No one is ever going to mistake Connecticut for a pro-gun state. That was true even before Sandy Hook rattled the state. It's just gotten a whole lot worse since then.

One of the worst of the gun laws passed in recent years reclassifies "any other weapon" firearms as "assault weapons," which is absolutely stupid because they're not.

But they did it and it was, predictably, challenged.

Oral arguments in that case begin today.

A statement from the Second Amendment Foundation:

Oral arguments in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of Connecticut’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” are scheduled Wednesday, Oct. 16 at 2 p.m. (EDT) before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

The public can listen to the arguments via this link beginning at 2 p.m. (EDT)

SAF is joined in the case by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens, Jennifer Hamilton, Michael Stiefel and Eddie Grant, Jr. They are represented by Connecticut attorneys Doug Dubitsky of North Windham, Craig C. Fishbein of Wallingford and Cameron L. Atkinson of Harwinton. The case is known as Grant v. Lamont.

The case was originally filed in September 2022. It alleges the Connecticut statute is a “one-size-fits-all” measure in which firearms previously identified as “any other firearm” by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were suddenly reclassified as “rifles” or “short-barreled rifles.” They all became “assault weapons” under the state’s definition.

“From the beginning,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “the state has insisted these firearms are not ‘in common use.’ The evidence clearly shows otherwise, yet the state wants the Court to adopt an unprecedented legal standard in contradiction to standards established by the Second Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“The state’s arguments essentially defy the Supreme Court’s standards set down in the 2022 Bruen ruling,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut observed. 

Of course, I agree that it defies Bruen. The question is whether the courts will agree.

It should be noted that while "any other firearm" guns may sound terrifying to some people, those people don't realize that a ban on them doesn't actually do all that much to stop criminals from obtaining such weapons. It's not particularly difficult to modify a firearm to become one and then use it illegally.

Instead, all the law does is make it so those of us who would do so within the law can't.

Thank God I don't live in Connecticut. No, that's not using the Lord's name in vain because I'm seriously thanking the Good Lord that I don't.

We'll see what the court rules, but I'm not feeling optimistic about the long-term prospects of the challenge. It seems that Rahimi has given lower courts the justification they need to defend blatantly unconstitutional gun control laws. I don't expect this to be much different, though I hope I'm wrong.

Either way, this is still the good fight and no gun control law should go unchallenged.

If nothing else, they'll know we're not going to just roll over and allow this kind of thing to just happen.