 8:27 AM

    Revenge is justice. This man is a traitor and a terrorist. He deserves a far more gruesome death than our law allows.


    Going outside the law to get his bloody revenge. Revenge is not justice.
    _________________________________________________________

    Greg Camp August 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM

    When the law makes no sense by banning or restricting something that should not be covered by law, good people don't expect such foolishness or resist the violation. The responsibility lies with the criminal legislators and executives who push these laws in the first place.


    Blame the people. They elected these criminals into office. You change law in a civil society, not ignore, or break it.
    ________________________________________________________

    These kind of statements can only be read as the author having disregard for the law, promoting illegal acts, and clearly stating he would participate in such illegal behavior.

    There you go again Greg. Anytime you want to explain why these comments do not promote criminality, I'm waiting as I have been for weeks while you act like a coward.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve, when you stop lying and do what I asked you to do, I'll be glad to respond.

      Delete
    2. What am I lying about?
      I don't take orders from a lying criminal coward.
      You threatened to sue me, so I proved my allegations correct by your own words.
      It's you who chooses to refuse to explain your criminal comments. That proves me correct.
      Take your coward order and shove it up your ass.
      You are now addressed as the criminal lying coward. A moniker you have earned multiple times over many weeks.
      Now on with your cowardly criminal lies.
      You WOULD be glad to respond, but you have refused many times over many weeks, so you lie again.

      Delete
    3. Steve, if you will provide links to the original discussions, I will address them. But when you take things out of context and throw them out en masse like this, you're just wasting our time.

      Delete
    4. Steve, I'm with ya all the way, man. But please stop hijacking the threads with repeats of this argument with Greg. You made your point. If you want to make it into a post, shoot me an e-mail.

      Delete
    5. Mikeb, I'd be glad to settle this argument. But let's do it in a reasonable manner.

      Delete
    6. Just to be clear, Mikeb, are you committing libel as well?

      Delete
    7. Greg has earned his lying criminal coward moniker, Most comments he makes are dishonest and I will not let his BS go by without calling him on it. His insistent garbage about why he refuses to respond is just that, cowardly garbage. It's not an argument on my part, he wants to phrase it that way to change the only issue, why he won't explain why his statements are not criminal, as I claim. He threatened to sue me claiming I libeled him, I took that challenge and proved him wrong. He continues (after weeks) to claim I'm a liar, fuck him. It's time to put this on him where it belongs. I resent the fact that you ask me to just let him off the hook and pretend it never happened and he does not need to explain himself, and as long as he keeps calling me a liar, I will keep proving he is a lying coward criminal. Being a lying coward criminal does not end with those few statements and presents itself with every comment he makes. What would you have me say in a post, I have not already said? Those comments still stand as evidence of his lying criminal coward character. Sure, there are more, but I made my point and proved my case. He keeps asking for evidence, so I keep repeating the same criminal comments, no other evidence is needed.

      Delete
    8. Mikeb, answer me. Do you agree with Steve that I'm a criminal?

      Delete
    9. I wouldn't call you a criminal, Greg. Have I ever done so? But, as I mentioned in another comment, I understand where Steve got the idea. You have condoned criminal acts. He's quoted you repeatedly. Apparently he feels it's only a little stretch from that to actually being a criminal yourself.

      Delete
    10. Mikeb, you said you're with Steve all the way. That means that you are calling me a criminal as well. Yes or no?

      Delete
    11. Oh, will you fucking grow up, Greg. "All the way" was an expression not to be taken literally. In fact it was part of a comment in which I was taking him to task. Plus, in a couple other comments I've clearly told you what I think about the accusations. But, still you're whining and crying.

      Delete
    12. Mikeb, you say a lot of things that you then have to claim weren't meant literally. I see why you don't trust gun owners. You're careless with words.

      When you or the others want to deal with those accusations in a reasonable manner, let me know.

      Delete
    13. It's so unreasonable to use your own words when citing your position. Laughable.

      Delete
  3. Mikeb, I'll say this to you. I'm willing to address any comment that "Steve" or these other trolls wish to discuss, but I want them one at a time with a link to the original thread. If that's being a liar and a coward, those words have no meaning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's being a liar and a coward.
      The date provides a link and your words cannot be explained even in context(?) your refusal to reply and your cowardly demands proves you are the site criminal, lying, coward. Live with that moniker, you earned it.

      What context explains "Revenge is justice?" Since that is totally a lie and only believed by criminals.

      Keep crying coward.

      My own words are unfair to use against me!! That's your response lying, criminal, coward.

      Delete
    2. So we add Internet technology to the list of things about which you are ignorant. A link means a URL, something we can all click on to go to the original discussion.

      Delete
    3. No, you should stop playing silly games and just respond. Coward.
      Yes, if you think it's ok to beat people up (you clearly stated that) then you are a criminal. You are the one refusing to discuss. Coward.

      Delete
    4. No Steve, actually beating people up is the crime- not "thinking it's ok". You want thought crimes now?

      Delete
    5. Again with the lies? I said that I understood a man who attacked a drug dealer who was poisoning his friend. I didn't say that it was "ok to beat people up."

      This is why I insist on the context being provided. You twist things and lie about things so much that I can't trust you. When you're ready to discuss my comments in the context that they were made with links to those discussions, I will do it. But it's not cowardice to refuse to play your silly games.

      Delete
    6. Greg said:
      "In an ideal world, beating up someone is the wrong action, but we don't live in an ideal world"
      So the liar lies again. It's clear you support beating people up because (according to you) we do not live in an ideal world.
      Next lie.

      Delete
    7. Mikeb, this illustrates the problem. I addressed one of the comments these trolls obsess about, but they continue to twist things into what I did not say. Why should I waste my time?

      Delete
    8. I, again, quoted your own words. Yes, it's useless trying to convince anyone you are not a lying criminal coward, when reading your own words prove you are.

      Delete
    9. No liar, you said YOU would go after the drug dealer.
      Next lie.

      Delete