Disabled Group Serves First Lawsuit Against Gun Control Law

[hack89]

The first lawsuit challenging the state’s new gun control law was served Thursday by a group that represents disabled citizens, charging that the ban on military-style rifles eliminates the main firearm that many disabled people use in exercising their gun rights.

“The AR-15, due to its ease of handling, low recoil, adjustable features and customizability, is particularly suited to disabled persons in order to engage in lawful use of firearms,” said the lawsuit by Disabled Americans for Firearms Rights.

The lawsuit names Gov. Dannel P. Malloy as the defendant, and was served at the office of Attorney General George Jepsen. Scott Ennis of New London, who heads the group, is a named plaintiff — he suffers from hemophilia and has joint damage that requires that he use an adaptable gun in order to safely shoot, he claims in the lawsuit

The lawsuit does not seek money and does not cite the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal measure. It claims a denial of civil rights, citing state statutes and the Connecticut constitution.

http://courantblogs.com/dan-haar/disabled-group-filing-first-lawsuit-against-gun-control-law/

[bowens43]

1. sorry disabled people but if you are not part of a well regulated militia you have no gun rights....

[hack89]

2. The Supreme Court would disagree with you on that one. nt

[CreekDog]

24. This is astroturfing, the "group" is one guy who incorporated on Wednesday, yes, really

and his co-defendant is his LLC.

don't get played. oops. too late for that.

[hack89]

25. I was addressing the miltia comment.

It the argument is legally sound then it makes no difference who makes it as far as the courts are concerned. A judge will decide who was played or not.

Judging by what is happening in Congress this week after months of absolute certainty on the part of gun controllers that everything has changed, I have to question your ability to predict the future.

[CreekDog]

26. Actually, without "standing" and just one guy and dubious claims of standing, he may not have it

and if you think that's not relevant, well maybe it shouldn't be, but in our legal system it is.

honestly, i think he's not interested in disabled rights at all. he made no effort to coordinate with groups, activists or lawyers that represent or have had success at winning victories for the disabled --it appears he's utterly uninterested in that.

so he'll probably lose, just out of sheer hubris and transparently trying to wear the mantle of a larger cause he couldn't care less about.

[hack89]

27. Of course he has standing

if he is disabled and if the future exercise of a civil liberty is restricted.

And corporations can, it certain circumstances, can sue for civil liberties. Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2004)

[Straw Man]

10. Stay classy ...

... while you're reinterpreting the Constitution to deny accommodations for the disabled.

Interestingly, Connecticut lawmakers have shared the process by which they decided what grip configuration would be banned:

Finally, after hours of discussion, they reached an agreement, redefining a prohibited pistol grip as any feature that would allow a person to hold and fire the weapon with one hand, “Rambo-style,” as one leader put it.

-- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/nyregion/even-in-shadow-of-massacre-connecticuts-gun-law-faced-uphill-fight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence of any spree killer firing his weapon in this manner, it does seem to be a pretty clear-cut violation of rights: "Sorry, disabled person, no rifle for you."

[CokeMachine]

11. What other rights would you take away from disabled people?

[CreekDog]

13. this group isn't for disabled people's rights, it's to protect a gun

[clffrdjk]

34. Protect a gun from what?

I thought you antis were not after our guns? Or is it to protect the gun from possible use by the disabled? Now that is a whole new spin on gun rights, what must I do to ensure that I don't do anything against my gun's wishes

[fredzachmane]

46. How exactly would there ever be a militia

if the citizens who would be the members of the militia have all been disarmed?

[sinkingfeeling]

3. What a golden opportunity for gun manufacturers to make something for

the disabled.

[hack89]

4. They do - they are called AR-15s. nt

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Wow, who knew that an AR-15 was designed just for the disabled? I

thought it was built as an assault rifle for the US Army by Armalite back in the 60's.

[hack89]

6. Any weapon designed for the disabled would have the same features of an AR-15

light, low recoil, adjustable, easy to modify.

Why reinvent the wheel when you will end up with an AR-15?

[Pullo]

39. A disabled friend of mine recently purchased an AR-15

He shoots from his wheelchair, and AR-15 provides the customizable features to incorporate the firearm with his gun mount system. With a couple adjustments of the stock length and positioning of a specialized forward grip, he's able to shoot very accurately. If fact, he's already better at the range with his AR than he is with his other rifles.

My buddy isn't even a huge gun guy, but the AR is definitely the rifle for him.

[Eleanors38]

7. You should see the rigs quadriplegic folks use when hunting

Sip & puff, joy sticks, electronic trigger activation -- all based on semi-auto platforms.

[Pullo]

40. Yep. The AR works great in shooting systems designed for people with high-level spinal injuries

My friend recently got an AR and it was a breeze to incorporate the rifle into his shooting system.

[Eleanors38]

47. Has to be better than the Rem 742 in .30 06 I saw for a rig...

The recoil has to play havoc on the gear!

[rdharma]

8. This will go....... exactly nowhere! Ridiculous! nt

[premium]

9. Are you 100% sure about that?

And why is it ridiculous?

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, you just never know what the courts will do until the ruling is handed down.

[CreekDog]

12. doesn't appear to be a major disabled advocacy group, but a brand new group

advocating more for a particular firearm, the AR-15, than actually for the disabled.

i would bet this group represents more manufacturers than disabled people.

it appears this "group" is just months old and has no sponsorship or relationship to major organizations that support the rights of the disabled. the group has no opinion on the recently defeated treaty to protect the rights of the disabled, though that was mere months ago.

it's a front group, not a disabled group.

and their facebook page isn't even 10 weeks old. yes, this "historic" advocacy group of apparently one person, dedicated to protecting the rights of a gun.

https://www.facebook.com/DisabledAmericansForFirearmsRights

[gejohnston]

14. and?

The ACLU was less than ten weeks old at one time. Since this ban is new, it seems reasonable a new group would spring up to address that issue.
BTW, who said it was "historic?" As the name implies, its focus is quite narrow.

[CreekDog]

15. don't lecture me since you've never posted on the disabled as a topic until a gun issue came up

so please spare us and stop using the disabled as poster children for your own narrow political goals.

oh and...right and how much credibility did you give the ACLU when it was 10 days old?

in fact, until the ACLU took a stand on a gun related issue last week, you didn't really give them any credibility at all, even though by now they have a long track record, a recognized place among groups advocating for constitutional rights.

but somehow i'm supposed to think a brand new "group" (of one) is as great as the ACLU because they were both brand new groups at one time.

[gejohnston]

16. who is lecturing?

The ACLU is 40 years older than me, so I didn't have an opinion either way in 1920.

don't lecture me since you've never posted on the disabled as a topic until a gun issue came up

you know this how?

in fact, until the ACLU took a stand on a gun related issue last week, you didn't really give them any credibility at all, even though by now they have a long track record, a recognized place among groups advocating for constitutional rights.

that is not remotely true.

Where do you get off lecturing me on what you think my opinions are?

[beevul]

17. WOW.

"stop using the disabled as poster children for your own narrow political goals."

I imagine the irony of that statement completely escapes you.

[CreekDog]

18. if you can explain where I have done that I'd be happy to apologize

but I've long been an advocate for civil rights for all and never used a minority or disadvantaged group to push my own interest.

[beevul]

28. Are...

Are dead children not "disadvantaged", or a minority?

Nobody on your side of the issue has any room to criticize those of us who are pro-gun for supporting a liberty we believe in, let alone using the words "poster children", doing it.

[CreekDog]

35. I always advocated for children, am I supposed to stop because of Newtown?

am I supposed to pause my advocacy for children's healthcare, welfare (as in making sure they don't live in poverty), education and safety because it might be seen as exploitative of the Newtown tragedy?

here we have a guy suing over a gun law and he's never taken an active interest in the disabled and in this case is only doing so because a gun is involved. that's why the term poster children for his cause is appropriate --because the disabled are secondary to what he really cares about --his AR-15's.

there are no poster children for my causes, because children are the primary concern and i won't stop advocating for them, and for the disabled, even if it's in the aftermath of Newtown, or Aurora, etc.

[beevul]

36. Oh, I'm sure.

This is what you said to gejohnson:

"stop using the disabled as poster children for your own narrow political goals."


"here we have a guy suing over a gun law and he's never taken an active interest in the disabled and in this case is only doing so because a gun is involved. that's why the term poster children for his cause is appropriate --because the disabled are secondary to what he really cares about --his AR-15's."

Aww, isn't that cute. A misdirection. A failed one at that.

You accused Gejohnson of using disabled as poster children. Nothing short of it. What the guy who is suing is doing is beside the point. It was that poster, that you told to "stop using the disabled as poster children for your own narrow political goals", not the guy who was suing. Thus, logically, this is a misdirection.

But you knew that.

The point:

You really have no leg to stand on, where telling others not to use "poster children" for their own cause is concerned, if you are not willing to do so yourself.

But then, I think you knew that too.

[mwrguy]

19. Using a disabled person to push their agenda.

Stay classy, gun nuts.

[hack89]

20. You just exploded my irony meter. nt

[CreekDog]

37. the people advocating for gun control always advocated for children

the people like this guy, never did a thing for the disabled and couldn't even be bothered to even make this issue about the disabled, but instead about protecting the status of a gun, not the disabled.

that's the difference.

your irony meter has never worked since you've shown that you care more about the rights of guns than the rights of children. you're stuck with your posting history...you don't care about other issues that much.

[hack89]

38. Because we oppose ineffective feel good laws

does not mean we don't care about children. We do oppose using children to advance ineffective feel good agendas.

[CreekDog]

41. what care about children, when have you posted in favor of them?

when have you posted in favor of rights for the disabled which didn't involve a gun?

these issues are figleafs for the only issue that truly motivates you. just own it. admit it.

[hack89]

42. Why do I have to post about children to prove I care about them?

I have two kids of my own. I love them as much as any parent possible can.

Can you show where I have ever posted anything that shows I don't care about the welfare of children?

Why do I have to post about the rights of disabled to show that I support them? Can you show where I have ever posted in opposition to the rights of disable people?

Time to put up. If you are going to smear me, you need to provide some evidence.

[CreekDog]

43. nice try, advocating for children in general is not the same as loving your own children

judging by your posts, you advocate for guns not for children.

[hack89]

44. So you can show where I have actually posted in opposition to children?

or is this just another "smear gun owners because I have nothing else to say"?

You need the support of gun owners to pass the laws you want. You are not helping your cause.

[beevul]

45. Such a disconnect.

Every time one of us posts in favor of protecting the second amendment, and the rights it protects, we are advocating to protect the rights of children.

You may not agree with those rights, but that's what we're doing just the same.

Every time we oppose a ban on guns, that would forbid one of our children from inheriting or having a gun passed down to them when they come of age, we're protecting the rights of children.

You may not agree with those rights, but that's what we're doing just the same.

When we advocate in favor of protection of the second amendment, we advocate in favor of the rights of all people, present, and future (children).

You may not agree with those rights, but that's exactly what it is.

Now, I can only imagine, that you might be inclined to assert that such advocations on our part, are advocations of dead children, and massacres. Some on the anti-gun side have been doing just that. Surely you can not have missed them, or it. We don't advocate a situation where someone can get into a place with any weapon, and have ten minutes with which to use it as they please against people, adults or children. We don't advocate that. So that would certainly undercut any such assertions that we advocate dead children or massacres, should they be made.

[Robb]

21. A) Transparent astroturf. But more importantly, B) the defendant has shown no actual harm.

His "group" is a Limited Liability Corporation, which has no civil rights to be denied by the state of Connecticut; and he himself is not required to surrender his firearms under any of the legislation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. re: "the defendant has shown no actual harm."

What exactly are you trying to say here?

[hack89]

23. Corporations can sue for civil rights in certain circumstances

Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2004)

But secondly, if he is barred from exercising his civil right in the future (ie buy a another gun) then he can definitely show harm.

[Robb]

30. Interesting.

He'd have to show that future harm to be "imminent" to prove standing, which could make for an interesting motion -- besides having to show that the sort of rifle he's not permitted to purchase is the only kind which allows him to exercise his 2nd Amendment right.

[hack89]

33. Time will tell. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. re: "the defendant has shown no actual harm."

What exactly are you trying to say here?

Cat got your tongue?

[Robb]

31. Have you been drinking?

I don't understand what's unclear about my post.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Yes I have. I had coffee an hour ago...

...It was 8 o'clock coffee but I figured 7:30 was close enough. Thanks for asking.
I also had a sip of cranberry ginger ale a few minutes ago.

Possibly another question will help here. Who is the defendant you're referencing?