Second Circuit: Defendant has Standing to Contest Connecticutt Ban on Carry in State Parks

Great Seal of Connecticut, public domain

 

On January 14, 2023, David J. Nastri, Esq. filed suit against Katie Dykes as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental protection. Nastri challenged the constitutionality of Connecticut's ban on the carrying of handguns in Connecticut state parks for the purpose of self defense. From the complaint:

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief that challenges the constitutionality of Connecticut’s state regulation that bans the carrying of handguns in Connecticut state parks for the purpose of self-defense. Connecticut’s ban on handguns in state parks cannot pass constitutional muster under the historical standard that the Supreme Court announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (Jun. 23, 2022), and the Second Amendment requires the Court to put a stop to Connecticut depriving its citizens of the most popular means of self-defense where it is undoubtedly the hardest for first responders to protect them.

On August 22, 2023, the District Court, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, granted the state's motion to dismiss because the plaintiff lacked standing. Nastri appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 29, 2024, a three judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a Summary Order to the effect that Nastri had standing, the District Court's judgment was vacated, and the District Court for the District of Connecticut is required to proceed with Nastri's lawsuit against the State of Connecticut. From the order:

The parties do not dispute that Nastri has established the first two imminence elements, in that he alleged an “intent[]” to carry his handgun in state parks for self-defense in violation of section 23-4-1(c). Vitagliano, 71 F.4th at 137. Thus, the central issue in this appeal is whether Nastri has demonstrated a credible threat that he would be cited for violating section 23-4-1(c) if he were to engage in that conduct.

The State of Connecticut put forward arguments the chances of Nastri being prosecuted were small, because few people noticed if someone was carrying a concealed weapon, and the statute was rarely enforced. The three judge panel rejected those arguments. They explained it was the burden of the State to show Nastri would not be prosecuted. It was enough for Nastri to show the law was in effect and the State did not disavow any possibility of enforcement. From the order:

 Far from disavowing enforcement against Nastri, the director of Connecticut’s Environmental Conservation Police testified at a deposition that his department (1) receives calls 7 about persons with firearms in state parks, (2) responds to those calls by sending officers to investigate, and (3) would take enforcement action if its officers found a person with an unauthorized firearm.

Analysis: This case is part of a trend where the courts are following the Supreme Court ruling in Bruen to treat the Second Amendment on the same level as other fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights, such as the First Amendment. Restricting the ability of a person to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights is an irreparable harm, no matter how short the duration. This case may become another building block in the wall to restore the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.  It is important to build this wall case by case. It is better to be able to sue to restore rights than to be forced to contest the constitutionality of the law in a criminal case, such as is occurring the Gun Free School Zone case of Gabriel Metcalf in Billings Montana.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch