According to a ruling by U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello, Connecticut Gun Control legislation is constitutional in part for the following reason:
“While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control.”
Considering that the federal judge specifically acknowledges that the “act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights,” this ruling seems quite bizarre. Although many non-partisan studies are clear that gun control does not make law-abiding citizens safer, it seems that just the “governmental interest” in public safety, whether founded or not, trumps the Constitution.
The Hartford Courant gave a bit of background yesterday,
“A coalition of gun owners, gun sellers and sports shooting organizations sued in U.S. District Court to block enforcement of the law and overturn it on constitutional grounds. The plaintiffs argued that the state’s ban of 138 weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines is vague, discriminates among different categories of gun users and, most significantly, infringes on their Second Amendment right to gun ownership.”
By allowing the government’s concern over pubic safety to trump the Second Amendment to the Constitution, couldn’t other issues related to safety trump the Constitution, as well? How about domestic surveillance? The government claims that spying on her citizens without a warrant is done for the purposes of “public safety” (i.e., to thwart potential terror attacks), which must necessarily override the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that clearly requires a warrant.
Although this author is not an attorney, something seems to be off about this ruling. It would be interesting to get a lawyer’s perspective on Alfred Covello’s ruling.
