State Attorneys Claim Hunting Rifles Not Constitutionally Protected in Connecticut
Hunters take note: State attorneys are arguing your hunting rifles are not “constitutionally” protected in Connecticut.
www.ammoland.com
www.ammoland.com
From the Link:State Attorneys Claim Hunting Rifles Not Constitutionally Protected in Connecticut
Hunters take note: State attorneys are arguing your hunting rifles are not “constitutionally” protected in Connecticut.
According to attorney Joshua Perry, representing the Connecticut Attorney General’s office, the Second Amendment protects guns commonly used for self-defense, but not hunting rifles. As if there is a difference!? Perry’s arguments were made during a hearing at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as part of a lawsuit filed by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and a co-plaintiff, Toni Theresa Spera.
The lawsuit challenges Connecticut’s restrictive gun control law passed after the Sandy Hook tragedy, which bans the sale of firearms classified as “assault weapons.”
So, they want to ban "Assault weapons" that the normal public can't possess but the military can.
Ok, whatever, then you want to hunting rifles that are not capable of self defense?
Am I hearing a word salad of cameltoe harris?
I could go on for hours/pages about these stupid comments, but I'll spare you.
Question for those smarter than I. What types of cases involve the plaintifs or those that lose a court case have to pay attorney's fees? Is it only certain types/classifications of cases? Not sure about this particular lawsuit but when any type of city, county or state brings these lawsuits that are clearly unconstitutional they should be required to pay attorney's fees. Yes, the money would end up coming from the tax payers but if you made the fees for losiing these sort of cases stiff enought it might reduce some of these frivolous suits.
Similar threads
- Sale Price: 7000.00$
