A federal judge on Thursday rejected a gun rights group's challenge to an assault weapons ban the state of Connecticut adopted after a gunman in 2012 killed 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

FTA:

But U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton in New Haven in a 74-page ruling rejected those claims, saying the group failed to establish that assault weapons and large capacity magazines are commonly bought and used for self-defense.

Arterton, an appointee of former Democratic President Bill Clinton, cited “persuasive” evidence by the state that assault weapons are instead more often sought out for their militaristic characteristics and are often used in crimes and mass shootings.

This is an interesting interpretation on the Second Amendment that will probably end up being brought before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, with the current roster of Supremes I expect it to fail.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    32·
    11 months ago

    No responsible owner of a firearm is using a high-caliber, high-capacity rifle for self defense unless they live alone and have no neighbors.

    Overpenetration is a problem even for handgun calibers, which is why there are specific defensive rounds made for them. It’s fine that you LARP around with your little AR in the basement or whatever, but the idea that these weapons are bought primarily for home defense is either erroneous on your part of very misguided on the part of the people that think this it will make a good firearm for home defense.

    Your typical 5.56 on a miss (and with 30 shots, you’re going to miss) will penetrate an interior wall, two exterior walls, and another interior wall if it doesn’t find a stud. That means you can shoot at “the intruder,” miss, and the round can go through your bedroom wall, out your exterior wall, through your neighbors exterior wall, through their living room wall, and kill them in their bed. And that’s assuming it didn’t just have to go out your exterior wall and through their exterior wall to kill someone sitting on the couch.

    These are not responsible home defense weapons unless you live alone in the middle of the woods and are surrounded by a zombie hoard.

    As to the merits of the case, I don’t know. But if you know enough about firearms for this suit to bother you, you know well enough that the cons of 30 rounds of high-caliber rounds far outweigh the possible pros when it comes to home defense.

    Be angry about it if you want, but don’t be obtuse.

    • bcoffy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      11 months ago

      Any caliber reasonable for self defense will overpenetrate through all walls of your home at lethal velocities. .380, 9mm, .45, 5.56, 12 ga buckshot, if you miss your target it will overpenetrate. Drywall has about as much bullet resistance as paper. The only way to prevent any over penetration firing hollow point ammunition at your target and not missing.

    • borkcorkedforks@kbin.social
      2·
      11 months ago

      5.56, typical rounds for ARs, aren’t high caliber. In many states it’s illegal to hunt deer with that caliber because it’s under powered. Who told you it’s high powered?

      People absolutely use “high capacity” mags when these laws say more than 10 is too high. Take something like a Glock handgun typical capacity there is 15 to 17. For a modern rifle capacities of 20 to 40 is extremely common. For ARs the standard capacity is 30. Certainly any rifle anyone would consider for self defense is going to have mags larger than 10.

      Overpenetration is a concern for any round a person would use for self defense. That includes 9mm and buckshot. Using 5.56 or 300 blk isn’t actually that much more dangerous when just about anything is going through a bunch of wall if someone misses. And 5.56 might actually stop sooner than a slower moving handgun round because ballistics do weird things.

    • quindraco@lemmy.world
      2·
      11 months ago
      1. Absolutely everyone with an interest in a self-defense firearm would prefer a “high capacity” one. The only guns that aren’t high capacity are single-shot and revolvers, both useless for self-defense in general.
      2. High caliber is not relevant here; we are discussing all weapons Connecticut has defined as “assault”, including low-caliber ones, not specifically e.g. .50s. For example, some AR platform rifles fire 22 caliber rounds, very famously a low caliber by anyone’s definition. 2A) If it were relevant, you would be wrong, as low-caliber weapons are completely useless against bears and other large wildlife, as well as anyone in body armor. People don’t buy self-defense firearms knowing what threat they will need to stop.
      3. Same again for Rifle; the statutes in question label many non-Rifles as “assault”. 3A) Rifles are significantly more accurate than handguns and hence are significantly more credible for home defense than handguns, whose only benefit is portability for self-defense on the go. Given the choice between a handgun or a rifle for home defense, only a fool would choose a handgun. Because home defense can include close-quarters combat and is never going to include very long distances, a relatively short-barreled rifle is your best bet - only a fool would choose a long rifle optimized for hunting long-distance targets.
    • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      11 months ago

      Lightweight, high-velocity rounds like the 5.56 tend to present less of an overpenetration risk than heavier, slower ones like the 9mm or 45ACP, even hollowpoints. Things like birdshot or Glasser frangible ammo can’t be counted on to reliably stop a threat so those aren’t a great solution either. Overpenetration is a serious concern with any firearm that is viable for self-defense, there’s no getting around it. Any time you pull the trigger you run the risk of killing an innocent person downrange of your intended target.