Disabled Americans for Firearms Rights, LLC et al v. Dannel P. Malloy, Governor

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief

more+
less-

Scott Ennis of New London, CT and his group Disabled Americans for Firearms Rights, have filed the first legal challenge against CT's newly enacted gun law. This action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief asks the court to invalidate the law on the grounds that it violates various provisions of state constitutional and statutory law. In particular, the suit claims that the ban on certain "assault weapons" and certain cosmetic features on semiautomatic rifles, such as pistol grips, and forward vertical grips, and adjustable stocks, deprives disabled citizens of the ability to use firearms for all lawful purposes including recreational and competitive shooting, hunting, and self-defense. The plaintiff Scott Ennis suffers severe joint damage on account of hemophilia, and requires features such as a pistol and forward grips and a collapsible stock, in order to safely use and control a rifle. Outlawing these features deprives him and others of the means they need to exercise a fundamental right.

While the plaintiffs share in the goal of making society safer from mass shootings and keeping guns out of the hands of the violently insane, we believe Connecticut's new law places too little emphasis on school safety and mental health improvements, while placing far too many burdens of law-abiding gun owners, particularly disabled persons, with no real prospect for keeping guns away from criminals and those who are a threat to themselves and others. 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 in order to effectively participate in these lawful activities. 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 arbitrary limits imposed by the new law are unfair and alleged to be unconstitutional.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Civil Remedies Updates, Civil Rights Updates, Constitutional Law Updates, Elections & Politics Updates

Reference Info:Pleadings | State, 2nd Circuit, Connecticut | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Scott Camassar, The Law Firm of Stephen M. Reck | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

CONNECT

Scott Camassar
The Law Firm of Stephen M. Reck

The trial attorneys at The Law Firm of Stephen M. Reck, LLC represent individuals in all types of... View Profile »


Follow The Law Firm of Stephen M. Reck:

Reporters on Deadline