Federal Court Rules Governor’s Executive Order Violates 2nd Amendment

Federal Court Rules Governor's Executive Order Violates 2nd Amendment
Federal Court Rules Governor's Executive Order Violates 2nd Amendment, iStock-884198420

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- The Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) announced today that the U.S. District Court has issued a preliminary injunction against Governor Ned Lamont and DESPP Commissioner James Rovella, finding that they are violating the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Federal District Court Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer issued the order Monday that within one week Governor Lamont must modifying the portions of his March 17, 2020 Executive Order 7E that suspended the law requiring state and local law enforcement accept applications – including taking the requisite fingerprints – from Connecticut residents seeking new firearm permits. As a result of Executive Order 7E, law enforcement throughout the state refused to accept new firearms permit applications, thereby unconstitutionally suspending the process to obtain a permit to purchase and possess firearms for self-defense.

After the Governor ignored CCDL’s April 7, 2020 letter seeking reinstatement of the application process, CCDL had no choice but to file its May 9, 2020 action to obtain relief for its members from the federal court.

In his 26 page decision, Judge Meyer ruled that Executive Order 7E, and law enforcement’s implementation of it, “plainly burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment.” Further, that “they categorically foreclose a person who does not already have a permit or certification from acquiring a handgun if the person’s fingerprints are not already on file. One cannot exercise the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense if one is prevented from acquiring a handgun in the first place.”

The state argued Lamont and Rovella did not violate the Plaintiffs’ 2nd Amendment rights because the “temporary” suspension was necessitated by the current pandemic, and the federal court should not intervene. Judge Meyer dispelled that argument, writing, “If the Governor and the Commissioner were to issue a gag order barring plaintiffs from exercising their First Amendment free speech rights for the balance of the COVID-19 crisis, plaintiffs would surely suffer injury despite the ‘temporary’ nature of the crisis.”

Judge Meyer imposed a preliminary injunction against the Governor and Commissioner Rovella, ordering by June 15, 2020 that the Governor modify Executive Order 7E restoring the fingerprinting and firearm permit application process, and that Commissioner Rovella resume fingerprinting “for applicants seeking permits to acquire, carry, or possess firearms that are subject to protection under the Second Amendment.”

Attorney Craig Fishbein and Attorney Doug Dubitsky are representing CCDL in this federal civil rights action. The court’s full decision can be found here.


About Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Inc.Connecticut Citizens Defense League

Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Inc. is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization of more than 36,000 members, committed to protecting the unalienable constitutional right of all citizens to keep and bear arms through legislative and grassroots advocacy, education, research, publishing, legal action and programs.

Subscribe
Notify of
15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
1 month ago

The RIGHT, the mandate, to keep and bear arms originally came from Scripture. Luke 22:36, Psalm 82:4, Nehemiah 4:17, Luke 11:21 ALL speak to being armed and Luke 22:36 COMMANDS us to be armed. The 2A is a reflection of these facts. Beyond all of this it’s just natural that a man defend his loved ones, friends, neighbors, co workers, the innocent man on the street and himself, this is natural law. Anyone, ANYONE, who would disarm you is either very misinformed, criminal or evil and maybe all the above. Our nation uses Scripture as and for the basis of… Read more »

Arizona Don
Arizona Don
1 month ago

The second amendment is, without a doubt, the most infringed upon of any of the amendments in spite of the fact it actually says shall not be infringed within the amendment itself. Unlike nearly all other countries in the world the United States Constitution pertains to and protects individual rights not collective rights or responsibilities. Most other countries see their responsibility to the collective. That is exactly why our constitution is seen as restrictive to government itself. Governments are inherently corrupt we have seen that even in our life times. That is why President Ronald Reagan said we are at… Read more »

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago

Would have been far simpler, and safer if goal is to enable social distancing, to simply have done away with permit requirements. “Keeping and bearing” is after all a constitutionally protected right – thus permit requirement is itself an infringement.

Bob
Bob
1 month ago

The judge must surely have felt insulted by the inanity and vacuousness of the Governor’s defense for the order: the “temporary” suspension was necessitated by the current pandemic. The Governor exposed himself as a little tyrant.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 month ago
Reply to  Bob

, and the judge was exposed himself for the impotent fixture that he is.

BobD
BobD
1 month ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Gee, Billy; being a little hard on him aren’t you?

Bill
Bill
1 month ago

Wonderful! Let the courts speak up!!

SgtJUSMC
SgtJUSMC
1 month ago
Reply to  Bill

You can’t simultaneously support incorporation and the original Constitution. They are hopelessly at odds. If you’re going to support the enforcement of the federal Bill of Rights on state and local governments, you need to understand where this purported power comes from and its implications on the American constitutional system. No founding-era evidence exists that Congress or the state ratifiers intended for the protections included in the Bill of Rights to bind state governments. None. Doing so would have essentially created a federal veto over state laws. As already said, this idea was rejected during the framing of the Constitution.… Read more »

Jonesy
Jonesy
1 month ago
Reply to  SgtJUSMC

It appears that this is strictly an “opinion piece”.

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago
Reply to  SgtJUSMC

@Sgt – Bill of rights explicitly limits governmental powers over individuals. Regardless of intent with regards to limits on state powers, as written the BOR protects rights of the individual from ALL governments. There is a saying about reading all the fine print before signing a contract – if they didn’t mean to limit state powers over individuals they should not have signed the document. I would content they did in fact wish to protect individuals from the collective power of any and all forms of government. There is also a pesky think about laws sticking with long standing interpretations.… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

@Finnky, Prior to the 14th Amendment, the BOR only guaranteed our Rights against the federal government’s powers and authorities. The 14th Amendment extended the BOR guarantee of our Rights to the various state governments’ powers and authorities.

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

@WB – As they were interpreted by the courts, yes. However as I read them – they limit all state (in sense of government) powers over individuals. Of course I recognize that I’m reading through lens of my preconceived opinions – my rather liberal (in classic sense of individual liberty) viewpoint. Note: liberal =/= Liberal/progressive/communist insurgent. As a liberal I lean hard to individual liberty/rights and extremely limited government, equality of opportunity (including opportunity to provide better opportunities for one’s offspring). “Liberals” support all encompassing, intrusive government power – enforcing equality of outcome without regard for individual responsibility to pursue… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 month ago
Reply to  SgtJUSMC

It would do no good to have God given, pre political Rights enshrined in the BOR, and then give the various states the power to take those Rights away. Thus the Constitution was amended, properly, to make sure that the various states did not negate our Rights.

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

@WB – Beautifully concise and clear statement of reality.

Tionico
Tionico
1 month ago
Reply to  SgtJUSMC

so then if what YOU say is correct, then we none of us actually possess nor can we freely exercise our rights as named and protected in the US Constitutin, despite the clear fact that every one of the states now joined to the union ratified that Constitution, incuding the Bill of Rights? So I can be in one state, and some copper can decide my car is the wrong colour, pull me ove,r search it, take whatever he wants, then leave me at the side of the road no money no phone, heck take my car as well? THIS… Read more »