The state of Connecticut is one of the more pernicious anti-gun states. While it doesn’t get the attention of California, New York, or New Jersey, the truth is that this is a state just as opposed to the Second Amendment as the more populated anti-gun places.
However, one of their gun control laws now faces a lawsuit that could put an end to it.
Court records show this woman claims her constitutional rights are being violated due to the state’s strict gun laws.
The federal lawsuit mentions a New Milford woman who has guns and magazines.
He also says she fears getting in trouble with the law since her articles are illegal in Connecticut.
Attorney General William Tong claims that the National Foundation for Gun Rights recruited her and that this is nothing but an attempt to overturn laws past post-Sandy Hook. He also refers to the group as “extremists.”
Both Tong and the governor decry this effort to overturn the law using the Bruen decision.
However, it seems to me that if you know the law goes against Bruen, then maybe you shouldn’t be decrying the lawsuit but should instead be bringing the state of Connecticut into compliance with the law.
Instead, they’re pretending it’s some kind of massive insult to even consider challenging unconstitutional laws in their state. I’m sorry, but the Constitution isn’t something you set aside because it makes you feel better. She has a right to demand a chance to challenge laws that violate her rights.
That’s precisely what’s happening here.
It’s interesting that there are absolutely no arguments presented by any official in Connecticut that don’t hinge on “something bad happened here and you should feel bad for trying to change the laws we passed because of it.”
Never mind that the gunman in that gruesome killing murdered his own mother and took her gun. He was a mentally deranged individual who was intent on killing as many children as possible. Had he not had that particular gun he’d have simply used whatever he could get.
Does anyone think elementary school children would have been able to fend him off if he’d had a double-barrel shotgun? Most likely not.
The truth is that the Connecticut law will likely come down due to the standards laid down in Bruen, and that’s ultimately a good thing. While Sandy Hook was awful, you don’t honor the dead by restricting the rights of others. That’s a fool’s fallacy and one that will, in time, lead to still more deaths.
Gun control isn’t the answer.
What we should have done then was step up and start delving into just what makes a mass shooter tick, why they break so completely that they believe this is the way to do whatever it is they want to do.
Instead, Connecticut passed laws. Now, they’re calling those who value their rights “extremists.”
Well, if that’s how you want to play it, then an extremist I’ll be.