Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to CT’s Ban on Popular Semi-Auto Firearms

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Connecticut's Ban on Popular Semi-Automatic Firearms
Connecticut Citizens Defense League
Connecticut Citizens Defense League

Groton, CT -( The United States Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a lower court’s ruling refusing to strike down on Second Amendment grounds Connecticut’s ban on certain semi-automatic firearms including the most popular rifles in the Nation.

The Connecticut Citizens’ Defense League (CCDL) and other plaintiffs challenged Connecticut’s ban in 2013, arguing that the ban openly flouts the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that law-abiding citizens have an individual right to keep commonly-owned firearms in their homes for self-defense.

According to Scott Wilson, President of the CCDL, the banned firearms are very rarely used by criminals, and the only things that distinguish them from non-banned firearms are external features such as thumbhole stocks and pistol grips that promote safe and accurate use. While criminals typically do not use the banned firearms, law-abiding citizens do.

Mr. Wilson stated that, “the firearms the State has chosen to ban are very frequently used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as home-defense, hunting, and target shooting. In fact, one of the banned firearms, the AR-15, is the best-selling rifle in the United States.”

The federal courts have split over the correct way to analyze Second Amendment challenges after Heller, with most courts applying a fairly weak form of review ordinarily reserved for less-important rights. The Plaintiffs, Mr. Wilson said, had hoped the High Court would step in and reaffirm that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class” right. The lower court’s decision in this case was particularly indefensible, as the unconstitutionality of Connecticut’s ban follows directly from the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heller. Mr. Wilson suggested that the Court’s decision to decline review may have been influenced by the recent, unfortunate death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the author if the Heller decision.

“We fully intend to renew our challenge to Connecticut’s blatantly unconstitutional ban as soon as there are five Justices sitting on the Supreme Court committed to the proper understanding of the Second Amendment.”

About the CCDL:

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League was formed in 2009 by a small group of concerned citizens as a non-partisan organization to advocate second amendment rights in the state of Connecticut. Since their founding, the group has grown to over 22,000 members from across the state. Thanks to this large supportive base, the CCDL has become a fixture at the state capitol, and well-recognized by committees that see firearms related bills. As the go-to organization in the state they are consulted regularly by lawmakers who have questions and concerns about pending legislation or existing laws.

For more information on the CCDL please visit

  • 6 thoughts on “Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to CT’s Ban on Popular Semi-Auto Firearms

    1. A refusal to hear is a way that allows the ban to stay in place. It is a ruling that probably has Hillary jumping for joy. I wish that Judge Napolitano was on the bench. When Trump is sworn in, we will see a marked change in the structure of the court.

    2. Time to press our congressmen/women to impeach the Justices that declined to hear this case, a case that deals directly with a State’s usurpation of a “secured right”. Yes, Federal Judges and Justices enjoy a “life” appointment to the bench, but they are not beyond being removed from their respective benches. It seems that today’s Justices seek to impose their personal ideologies and the ideologies of those who nominated and confirmed them on “We The People”. This may include regulation that might be in conflict with the people’s Constitution’s guarantees. This is “bad behavior” on their part. Luckily the Constitution provides us with “remedy and recourse” for just this situation. Article III, Sec. 1, states that: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,…” This obviously suggests the option of their removal from the bench for “bad behavior”. In my book, “bad behavior” would include rulings that contradict the Founder’s intent. Intent that they’ve sworn to preserve. This puts them in violation of their oaths of office and in danger of impeachment proceedings. Our only problem is that Congress would have to try and convict them to remove them from office which is unlikely. This leaves “The People” with only two options to effect such change: 1) Replace everyone in congress with true constitutionalists, or 2) A revolution (armed insurrection) to restore this republic to constitutional rule.

    Leave a Comment 6 Comments