Disabled Group Serves First Lawsuit Against Gun Control Law

by Categorized: Consumer, Politics Date:

The first lawsuit challenging the state’s new gun control law was served Thursday by a group that represents disabled citizens, charging that the ban on military-style rifles eliminates the main firearm that many disabled people use in exercising their gun rights.

“The AR-15, due to its ease of handling, low recoil, adjustable features and customizability, is particularly suited to disabled persons in order to engage in lawful use of firearms,” said the lawsuit by Disabled Americans for Firearms Rights.

The lawsuit names Gov. Dannel P. Malloy as the defendant, and was served at the office of Attorney General George Jepsen. Scott Ennis of New London, who heads the group, is a named plaintiff — he suffers from hemophilia and has joint damage that requires that he use an adaptable gun in order to safely shoot, he claims in the lawsuit.

Read the lawsuit here.

Ennis was among the opponents of the law who fought against it before the General Assembly adopted the military-style weapons ban, and Malloy signed it, last week. Under the law, guns that have semiautomatic action, detachable bullet magazines and at least one military-style characteristic — such as a forward grip, an adjustable stock or a pistol grip — are banned for retail sale in Connecticut.

The lawsuit, which will be filed in state Superior Court, also claims that large-capacity bullet magazines are “necessary and convenient” for disabled people, and therefore should not have been banned.

The lawsuit does not seek money and does not cite the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal measure. It claims a denial of civil rights, citing state statutes and the Connecticut constitution.

“The provisions of the Act unfairly and arbitrarily deny these fundamental rights to the plaintiffs,” said the lawsuit, prepared by attorney Scott D. Camassar of the law firm of  Stephen M. Reck LLC in North Stonington.

Malloy spokesman Andrew Doba said this and other lawsuits based on the ban have been expected.

“We believe the bill improves public safety, and we will work with the Attorney General’s office to defend it.  Let’s not forget that this has happened before,” Doba said. “In prior instances where Connecticut has passed common sense restrictions on firearms, there have been challenges.  They have all been unsuccessful.”

Doba was referring to challenges to the 1993 law that created a list of banned firearms, including  a partial ban on military-style rifles. The industry got around that ban with “Connecticut” models that didn’t have certain features. But the latest ban might have no such loophole.

Separately, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League is teaming up with the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen and the National Rifle Association to prepare a lawsuit challenging the ban, said Jonathan Hardy, treasurer of CCDL.

“We’re looking at all the issues. It’s a horribly written law, it never went for public hearing,” said Hardy, who added that CCDL has raised $26,000, including $6,000 at a meeting this week.

Jepsen’s office issued a statement saying the legislation is lawful and that the office would “vigorously defend the law against this and any other potential court challenge.”

No one denies that the law curtails gun rights that existed previously. The issue is whether that change is warranted by real or possible benefits to public safety, and whether the law violates the state and federal constitutional rights to own and use firearms.

It’s unclear whether the lawsuit by Disabled Americans for Firearms Rights, if successful, would nullify parts of the Connecticut law entirely.  The AR-15, which is a generic design, not a brand, rose to become the nation’s most popular firearm in part because of its adaptability and ease of use.

“Disabled individuals have unique needs when it comes to lawful use of firearms, whether it be recreational or competitive shooting, hunting, home defense, or personal self-defense, and they rely on safe, customizable firearms like the AR-15,” Camassar said in a written statement. “Cosmetic features like forward grips and adjustable stocks do not make a rifle more lethal, nor do factory-standard magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.

 

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

108 thoughts on “Disabled Group Serves First Lawsuit Against Gun Control Law

  1. Anthony

    This must be a very select group…and versatile as well. What’s their disability, and wouldn’t a pistol be much easier to fire versus holding a 36 inch long, metal object?

    1. Trey Fischer

      Do some research on the the AR15 Rifle and you will find out why it is such a great weapon for home defense! Above, they mention “Low Recoil”, that would be the first major difference between it and a Handgun. The other major difference is accuracy! And if I were disabled I would want something that is going to shoot straight and steady! I wouldn’t want to be fighting to control the gun when I am trying to fend off some perp!

    2. Joe

      Believe it or not, most pistols require more hand shoulder and arm strength to shoot than an AR-15 and other similar long arms. The recoil of a pistol is transferred completely through the arms and shoulders whereas a long arm such as a AR-15 can be pressed up directly against the shoulder blade which transfers the recoil into shoulder you have greater mass and stability. While I don’t know if this group is unable to safely shoot a handgun I could see why an AR-15 type long arm could be an easier arm to safely handle.

      1. Tahra

        No, Diamond Jim, more like wounded veterans that have come back home after fighting for us. The disabled are already at a severe disadvantage when it comes to being able to defend themselves. These new restrictions make it next to impossible.

      2. American Patriot

        Any one who says that w edo not need these weapons have not had any run ins with a criminal that is using these weapons with no regard for laws or human life. I hope nothing happens to you and people start saying that you don’t need this or you don’t need that. Good luck to the DAFR. I hope you succeed.

      3. Brenda

        That’s an intelligent and compassionate response to a group of disabled Americans. The only one who comes across as mentally challenged in that statement is you.

      4. Jim

        What a disgusting, vile thing to say, you should be ashamed of yourself.
        These are most likely disabled veterans that were wounded protecting your right to say such idiotic mumble jumble.

    3. glenn hamilton

      Do you know the difference in ballistics between a rifle and a pistol. Your very question bears ignorance. Please educate yourself before expressing your lack of knowledge.
      A rifle is much more accurate at distance. In this case an AR15 is easier to hold and fire that a short barrelled pistol.
      The bullet from a rifle comes out of the barrel as much as three time faster than any pistol that helps in accuracy.

  2. Matt from CT

    >wouldn’t a pistol be much easier
    >to fire versus holding a 36 inch long, metal object?

    No.

    Pistols are quite difficult to hold and fire accurately.

    There single advantage is the small size makes them convenient to carry and store. For most people you can aim a long gun faster and more accurately.

    By banning the ergonomic features found on modern rifle stocks, the General Assembly has made it much harder for persons with certain handicaps to enjoy shooting sports as well as exercise rights of self-defense, and for some likely an impractical exercise.

  3. Hermanfromhartford

    This lawyer is just looking for fees. He’s an ambulance chaser turn gun control chaser.

    1. Bill

      Actually an “ambulance chaser” would be suing for monetary damages. It looks like this suit just involves overtyurning a law that violates the ADA.

        1. American Citizen

          That’s the problem, a lot of people don’t care about the truth, until its to late and your rights are gone, then they will be screaming for the truth.

  4. Himmler

    Forget the disabled they don’t need to protect themselves. They are a burden on society we don’t want them to have guns thats just trouble.

    1. Jay

      You are a sick individual. Perhaps the new mental health legislation will get you the help you need.

    2. Tahra

      I dare you to say that to a disabled veteran. There will be a day when you need assistance as well, and you better pray that those you ask to help you don’t share your attitude.

      1. Brenda

        It’s funny how “political correctness” goes right out the window for hypocrits when the people who oppose their uneducated point of view have something they can easily attack.

        It’s really difficult to have a battle of wits with unarmed people.

        (oops, was that a gun pun? actually it wasn’t. I’m finding to comment in debate on most of these idiotic responses isn’t worth our time)

    3. ccbeachcomber

      Exactly! Only the miserable governor and hysterical legislators should feel good about themselves. Even if it means ramming legislation down the throats of citizens.

  5. John East Lyme

    These people definitely have a lawsuit. These are the weapons they need to protect themselves. It maybe difficult for them to change magazines and they may need the standard 30 round magazines.

    The laws that were just passed in CT deprive us all of our rights to protect ourselves, especially the disabled.

    It makes no sense to gun haters because they have no idea of how guns even work. It’s criminal that my rights have been stolen, but let the disabled at least be able to defend themselves.

    1. Joe

      do you realize how stupid you sound? can wield a rifle, but can’t change a magazine? where are they going to carry this rifle with a banana clip, top pocket? OMG….

  6. P-E-Z

    Well at the Courant Forum on gun control a question from the audience was from Scott Ennis who is the plaintiff. Mike Lawlor’s answer amounted to so sue us. A great way to treat a man who has three family members buried at Arlington National Cemetery, including Iwo Jima flag raiser Rene Gagnon. I hope this story gets picked up and goes national. This man should not have sue for the rights and freedoms his family fought for.

  7. America Is Dying

    Senate Gun Vote Tally.

    Sen. Andres Ayala (D) YES.

    Sen. Dante Bartolomeo (D) YES.

    Sen. Toni Boucher (R) YES.

    Sen. Beth Bye (D) YES.

    Sen. Steve Cassano (D) YES.

    Sen. Clark Chapin (R) NO.

    Sen. Eric Coleman (D) YES.

    Sen. Joseph Crisco (D) YES.

    Sen. Paul Doyle (D) YES.

    Sen. Bob Duff (D) YES.

    Sen. Len Fasano (R) YES.

    Sen. John Fonfara (D) YES.

    Sen. L. Scott Frantz (R) YES.

    Sen. Terry Gerratana (D) YES.

    Sen. Tony Guglielmo (R) NO.

    Sen. Toni Harp (D) YES.

    Sen. Joan Hartley (D) YES.

    Sen. Rob Kane (R) NO.

    Sen. Kevin Kelly (R) YES.

    Sen. John Kissel (R) NO.

    Sen. Gary LeBeau (D) YES.

    Sen. Carlo Leone (D) YES.

    Sen. Art Linares (R) NO.

    Sen. Martin Looney (D) YES.

    Sen. Joe Markley (R) NO.

    Sen. Andrew Maynard (D) NO.

    Sen. John McKinney (R) YES.

    Sen. Michael McLachlan (R) YES.

    Sen. Edward Meyer (D) YES.

    Sen. Anthony Musto (D) YES.

    Sen. Cathy Osten (D) NO.

    Sen. Gayle Slossberg (D) YES.

    Sen. Andrea Stillman (D) YES.

    Sen. Jason Welch (R) NO.

    Sen. Donald Williams (D) YES.

    Sen. Kevin Witkos (R) NO.

    1. RandyMarshCT

      Voting for Andrew Maynard is one of the best decisions I’ve ever made. I will campaign for that man every time he runs for a political office.

  8. BoBB

    To all those that say a pistol is better: Try firing a pistol if you have limited use of your hand or arm. Even if you can fire it the recoil will either injure you more or cause you to drop the gun. A rifles recoil is into the shoulder not the wrist arm and elbow.

    If you don’t know what your talking about then don’t make judgments!

  9. Jeanne

    @Rambo: Your right, this is such total CRAP! What does this group want??? To blow a person to smithereens???? Defense by a simple handgun can scare an intruder away period! We do not live in a Bruce Willis film…When are *some* people going to grow up!!! Sad World we live in!

    1. walls

      It’s sad that liberal, progressive Hollywood makes so many violent films that spawn and glorify this crazy action, and then the same liberal progressives want to punish law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves.

    2. Jay

      What if it doesn’t scare them away. Someone in a wheelchair isn’t exactly able to run away. They have to defend themselves.

    3. Greg

      You have no right or ability to determine what is the appropriate form of defense form any citizen

    4. American Citizen

      This group wants the rights of disabled Americans to be able to exercise their constitutional Rights, whether its for sport or self defense the ADA requires that a disabled person has the right to do everything a able bodied person to do. If that means needing added features on a riffle to make it safe for them to use then they have the right to have that. And up until this new law they were able to do this, on top of that these concerns were brought to the legislators in advance if you watched any of the hearings and they ignored it. So they violated the ADA by ignoring their concerns and not putting something in place for these individuals.

  10. IVEN GARLAND

    This is completely nuts.These weapons don’t have any business on our streets. The 2nd amendment is not designed to have these type of weapons. Handgun are ok if you really need to protect your house but AR-15 not the weapon we need on civilian streets. If these people are Veteran wanting AR-15 in the home a mental wellness appointment with VA to make sure they are not a threat to themselves or others.

    1. Jay

      If you think we don’t need them on the streets then why do almost all police have AR15’s?

      Actually a lot of police have fully automatic M16 machine guns. They are on the street every single day.

    2. John

      You don’t belong on the streets, the gun is a tool. It’s the people that need help. If it not a gun it’s a knife or some other weapon. Evil people will do evil things.

    3. Brenda

      WOW! And because millions of people drive drunk maybe we should have everyone who owns a car, possesses a driver’s license or even gets in a car with someone who has one should also go through a mental health test and be denied their rights due to someone else’s criminal activity. It’s idiots like you, Iven, who are helping to destroy this country! Get educated!! I think it’s time to start testing idiots like this before allowing them the right to speak out in public.

    4. American Citizen

      You say this because they are big and scary, FYI they are no more dangerous than any other gun out there including hand guns, the VA tech shooter used hand guns, One of the reasons why this gun is used in so many shootings is it is one of the most common guns out there. Take this gun away and they will use something else, Oh BTW in Switzerland about 50% of the population has fully automatic riffles and they have almost no gun crime, so more guns actually cause less crime, its had been proven here in the US as well, where there are less restrictive gun laws there are lower crime than more restrictive gun laws.

    5. Hawkeye

      Well then Iven, I do believe you will be the first person to remove an AR15 from a criminal who illegally own one.
      The law biding citizens like myself use them for hunting and target shooting. Of course I chose this gun because it is easily configured so I can use it because of my disabilities. But disabled or not, anyone with proper licence should be able to use this gun. It shoots only one bullet every time you pull the trigger.

    6. buffalo0ne

      Iven, step away from the keyboard you tool. If you read your history books our founding fathers had weapons capable of firing multiple rounds….they weren’t all muskets. It’s sad when the ignorant profess to be Constitutional Scholars. Read any of the walls of literature in the Congressional Library and you’ll soon discover you’ve been duped into believing the lies the Progressives and Main Stream Media have been feeding you. You simply regurgitate the”FACTS” that MSN, CNN, and Obama feed you. Man up dude and start forming intelligent ideas and quit repeating the lies that you hear. You have a brain for God’s sake use it

  11. William Diamond

    wow, some of you people are cruel towards people who are physically challenged. So much for moonbats being all affirming and kind towards everyone. You people make me sick. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

    There are plenty of people who have physical challenges that they can overcome with devices to assist them. As much as you may be scared of firearms, it’s a fact that the AR platform of a rifle is very adaptable and able to be modified to help someone who has a physical challenge effectively use a firearm.

    You gun grabbers have no concept of integrity, character or honor. You show this by attacking people who may have been injured protecting our freedoms and country which you clearly take for granted. From dancing on the graves of murdered children to mocking folks who are physically challenged you moonbats sink to whatever underhanded, uncouth and cruel tactic to further your morally bankrupt agenda. You’re words are just plain shameful. You are an embarrassment to yourselves, your families, your friends and your country.

  12. Angel Fernandez

    I cant believe people are saying this is crap etc etc. I am a Disable veteran from Gulf War 1 , OIF,OEF. Those cosmetic features has nothing to do with the rifle lethality. The collapsible stock or folding stock is ideal when you are in a wheel chair , also the foregrip not forward grip for you non gun educated is easy for disable people like myself due to the injuries I received that affected my grip. As for magazine as a instructor I have to retrain on how to pull the Magazine without the extenders which it was easier for my hands to grip. For you guys and ladies say use a pistol well guess what a rifle is a stable platform with low recoil, I have even seen students at the range that cant manage a pistol like a .38 or .45 recoil unless you are constantly training to build those shoulder and forearms muscles and finger too. so yes this law interferes with elderly disable and young disable and veterans too. So please not unless you have a disability don’t comment .

  13. Angel Fernandez

    Iven you attacking veterans with mental wellness that shows how much you care for us. Myself and my family paid a price for my disability for fighting for your freedom to speak and you have that right. But to ridicule and trying to shame the veterans will get you no where. You have the rights because of us “THE VETERANS”

    1. Brenda

      Precisely!! I stand with you, Angel… as a veteran myself and simply as a patriotic American who believes in the OATH we took.

  14. Concerned citizen

    What’s disturbing are the ignorant comments about disabled people and our natural born rights in this country. Our 2nd Amendment is here to protect US citizens from tyranny from our government and the right to defend ourselves. It is different times and those times call for a more modern musket aka the AR15. If you don’t like what our fore fathers wrote for this country and you want to abolish the 2nd maybe it’s time you move to a country more in line with your views

  15. A

    Jeanne, Iven and the rest of you need to do your homework before you spew your garbage. Whenever there is something you don’t know about you try and discount it and call it nonsense. Not only that, but you are heartless and mean to people who put their lives on the line for your freedoms and you piss on them. Shame on you, you are just as bad as the politicians parading these fallen children and their parents around to guilt the country into “doing something” I guess ignorance is bliss and that is how you sleep at night. your a disgrace

  16. Penholder

    I have not read all of the comments but shooting is a sport. A dear family member of mine (and a vet) is paralyzed from the waist down. The one sport that he can still do is shooting. The ability to tailor firearms to the disabled (amputees, loss of use etc) is completely and totally inhibited by this law. There is no reasonable accommodation provision.

  17. Norm Scott

    I love how the most strident opponents of gun rights have the least knowledge of guns, and particularly little experience handling them.

    Reminds me of how the most vocal opponents of civil rights lived in the most segregated enclaves.

  18. Ralph R

    Thank you veterans for your service…as for the gun grabbers, if the second amendment is ever lost, the first amendment will soon follow..This has happened countless times throughout history and its liberals that get killed and imprisoned first…keep up the good work

  19. Ralph R

    “History teaches that man ( or woman, for you pc types) learns nothing from history”….Hegel

  20. Mike M

    I’m a disabled vet and I can see how much love you anti gun people have for me who fought for our rights.You preach compassion for the families of Newtown but have no compassion for me who defended this county and want to defend my family with a weapon that was custom fit for my disabled condition.Hope you never become disabled.

    1. Joe

      I call bull (not about your disability, but that it is easier to handle an AR15 for self defense than a pistol).

      Nobody is picking on your disability. Just your fetish for a mean looking weapon. Why does it have to be an AR-15, or as the MANUFACTURER markets it, an “assault” rifle? I’m sure with a disability you can fire a .22 pistol easier than an AR-15 for the weight and size alone.

      1. buffalo0ne

        Joe, with all due respect STFU. You have no clue of what AR15 even is…time for school.
        The AR-15 is the Amalite Rifle, it is distingushed from the M-16 in the fact that it fires only ONE bullet when the trigger is pulled….like the old Barney Fife six-shooter….it is not an assault rifle. An assault rifle can be fired in a 3-shot burst as in the M-4 (Joe that’s an M-16 with an adjustable stock), that’s the back part of the rifle…no bullets come out of that end so most people feel they are pretty safe, no one has ever died from the adjustable stock…kinda like a bike seat for short people and tall people. And the SCARY way it looks…I agree….but then again I think Pelosi and Feinstein are pretty darn scary looking to. And Joe, have you ever even fired a handgun??doubful because you’re talking smack…my 8 year old nephew can put the AR on paper at 25 yards with iron sights, he can’t even HOLD a 9mm semi-auto pistol. So do the rest of us a favor and keep your lack of knowledge to yourself. (illiteracy strikes one in three, so don’t feel bad)

      2. Dan

        It’s not a lack of knowledge joe has but lack of a brain! Sounds like he is being brainwashed by the media like many others1!

  21. cyndi

    As a shooter with arthritis in my hands and wrists I can say it is much easier to control a low recoil rifle than most pistols.
    I’m telling myself Himmler is joking. Please tell me Himmler is joking

    1. Himmler

      Yes, Himmler was a put in charge of killing the jews and used gun registration to start.
      Sad but true.

      ex veteran of pannama and 1st gulf war.
      Oathkeeper

  22. Johanna Galt

    It is so disgusting how people have been disrespecting disabled people with their comments… what the hell is wrong with you people? Incredible that you anti-gun people are jublilant to further your agenda on the graves of children and now you mock and insult disabled people? Some of these people protected your damn rights while serving this country!! and you want to deny them their 2nd amendment rights? You are really a bunch of Nazis! I hope the courts give injunctive relief and soon!

  23. Johanna Galt

    It is so disgusting how people have been disrespecting disabled people with their comments… what the hell is wrong with you people? Incredible that you anti-gun people are jubilant to further your agenda on the graves of children and now you mock and insult disabled people? Some of these people protected your damn rights while serving this country!! and you want to deny them their 2nd amendment rights? You are really a bunch of Nazis! I hope the courts give injunctive relief and soon!

  24. iamjh

    On its face, this lawsuit seems more like probing a possible vulnerable point of attack than defense of the rights of a legally-protected class of individuals. If the legislature believes the AR-15 unduly threatens public safety, it is difficult to understand why disabled individuals would be allowed to utilize this threatening equipment. That’s not to say the ban itself is wise; personally I have not made up my mind about that. But claiming discrimination of the disabled from the legislation seems insincere. A fight is a fight, but this seems — seems — more manipulative than genuine.

    1. Mike M

      Iamjh how would my legally obtained and owned firearm custom fitted for my physically disability and used for home defense hurting the law abiding public. And the DAFR filed this suit for us Disabled Americans so we can retain our rights to bear arms that fit our physical needs.Want to talk about manipulation?.How about the NAA who is at the capital flown there with our tax money to guilt senators into voting away our second amendment rights.DAFR is funded by private donations and was set forward by us disabled Americans.

    2. Matt from CT

      It’s not insincere.

      The General Assembly has banned features that do not materially affect the lethality of the rifles when used by an attacker.

      There are a number of semi-automatic, detachable magazine rifles that can be purchased with either traditionally designed gunstocks that are completely legal, or with a modern ergonomic design that is outlawed.

      If you are shooting into a roomful of people, ergonomics don’t matter — you’ve planned for it, you don’t care who you hit or how.

      But for self-defense, when you must act quickly and as efficiently as possible, against a threat that has suddenly developed, they matter a lot.

      The two situations are asymmetrical, and the General Assembly didn’t thoughtfully think out a bill but instead passed ideologically based laws based on “we’re scared of guns and we don’t like them and we think these should be banned because they look really scary.”

      And that’s created a disparate impact that drastically infringes on the right to self-defense as well as the ability to enjoy shooting sports for all lawful gun owners, with out even achieving an improvement in public safety.

      If the GA was truly concerned about researching this issue and finding new solutions, they would not have passed these prescriptive laws that banned items like pistol grips or standard capacity magazines.

      What would have represented thoughtful, considered approach would have been to develop a performance standard for new guns to be sold in the future, perhaps even with a retrofitting clause that would require conversion of existing weapons over a period of time.

      For modern sporting rifles, a reasonable compromise may have been to continue to allow standard capacity 30 round magazines for .223, but require the mechanism to change the magazines take an average person 15 or 20 or 30 seconds to change, say be requiring a long screw be removed and reset when changing magazines — would still allow for a large burst of fire to defend oneself, it would slow down the reloading of an attacker significantly (even a 15 second with 30 round magazines would have a slower rate of fire then rifles that are completely legal today with 10 round magazines.)

      But when gun control is championed by folks who since the 70s have been dedicated to the elimination of civilian ownership of all firearms and ammunition, you get the bad laws we got lost week — not intended to balance interests in a thoughtful way, but instead to see how much they can legally get away with in banning.

      1. Brenda

        You do realize that you lost the ignorant after the first sentence. But it’s our intelligent responses to these people that scares them. They know we are more intelligent, logical and knowledgeable than they are and they are panicking, that’s why they toss out insults at the very people they will be begging for help when they find themselves up against a wall.

  25. Tanya

    There needs to be an occupational therapists opinion in this blog…
    an AR-15 provides so much versatility that it makes it the most appropriate choice for anyone with a physical impairment (think rotator cuff injury, arthritis, upper extremity contractures, limited movement from an old fracture, near sightedness, tremors). A flashlight or scope could be placed to allow for someone to see their attacker better (near and far respectively). A forward/pistol grip could provide different placements for someone to securely hold the firearm so they do not injure themselves. A bipod allows someone to use the firearm without being required to support the weight of it.
    All those interested should look up the Americans with Disabilities Act…it provides safeguards for individuals with impairments such as the person in this lawsuit. Everyone should be able to use a firearm to protect themselves, not just people who are capable of loading, holding, and shooting a shotgun (which has a great deal of kick and can really injure someone who has an impairment).

    Individuals with disabilities (“the sick”) and older individuals (“the aged”) are the ones most susceptible to attack by “bad people”. They are targeted because the attackers know they will have a better chance of getting away with it. Taking away their right to defend themselves is a death sentence, and anyone who supports it should be ashamed of themselves.

    -Tanya
    (Clinical Doctorate in Occupational Therapy)

  26. American Citizen

    I am a disabled American and I am disturbed by some of the comments I hear about what people think about us. Right now I do not need the added features and do not use an AR-15, but in the future as my condition deteriorates I know I will, but now this CT Law prevents me from doing this. This is outrageous, eventually I will not be able to defend myself, I will not be able to run and hide, and fight anyone off. The perfect victim for a criminal. As I call 911 I will wait there helpless for the police to arrive and according to the Supreme court they have no duty to act to protect me so I may be waiting a long time. One day those that say I cannot exercise my rights will one day wish they could. Maybe then you will look at a person disabled differently them.

  27. michael wurtzer

    This has to be the most disgusting and criminal law the CT legislature has ever rammed through.

    After 15 hours of public testimony on the second round of hearings SB1076 (the clone of what was passed) was struck down by a legislative committee after passionate testimony by Mr. Ennis, other disabled people, veterans, police(including an active SWAT leader), doctors, lawyers, men, women, every race and every age.

    To think that the legislative system is this corrupt in CT is horrifying.

    And yet there are still a few sheeple who love to be shorn. They love the feel of sheers on their necks. These must be the same idiots that feel “safe” when removing their shoes and getting molested at airports by “agents”.

    Pathetic excuses for Americans.

    1. walls

      To keep the stupid sheeple happy, you have to supply them with free food, housing, cell phones, etc. They’ll gladly trade their personal liberty and freedom for the ‘free stuff’.

    2. Joe

      I think it was the scared conservatives that shoved the DHS down our throats. Funny how you revolt when the shoe is on the other foot!

  28. S

    Don’t polling centers have to equipped with wheel chair ramps to accommodate disabled people ? Other wise it would effective prohibit them from exercising a constitutionally protected right.

  29. Ramrod

    What the h@ll am I supposed to do with the weapon I purchased for marksmanship training before deploing? I didn’t put it in the hands of a sincerely disabled kid, I only carry it in public once or twice a year, and now you are telling me I cannot sell it and buy wahtever my local constabulary uses to protect from the Adam Lanzas of the world from 5 miles away? Color me gone.

  30. slogin

    Gov. Malloy claimed he was a supporter of the 2nd. amendment and embraced it when he was running for governor. How truthful is he ?

  31. Patrick

    Outside of attacking Iraq on the advice of god to George Bush, this whole legislation, and conversation are about the dumbest dialogue and action in history. Will somebody please tell how all of this will turn criminals in to law abiding citizens? Maybe I just have some kind of mental block because I just can’t see how this law will have any affect whatsoever on nefarious or criminal behavior other than creating criminals out of those who were law abiding citizens last week. What possible affect could this have when neighboring states have no such rules, other than opening an entire new criminal enterprise transporting and selling inside Ct? I suspect this is a diversion to take focus away from the fact that Ct is in dire economic condition and for slippery Dan to endear himself to his peers to advance his larger agenda, which only uses the state of Ct as a stepping stone to further his own career.

    1. Joe

      some people won’t admit that all illegal guns were once legal. so a law abiding (at one time) citizen was the conduit for which the illegal gun became that way.

      As the NRA and gun owners cannot, or will not do anything to help keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn’t have them, they are being helped. Stomping their feet and threatening gets you nothing wingnuts.

      1. Jim

        Not sure what your point is about all guns being “legal”. If you were trying to articulate the fact that all guns were at one time legally owned, you are mistaken. What about the ones stolen before they are legally sold? What about the ones legally owned by the government that are given to Mexican drug lords? What about the ones that are brought into the country illegally? As for the NRA and gun owners, they are not government entities and cannot make or enforce laws unless you are advocating vigilante type behavior. The NRA does actively promote safe gun handling and storage, but once again, they cannot make gun owners who make improper storage choices do anything. The government can punish those like here in Connecticut by use of the owner liability law. I think the only one stomping their feet here and calling people names is you.

        1. Joe

          they were legal before they were stolen or smuggled. how obtuse can you be?

          most illegal guns were legally purchased or straw purchased (like the ones in Mexico).

  32. Pingback: Disabled Group in CT Serves First Lawsuit Against State Gun Ban | New York City Guns

  33. al

    Not so sure about having disabled people, who by the way are probably amped up on pain controlling and stress reducing meds, controlling a gun/rifle. I don’t even want them driving a car. I already heard about how medications might be a cause for these mass shootings.

    1. Dr. Aki Bola, Esq.

      Yeah, there have been so many mass murders by the disabled. You are definitely on to something, good job.

  34. John

    America is dying only because People wont wake up. The next time you go out for that steak dinner remember all the good men who gave their lives so that you could enjoy all the freedomes that you have. Many good women and children must live their lives without their father or husband whome they dearly loved men who stood for god against the evils of this world whom just as soon as see you dead or suffering. Satan knows no boundries and will attack you here at home just as well as the battle field what is wrong with you all you dont have to give your lives up for freedom but you can make a difference here at home and support the strong that will fight for their families as well as you the others who prefer not to have guns. if i were walking down the street and you hated me for believing in guns but your life was in jeporody i would not hesitate to protect you even if it ment dying.I guess my love for god and people makes me stupid and i should let you die.

      1. Jim

        Jesus owns a tricked out Stag Arms AR15. We talked about it last week when we were laughing about all of the uniformed anti-gun people who blog on these posts.

  35. Joe

    all you draft dodgers, keyboard commandos, and selfish non-veterans with a gun fetish speaking like you know what your talking about. the ar-15 (and M16) is a poor choice for just about everything except blowing off clips of rounds in sanitary environments quickly (if it doesn’t jam) because you’re a bad shot.

    1. Jim

      Joe, you clearly watch too much TV and believe the fiction that you are watching. First, a bit of firearm etiquette, a “clip” is not a magazine. Magazines are feeding devices that are used in firearms capable of repeating fire, whether they are self loading semi-automatic or manually operated repeating firearms. Clips were used in the M1 Garand and similar style rifles to load multiple rounds at once into the fixed, non-removable internal magazines of those firearms.

      The AR15 is the most flexible, adaptable rifle in the world. It is adjustable and customizable to suit the shooter’s requirements/needs. With the push of two pins it can transform from the standard 5.56 NATO round into a multitude of calibers (.22LR to .50 BMG)by switching out the upper receiver assembly. It is accurate, light, durable and is easily user maintained and repaired. It is currently the single most popular rifle in the United States.

  36. Dr. Aki Bola, Esq.

    People who know absolutely nothing about guns are sure these scary looking so called “assault rifles” are useless for home defense. Pity them, and remember, your rights can not be infringed. I think I read that somewhere LOL.

Comments are closed.