"That's a death every 2.6 hours, and 44 injuries an hour. And that toll of carnage is just from crashes that police investigators link to distracted driving. Nobody knows what percentage of the other crashes were caused by distraction."  Read more.

Above: Scott Ennis of New London

Not long after Gov. Malloy signed last year's expansion of the state's "assault weapons" ban, New London resident Scott Ennis and his group, Disabled Americans for Firearms Rights (DAFR) filed a constitutional challenge to the new law, arguing that the ban on certain weapons violated the rights of disabled individuals to bear arms needed to protect themselves from crime.  

The suit claims violations of Connecticut constitutional and statutory provisions, including (a) Art. I § 15 of the State constitution, which guarantees that all citizens have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State; (b) Conn. Gen. Stat. § 27-2, which affirms the rights of all citizens to bear arms as members of the unorganized militia of the State; (c) Art. I §1 of the State constitution, which guarantees equality of rights of all citizens of the State; (d) Article I § 20 of the State constitution, as amended by amendment XXI, which guarantees equal protection of the law, and prohibits discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of civil or political rights based on physical disability; and (e) Conn. Gen. Stat. §46a-58(a), which prohibits the deprivation of civil rights on the basis of physical disability.

The State filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was granted in part and denied in part.  The Court granted the motion as to DAFR but denied it as to Mr. Ennis. This means that Ennis as an individual can pursue a claim for violation of his State constitutional rights, but DAFR cannot assert those claims on behalf of all aggrieved members of the organization. However, other individual members of DAFR can be cited in to the case as additional named plaintiffs.  

This ruling represents only the first hurdle for Ennis. As the Court noted, "Whether or not the plaintiff can succeed on his claims ... is a question for another day. The fact that the plaintiff faces a difficult burden of proof in his case does not strip this court of jurisdiction to permit him to attempt to carry that burden."  The Court's ruling is available here.