That's a shame. How a thinking person can expect that when only law abiding people will comply with these laws, any sort of balance between safety and the 2A right can be struck is ludicrous.
That a federal judge sees no problem with infringing on the 2nd Amendment so long as the people still have access to SOME firearms in their homes saddens me no end.
If this mis-educated judge had comparable training as an electrician, he would have electrocuted himself years ago.
"While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."
This is scary. "While this trumps your constitutional right, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!"
I find it interesting handguns are now apparently enshrined as the "Constitutionally untouchable" firearm by the SCOTUS, when their abolition had been the entire focus of the gun-control movement from the 80s backward, especially in the wake of the RFK assassination, GCA68, etc.
But then again...back in those days, antidepressants weren't being prescribed to children as young as 6, either. Isn't it amazing how one, little pharmaceutical development helps completely change the complexion of society, and the outlines of the gun control debate along with it? We start giving a pill to kids we can't control...and a whole new class of firearm erupts as "Public Enemy #1."
Actually I think it's called "passing the buck". Any decission he handed down was going to be appealed but by not hearing oral arguments he just about guaranteed it will get a court date on a higher level. Of course it would have been nice of he would have ruled the CT ban unconstitutional but a Federal Judge is still a politician first and jurist second, (or third or fourth......).