The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association and the National Association of Chiefs of Police filed an Amicus brief in support of our case against Connecticut’s ban semiautomatics and standard capacity magazines. You can read their brief here.
Our case at the Second Circuit is in its opening briefing stage following our appeal of the District Court’s denial of preliminary injunction in August.
In Judge Arterton’s district court ruling, she opined that AR-15s and similar rifles are only sought out for their militaristic features and are not useful for self-defense.
The law enforcement amicus brief rebuts this by stating, “AR-15s are not exclusively or predominantly used in military service, nor are they otherwise reserved for the military—they’re not used at all.”
Judge Arterton also stated that the AR-15 was designed to produce “maximum wound effect.”
The supporting amicus brief from the two police organizations refutes this by showing that 5.56 is in fact a smaller round than previous infantry rifles and that even high-ranking members of the military find it too small. The amicus quotes Major General Robert Scales as stating, “The civilian version of the 5.56mm bullet was designed as a ‘varmint killer’ and six states prohibit its use for deer hunting because it is not lethal enough.”
In the opening of their amicus brief they state that AR-15-platform rifles, standard gear for most police officers, are not “weapons of war” and that the police officers who carry them “are not an army of occupation, wielding the weapons of militarized mass killers.”
Most interesting is that the Connecticut ban does not apply to police officers, and they have gone out of their way to let the court know that the reason police officers carry these rifles is precisely why they are an exceptional choice for self-defense in civilian hands.
The state of Connecticut has requested to delay their opening brief until February 21, 2024, so it will be several months before we see more movement in this case.