A federal judge dismissed a challenge to the state’s laws banning handguns in state parks on Sept. 30.
The plaintiff, David Nastri of Cheshire, has been arguing for years in court that the state’s regulations on handguns in state parks violate the Second Amendment. His initial lawsuit against the state was dismissed in 2023 after a judge determined he did not have a basis to challenge the Connecticut law. Nastri has never been penalized for bringing a handgun to a state park, and he does not know of anyone who has been.
Afterwards, Nastri’s attorney filed an amended complaint and motion for a summary judgment that would ban the enforcement of this law while the case was being heard in court. The state cross-filed a motion for a summary judgment in response to uphold the enforcement of the existing regulations while the case proceeds through the courts.
On Sept. 30, U.S. District Court Judge Victor Bolden dismissed Natri’s challenge. Bolden determined that the state’s ban on handguns for self-defense in state parks was justified, in part because state parks are crowded places and are frequented by children.
“That logic would have justified banning firearms on the Lexington Green on April 19, 1775. That’s precisely what the Second Amendment prohibits,” Nastri’s lawyer, Cameron Atkinson, said in identical statements on his Facebook and X/Twitter accounts. “Any attempt to spin this decision as a win for public safety is a pompous puffer that is an insult to every law-abiding gun owner and the Constitution itself.”
In the state of Connecticut, hunters are allowed to carry .22 caliber rimfire handguns for the purposes of hunting small game in state parks, but people cannot have handguns for self-defense.
Attorney General William Tong disagreed with Atkinson’s assessment. In an Oct. 1 press release, he celebrated Bolden’s decision.
“More guns in more public places is not the answer. Not ever, and particularly not right now,” Tong said in the press release. “This strong decision acknowledges what is plainly obvious for all to see—state parks can be crowded places visited by children, and there is a well-established history of laws prohibiting firearms in such areas. We will continue to vigorously defend our state’s commonsense gun safety laws and our state’s ability to protect against gun violence.”
Atkinson said that he will fight this decision.
“We will appeal this decision to the Second Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court,” he wrote.
Atkinson could not be reached for additional comment by deadline.
At the end of his statement, Atkinson wrote, “We recognize that Judge Bolden did what he thought the Second Circuit required him to do. We obviously strongly disagree, but, in an age where judges constantly get threats, we emphasize that we have great respect for Judge Bolden as a judge, including for his approach to this case.”
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Those that are gun owners who are responsible and have it concealed conceivably could come to the rescue if somebody starts shooting up and the police obviously aren’t there yet. It’s been several cases where a police officer who is off duty or other people that are on personal time when a shootout breaks, they can look to take the shooter down before harming more people.
I also think of women who have gone through domestic violence and have a restraining order should be able to carry.
This law is not for responsible people it’s for criminals but unfortunately they have no regard for this law so yes it’s an additional charge they can throw at you, but that’s after the damage they did.
Bolden should be thrown off the bench.Every woman should have a handgun anywhere she pleases
Judge Bolden is typical in Corrupticut,he has no knowledge of the Comstitution,neither does that sneak thief Tong who is so wrong