Connecticut’s ban on the sale of Glocks and other striker-fired pistols was supposed to be officially in effect today, but a federal judge granted a reprieve just hours before the new law was set to be enforced.
Judge Kari A. Dooley granted the request for a preliminary injunction from Glock and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which have both filed suit over the Connecticut law. In her 12-page ruling, Dooley declared that the state is unlikely to successfully defend the prohibition, and laid out her reasons why.
Dooley says the text of the Second Amendment is implicated by the sales ban, which means it’s up to Connecticut to justify the law as part of the national tradition of gun ownership and regulation.
In that vein, Defendants rely on two types of regulations which, in combination they argue, supports the assertion that the statute does not run afoul of the Second Amendment. The first is so-called proving laws and the second is the historical tradition of restricting the sale of fully automatic guns such as machine guns. Defendants argue that proving laws — regulations designed to ensure that products were safe for consumer use — coupled with the historic tradition of banning machine guns, combine to reasonably support the conclusion that HB 5043 is consistent with and “relevantly similar” to these historical analogues.
Dooley says the state’s argument isn’t completely meritless, but still suffers from some flaws. Those proving laws, as she notes, were meant to ensure that firearms entering the stream of commerce were safe at the point of sale. No one disputes that Glocks are safe in that regard. The issue that Connecticut (and other blue states) have is that Glocks can be illegally modified after purchase to fire full auto.
As for the comparison to laws regulating machine guns, the plaintiffs argue that machine gun conversion devices are already illegal, which should suffice. When the Supreme Court declared that sawed-off shotguns could be restricted under the National Firearms Act, they didn’t endorse bans on all shotguns. Instead, it was the illegal modification that was, and remained, the issue.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong can (and almost certainly will) appeal Dooley’s decision to the Second Circuit, and given the broad leeway the appellate court has previously given anti-gun efforts he might very well prevail, at least in the short term. The more appropriate response from the Second Circuit would be to keep the injunction in place at least until the Supreme Court’s decision in Viramontes and Grant is released, but I’ve kind of given up hope of the Second Circuit doing the right thing when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms.
For now, though, sales of Glocks can continue, which should lead to steady business for FFLs like Tobacco Valley Gun owner Krys DiBella, who told Fox 61 that in 18 years of business he’s never gone a day without selling a Glock. That streak can continue, at least if DiBella has any left in stock. Gun shops were extremely busy over the last few days, and some stores may need to restock their inventory.
The good news is they can, and Connecticut residents who want to purchase one of the most popular handguns in the country can continue to do so. Dooley’s decision doesn’t settle the state’s attempt to ban commonly owned arms, but it’s a big step towards the law’s ultimate defeat.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
