Gun Control & RKBA

hack89

(39,171 posts) Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:13 AM Apr 2013

Disabled Group Serves First Lawsuit Against Gun Control Law [View all]

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/

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Disabled Group Serves First Lawsuit Against Gun Control Law [View all] hack89 Apr 2013 OP

sorry disabled people but if you are not part of a well regulated militia you have no gun rights.... bowens43 Apr 2013 #1

The Supreme Court would disagree with you on that one. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #2

This is astroturfing, the "group" is one guy who incorporated on Wednesday, yes, really CreekDog Apr 2013 #24

I was addressing the miltia comment. hack89 Apr 2013 #25

Actually, without "standing" and just one guy and dubious claims of standing, he may not have it CreekDog Apr 2013 #26

Of course he has standing hack89 Apr 2013 #27

Stay classy ... Straw Man Apr 2013 #10

What other rights would you take away from disabled people? CokeMachine Apr 2013 #11

this group isn't for disabled people's rights, it's to protect a gun CreekDog Apr 2013 #13

Protect a gun from what? clffrdjk Apr 2013 #34

How exactly would there ever be a militia fredzachmane Apr 2013 #46

What a golden opportunity for gun manufacturers to make something for sinkingfeeling Apr 2013 #3

They do - they are called AR-15s. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #4

Wow, who knew that an AR-15 was designed just for the disabled? I sinkingfeeling Apr 2013 #5

Any weapon designed for the disabled would have the same features of an AR-15 hack89 Apr 2013 #6

A disabled friend of mine recently purchased an AR-15 Pullo Apr 2013 #39

You should see the rigs quadriplegic folks use when hunting Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #7

Yep. The AR works great in shooting systems designed for people with high-level spinal injuries Pullo Apr 2013 #40

Has to be better than the Rem 742 in .30 06 I saw for a rig... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #47

This will go....... exactly nowhere! Ridiculous! nt rdharma Apr 2013 #8

Are you 100% sure about that? premium Apr 2013 #9

doesn't appear to be a major disabled advocacy group, but a brand new group CreekDog Apr 2013 #12

and? gejohnston Apr 2013 #14

don't lecture me since you've never posted on the disabled as a topic until a gun issue came up CreekDog Apr 2013 #15

who is lecturing? gejohnston Apr 2013 #16

WOW. beevul Apr 2013 #17

if you can explain where I have done that I'd be happy to apologize CreekDog Apr 2013 #18

Are... beevul Apr 2013 #28

I always advocated for children, am I supposed to stop because of Newtown? CreekDog Apr 2013 #35

Oh, I'm sure. beevul Apr 2013 #36

Using a disabled person to push their agenda. mwrguy Apr 2013 #19

You just exploded my irony meter. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #20

the people advocating for gun control always advocated for children CreekDog Apr 2013 #37

Because we oppose ineffective feel good laws hack89 Apr 2013 #38

what care about children, when have you posted in favor of them? CreekDog Apr 2013 #41

Why do I have to post about children to prove I care about them? hack89 Apr 2013 #42

nice try, advocating for children in general is not the same as loving your own children CreekDog Apr 2013 #43

So you can show where I have actually posted in opposition to children? hack89 Apr 2013 #44

Such a disconnect. beevul Apr 2013 #45

A) Transparent astroturf. But more importantly, B) the defendant has shown no actual harm. Robb Apr 2013 #21

re: "the defendant has shown no actual harm." discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2013 #22

Corporations can sue for civil rights in certain circumstances hack89 Apr 2013 #23

Interesting. Robb Apr 2013 #30

Time will tell. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #33

re: "the defendant has shown no actual harm." discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2013 #29

Have you been drinking? Robb Apr 2013 #31

Yes I have. I had coffee an hour ago... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2013 #32