CT's new gun law faces court challenge

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I don't support the law....too encompassing and an invitation for other states to go even further

[Link]

I've gone hunting and target shooting before and none of those restrictions would have had any impact on my outings.  I am not a gun aficionado and I don't own any firearms myself.  It seems to me most things my friends do with fire arms would not be affected by that law.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Support (D/Normal)

[NVGonzalez]

I had a feeling this would happen if actual bans were passed.

EDIT: FTR I oppose the bans but support everything else. However I also support CT's right to implement laws.

[Vosem]

Oppose it, and am fairly confident it will be struck down by the courts.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I support states' rights.

[DemPGH]

Seems rather restrained to me - support, especially after Sandy Hook.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Seems rather restrained to me - support, especially after Sandy Hook.

Reactionary laws are reactionary.  I don't know how that's ever a good thing.

[Donerail]

Oppose it, and am fairly confident it will be struck down by the courts.

[Dave from Michigan]

Oppose. I support the background checks part though.

[DemPGH]

Seems rather restrained to me - support, especially after Sandy Hook.

Reactionary laws are reactionary.  I don't know how that's ever a good thing.

That's always a good point, but if this law were purely reactionary I think it would be far more restrictive than enhanced checks and bans on high capacity magazines - none of which we need a tragedy to instigate, IMO. That stuff should go without a tragedy to "trigger" it.

But the NRA and these extreme, radical, anti-social pro-gun crowds don't care, sadly.