Judgedismisseslawsuit challenging ban on guns in CT state parks

Jul. 13—The ruling came after a two-day trial in May, according to Attorney Cameron Atkinson who represented David Nastri in the lawsuit.

"We are profoundly disappointed in the district court's ruling, which we believe is significantly at odds with US Supreme Court precedent and is based on an unprecedented legal fiction," attorney Cameron Atkinson said in a statement posted on Twitter. "We will immediately appeal the district court's decision, and we remain committed to removing every barrier to law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms to protect themselves."

Atkinson filed the lawsuit earlier this year on behalf of Nastri, a Cheshire financial advisor and lawyer. Nastri, who holds a state pistol permit, wrote in court documents that he previously carried a gun at Sleeping Giant and Naugatuck State Forest and had also carried it for self-defense while walking on the Farmington River Canal Trail, but stopped doing so when he learned of the prohibition last year.

DEEP's rules allow permitted owners to carry guns into state parks for small game hunting and for hunting classes, but they're not allowed to carry guns for self-defense, Nastri's attorney has argued.

The challenge to the ban came in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision last year, striking down a New York law that prohibited people from carrying guns in public. That ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen, held that Americans have the right to carry a handgun outside their home for self-defense.

The challenge to the Connecticut regulation sought a judgement, declaring the agency's prohibition on carrying handguns for self-defense violated the second and fourteenth amendments. The suit also sought permanent and emergency injunctions barring DEEP from enforcing the rule, as well as legal fees.

The trial focused on the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit and the preliminary injunction filed by Atkinson seeking to require DEEP to not enforce the law while the lawsuit was pending. Only Atkinson put witnesses on the stand, he said, including the head of the state's Environmental Conservation Police, the agency responsible for keeping Connecticut's parks safe.

Christopher Lewis, director of the state Environmental Conservation Police, testified during the May hearing that the presence of a firearm in a state park could cause confusion and alarm for visitors.

Allowing firearms in state parks also could affect how officers interact with the public, forcing them to focus more on public safety and less on community engagement, Lewis said. In that sense, their roles would be similar to a traditional police officer, he said.

"It would limit our cordial interactions with our visitors and push us more toward security," Lewis said, adding that EnCon officers "try really hard to put forth an approachable image."

According to Lewis, up to four EnCon officers potentially could be pulled off their regular patrols to respond to a call regarding a firearm, leaving some areas unsupervised.

In closing arguments, an attorney for the state said issuing a preliminary injunction would be a "big problem" and "cause all kinds of collateral damage." If the injunction were granted, the attorney said, DEEP would not be left with enough time to make the necessary accommodations as the busy summer season approached.

In her ruling, Arterton noted that Nastri had never encountered one of DEEP's Environmental Conservation police officers while in a state park or forest, and that staffing shortages meant the chances of him doing so are "rare." The force does not randomly search park visitors for firearms, Arterton wrote in her judgement and Nastri had never been noticed carrying a firearm and was never stopped and ticketed for carrying a gun in a state park.

"On these facts, it becomes clear that Plaintiff's theory of standing is nothing more than the sort of 'highly attenuated chain of possibilities' that the Supreme Court has found 'does not satisfy the requirement that threatened injury must be certainly impending," Arterton, wrote.

She wrote that Nastri's "imaginary" and "speculative" conjecture that he would face repercussions for carrying a gun in a state park "is insufficient to show an actual 'impending' and 'credible' threat of prosecution, and so he lacks standing."

—

Summer polo season has kicked off in CT. Here's what to know.

—

NWS: CT river flooding risk heightens as strong storms hit

Atkinson has already filed an intent to appeal and will be seeking a second injunction from Arterton requiring DEEP not to enforce the law while the appeal is pending, he said.

Staffs writers Lisa Backus and Austin Mirmina contributed to this story.