US judge upholds Connecticut’s gun control law


A federal judge in the United States has upheld Connecticut’s far-reaching gun control law which is known as the toughest in the country.

Last April, the state’s governor Dannel P. Malloy signed into law a bill passed by Connecticut’s General Assembly and Senate which expanded the list of illegal weapons under the state’s assault weapons ban.

US judge upholds Connecticut’s gun control law

The law also banned the sale of large-capacity magazines and required background checks for all weapon sales, including at gun shows.

Nevertheless, a group of gun owners challenged the law, saying it was in violation of their Second Amendment rights.

US District Judge Alfred Covello said in a 47-page decision on Thursday that the legislation is “constitutional” while “the act burdens the plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights.”

The law was passed and signed last year in response to a deadly shooting at an elementary school in Newtown the previous year.

Using an assault rifle sold legally to his mother, Adam Lanza killed 20 first-grade school children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.

The issue of gun violence in the US came under spotlight following the rampage and many people across the country, including family members of gun violence victims, called for tougher gun control laws.

According to an interactive project between and the anonymous creator of the Twitter feed @GunDeaths, there have been more than 12,000 gun deaths in the country reported by the US media since the tragic shooting.

2 Responses

  1. MG says:

    “The legislation is “constitutional” while “the act burdens the plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights.”

    The Constitution is what is “Constitutional”, not just any legislation they pass. The Constitution decides whether a “law” is legal, not some “law” deciding the legalities of the Constitution!

    When a crazy person (who is generally on psychotropic drugs) shoots others, they claim the FIX for this problem is to TAKE AWAY from the LAW ABIDING citizen who does NOT go out and kill people. This is a fool’s argument as these laws will not stop those who do NOT obey the law; they ONLY take away from those who are not the problem!

    Using this PRETEXT is for the purpose of INCRAMENTALLY disarming the citizen. The Second Amendment is TYRANNY INSURANCE for the citizen but an OBSTICLE to those who desire to do bad things!

    Who wants to do bad things? Those who are hell bent on taking away your protection!

  2. 5 War Veteran says:


Leave a Reply

© 2014 Pakalert Press. All rights reserved.