# Oral Arguments in CT and NY Gun Laws



## rjd25 (Nov 27, 2014)

If anyone is interested, oral arguments were heard in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the draconian gun laws of NY and CT. The link below is an audio recording of the oral arguments. The NRA attorney eviscerated the State's attorneys and made them look like they were groping in the dark for reasons that would justify the bans.

Oral Arguments Audio | CCDL Blog


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

Listening now, thanks for the posting.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

rjd25 said:


> The NRA attorney eviscerated the State's attorneys and made them look like they were groping in the dark for reasons that would justify the bans.


Would you say he "Shot down their arguments"?

Sorry, I had to.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Whatever it takes to repeal those absolutely unconstitutional laws.


----------



## rjd25 (Nov 27, 2014)

Well, the second circuit is very liberal. That being said I will be interested to see what types of constitutional backflips they will do to try to justify this.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

While I am 1000% against any gun law restrictions, I don't feel that the lawyer speaking for the law abiding citizen to own an AR15 or the so called high capacity magazines, shot down / destroyed the gun restriction law arguments. He made some good arguments but left out all the stupid parts about muzzle brakes, barrel shrouds etc. I'm not feeling very good / safe based on what the pro gun lawyer said as a winning argument. Time will tell, but the anti gun people will just reword the laws or flat out drag they're feet to change what is already passed and law abiding citizens will lose in the end. The damage is already done and I doubt anyone convicted will be released or compensated even if the laws are changed. At best it will be a compromise with the anti gun people coming out with more gun control. Just look at what Washington, DC and Chicago,Ill. are doing and you can see how they react to reducing gun control laws and how the courts write they're rulings, leaving to much un stated or up for interpertation.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Simply winning will not be enough. What is needed is to eliminate the registration schemes and to not simply establish that these particular laws go too far, but that the individual states may not prevent a law abiding citizen from acquiring a weapon that is in common usage throughout the country. If what is won is merely that these particular laws go too far, but the states still have a right to establish restrictions, they'll just rewrite them and do the same over a longer period of time.

In addition, the wins and losses won't really matter until you get a Supreme Court win.

Finally, the major right that we are missing here in the northeast is carry. As long as the 2A can be restricted to the home, we really don't have a right to self defense. Newark, NJ is known as "The carjacking capital of the world" for a reason, and eliminating the AWB in a couple neighboring states won't change that.


----------



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

Buy a U haul and get the F out of that Communist State.

I like listening to the 9th district Oral arguments and have a few of them posted on my youtube channel.
The 9th cases seem more clear cut than this one. The constitutional battleground is more carefully chosen.
Why is the oral argument in the 2nd Court about social policy predicting estimates of future crimes with various magazines and whether people leave 3 rounds out of a 10 round magazine and future crimes that have not happened instead of constitutional issues and strict scrutiny. This lawyer seems to have fallen into the Brady campaign legal trap of wasting time with "expert" social opinions instead of constitutional precedents from SCOTUS. I hope his briefs were better than his oral argument which meandered off point falling into arguing social policy and future crime and how gun owners should have less bullets because someone else besides the owner will inevitably gain control of their firearm somehow.


----------



## rjd25 (Nov 27, 2014)

Well to address a couple of the points made here, firstly we do have carry in the Northeast with the exception of NJ and NY (actually they have carry in NY but you and I would never get a permit there). Even in draconian Connecticut you can open carry or conceal carry, it is totally up to you. As for the arguments, the case is more complicated in that there are different levels of scrutiny that apply based on the expert witness testimony. That is what the attorney is attacking and rightly so in my opinion. You aren't going to get a bunch of liberal judges to understand the function of a muzzle brake, nor will you get them to understand how a thumbhole stock is not an unusual weapon or military characteristic. The better option is to attack the merits of the law which they will understand and box them in to a decision that they would have to do legal backflips to get out of. It is true the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on this matter but it is a much better position to be in going to them asking them to uphold an appellate court ruling rather than overturn one.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

rjd25 said:


> Well to address a couple of the points made here, firstly we do have carry in the Northeast with the exception of NJ and NY (actually they have carry in NY but you and I would never get a permit there). Even in draconian Connecticut you can open carry or conceal carry, it is totally up to you. As for the arguments, the case is more complicated in that there are different levels of scrutiny that apply based on the expert witness testimony. That is what the attorney is attacking and rightly so in my opinion. You aren't going to get a bunch of liberal judges to understand the function of a muzzle brake, nor will you get them to understand how a thumbhole stock is not an unusual weapon or military characteristic. The better option is to attack the merits of the law which they will understand and box them in to a decision that they would have to do legal backflips to get out of. It is true the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on this matter but it is a much better position to be in going to them asking them to uphold an appellate court ruling rather than overturn one.


"It's more complicated than that" what part of Do Not Infringe, do you / they not understand. Every gun regulation is an infringement, no matter how minor / small it may be. Just another reason I will not support the NRA, with poor excuses of legal repersentation like him being being used to protect my / our gun rights. Typical NRA garbage, again, as bad as the republicans BS.


----------



## turbo6 (Jun 27, 2014)

Hopefully we will make progress with this.

Part of the whole battle, IMO, is making cohesive, fair and equal gun laws for all states.

Sitting back and thrashing the northeast for being a liberal hell with bad gun laws doesn't help. Fighting in the states that need it most will ensure restrictions won't spread like wildfire.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

^^^^^^
If the states have the right to go against the Constitution then the states should have the right to secede from the union / any Constitutional law / rules regardless what other states or governments may say or think. Like wise the individual whom has supposedly more natural rights should be able to decide which laws they want to follow, correct? The "Supreme Court" has ruled that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms and that is suppose to be the Top decision of the land which goes along with the Constitution so why all the debate about gun control? It has nothing to do with what the majority wants / votes for, the 2nd amendment is quite clear. The only way around it would be to amend the Constitution or void all state and Federal Gun laws. That should be the ruling from the Supreme Courts to stop all this foolish legislative action. Any law / legislation / regulation that by word / deed / action that could be misconstrued as an infringement would be null and void, period. This is not a question of what "is" is! What to many are saying now is that we live by rule of a few men and not rule of law as written!


----------



## rjd25 (Nov 27, 2014)

ekim said:


> ^^^^^^
> If the states have the right to go against the Constitution then the states should have the right to secede from the union / any Constitutional law / rules regardless what other states or governments may say or think. Like wise the individual whom has supposedly more natural rights should be able to decide which laws they want to follow, correct? The "Supreme Court" has ruled that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms and that is suppose to be the Top decision of the land which goes along with the Constitution so why all the debate about gun control? It has nothing to do with what the majority wants / votes for, the 2nd amendment is quite clear. The only way around it would be to amend the Constitution or void all state and Federal Gun laws. That should be the ruling from the Supreme Courts to stop all this foolish legislative action. Any law / legislation / regulation that by word / deed / action that could be misconstrued as an infringement would be null and void, period. This is not a question of what "is" is! What to many are saying now is that we live by rule of a few men and not rule of law as written!


You can't pick and choose what laws or Supreme Court decisions you want to ignore. That is called anarchy and just flat out doesn't work. Here is a little history for you to consider. The Supreme Court in Heller said that American's had the right to keep and bear arms for self defense and that the home is where that right is at its pinnacle. The gun grabbers were trying to argue that unless you belong to a militia the right did not apply. They ruled that incorrect. They have also ruled in the past that dangerous or unusual firearms that were not in common use were not constitutionally protected (ex. M16) hence the Automatic Weapons Ban being allowed to stand. The argument in this case is that AR15's or certain cosmetic features are dangerous and unusual weapons not in common use and thus not protected under Heller. That is what the NRA attorney was pointing out. He also only had 10 minutes to make his argument and had to be very selective in what was discussed. Your totalitarian view of the second amendment is what gets the argument thrown out before it is even made. The NRA attorney knows the proper way to fight this BS and you slamming him does nothing to further the cause.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

rjd25 said:


> You can't pick and choose what laws or Supreme Court decisions you want to ignore. That is called anarchy and just flat out doesn't work. Here is a little history for you to consider. The Supreme Court in Heller said that American's had the right to keep and bear arms for self defense and that the home is where that right is at its pinnacle. The gun grabbers were trying to argue that unless you belong to a militia the right did not apply. They ruled that incorrect. They have also ruled in the past that dangerous or unusual firearms that were not in common use were not constitutionally protected (ex. M16) hence the Automatic Weapons Ban being allowed to stand. The argument in this case is that AR15's or certain cosmetic features are dangerous and unusual weapons not in common use and thus not protected under Heller. That is what the NRA attorney was pointing out. He also only had 10 minutes to make his argument and had to be very selective in what was discussed. Your totalitarian view of the second amendment is what gets the argument thrown out before it is even made. The NRA attorney knows the proper way to fight this BS and you slamming him does nothing to further the cause.


Yes we / I can pick and choose what right I choose to ignore if the ones I choose are not following the Constitution / Bill o Rights, just as the Founding Fathers did, they choose the ones that went against what became part of the Bill of Rights.
If my gun rights rely on people like him I'm sure I won't have them long. Your view of our gun rights is just a compromise till we no longer have gun rights. I'm so sorry the Supreme Court only felt that he should only have 10 dam minutes to make his case, probably took years just to get that far, screw the Supreme Court judge, they are a joke! Further the cause, give me a break, at this rate most of us will be dead before they make a ruling and anything is done. This is not about the peoples rights, but showing the people who's in control! Believe what you want.


----------



## rjd25 (Nov 27, 2014)

ekim said:


> Yes we / I can pick and choose what right I choose to ignore if the ones I choose are not following the Constitution / Bill o Rights, just as the Founding Fathers did, they choose the ones that went against what became part of the Bill of Rights.
> If my gun rights rely on people like him I'm sure I won't have them long. Your view of our gun rights is just a compromise till we no longer have gun rights. I'm so sorry the Supreme Court only felt that he should only have 10 dam minutes to make his case, probably took years just to get that far, screw the Supreme Court judge, they are a joke! Further the cause, give me a break, at this rate most of us will be dead before they make a ruling and anything is done. This is not about the peoples rights, but showing the people who's in control! Believe what you want.


This is an appeals court, not the Supreme Court. Your view is short sighted. We need the Supreme Court to rule so we can put the issue to bed. Now is a good political climate to do it. The court balance is favorable, public opinion has never been higher for gun rights and the argument lends itself to Gun Rights. Try to think strategically rather than reactively or ideologically.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

rjd25 said:


> This is an appeals court, not the Supreme Court. Your view is short sighted. We need the Supreme Court to rule so we can put the issue to bed. Now is a good political climate to do it. The court balance is favorable, public opinion has never been higher for gun rights and the argument lends itself to Gun Rights. Try to think strategically rather than reactively or ideologically.


The court doesn't really matter, the end result doesn't matter, gun control will continue regardless of the rulings. The Supreme Court has ruled and their ruling did squat for all practical purposes as at best they make a minor ruling but leave to much for debate / up to question and further court battles. The courts make rulings knowing they can come back and act like they are doing something special. Just like the court system you are not worth the trouble debating as you already have compromise your rights by giving in to the BS. My rights are not debatable but it seems yours are by how your willing to let every tom, dick and harry debate and compromise them and chalk it up to "the law and court rulings", enjoy them while you can, I'm out of this one.


----------



## E.H. (Dec 21, 2014)

ekim said:


> what part of Do Not Infringe, do you / they not understand.


The "not" part, I'm pretty sure that's the part they don't understand. In fact if you choose to ignore that little word then it actually encourages infringement.  yep must be the not part


----------



## rjd25 (Nov 27, 2014)

ekim said:


> The court doesn't really matter, the end result doesn't matter, gun control will continue regardless of the rulings. The Supreme Court has ruled and their ruling did squat for all practical purposes as at best they make a minor ruling but leave to much for debate / up to question and further court battles. The courts make rulings knowing they can come back and act like they are doing something special. Just like the court system you are not worth the trouble debating as you already have compromise your rights by giving in to the BS. My rights are not debatable but it seems yours are by how your willing to let every tom, dick and harry debate and compromise them and chalk it up to "the law and court rulings", enjoy them while you can, I'm out of this one.


no problem. I just thank god you aren't in charge of defending the 2A. Carry on bud.


----------

