By MES Dispatch Staff
The Briefing
- The U.S. Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will hear a constitutional challenge to Connecticut’s semiautomatic weapons ban, enacted following the 2012 Sandy Hook school shootings that killed 20 first-graders and six educators.
- Plaintiffs include two former state corrections officers, a firearms instructor, and two gun advocacy organizations challenging the state’s near-total ban on sales of most semiautomatic and automatic weapons.
- The Supreme Court will also hear a similar challenge to a comparable Chicago firearm restriction, with oral arguments expected in the fall.
- A lower court and federal appeals court previously blocked the challenge before the case reached the Supreme Court; the conservative majority composition suggests the semiautomatic weapons ban faces significant risk of being overturned.
- Connecticut’s Attorney General and Democratic state legislative leaders vowed to defend the law, while the Second Amendment Foundation praised the Supreme Court’s decision as a step toward greater firearm freedoms.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will hear a constitutional challenge to Connecticut’s semiautomatic weapons ban, a restriction enacted in the aftermath of the December 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown that resulted in 20 student deaths and six educator fatalities.
The lawsuit was filed by two former Connecticut state corrections officers, a firearms instructor, and two gun advocacy organizations. The plaintiffs argue that Connecticut’s near-total prohibition on the sale of most semiautomatic and automatic weapons violates Second Amendment protections.
A lower court had previously rejected the challenge, and a federal appeals court upheld that decision. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari Tuesday, accepting the case for review and oral argument.
The Supreme Court will hear the Connecticut challenge alongside a separate case challenging a similar semiautomatic weapons restriction in Chicago. Oral arguments are expected to be scheduled for the fall term.
Connecticut’s semiautomatic weapons ban, enacted in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, represents some of the nation’s most stringent firearm regulations. The law restricts ownership and sale of weapons classified as semiautomatic rifles and shotguns based on specific features and operating characteristics.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong issued a statement defending the law and criticizing the legal challenge. Tong stated the assault weapons ban is constitutional, effective at preventing mass casualties, and broadly supported by Connecticut residents. He characterized the lawsuit as part of a coordinated national campaign by gun rights advocates to overturn firearm restrictions through litigation.
Democratic state senate leaders, including President Pro Tempore Martin Looney and Majority Leader Bob Duff, expressed confidence the law would ultimately survive judicial review. Both leaders referenced lower court rulings upholding the constitutionality of the semiautomatic weapons restriction.
Republican leaders in Connecticut, including state representatives Doug Dubitsky and Craig Fishbein—two of the three attorneys prosecuting the lawsuit—declined to issue immediate statements regarding the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Second Amendment Foundation, a national gun rights advocacy organization supporting the lawsuit, praised the court’s acceptance of the case. Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb stated the foundation is hopeful the court will affirm that semiautomatic rifles receive constitutional protection under the Second Amendment and are not categorically excludable from protection based on appearance or cosmetic features.
A federal appeals court that previously rejected the challenge concluded that Second Amendment protections are not unlimited. The court ruled that Connecticut’s law imposed reasonable restrictions on weapons deemed unusually dangerous and uniquely designed to cause mass casualties.
The plaintiffs’ legal team responded at the time by arguing the appeals court decision ignored Supreme Court precedent and elevated ideology over constitutional rights.