The Connecticut Bar Association voted on whether to sign onto a brief in support of a firearms law. The House of Delegates voted yes, 2-1, but there was a referendum petition. A vote was taken. By a vote of 734-729 (5 votes), the members voted to join the brief. Those opposed to signing the brief technically lost. Yet, the CBA President called it a tie, in light of the close vote. The practical result: the CBA will not sign the brief and the opposition effectively wins.
There’s a logic to it, but it is a curious thing.
https://ctbar.site-ym.com/news/187606/Shew-v.-Malloy-Referendum-Results.htm
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
Dubois is seriously a good guy–a real gem. That’s all I have to add to the conversation. Mark is awesome.
Hmmm – I can’t access the link (CBA members only), so I’m afraid I’m still not entirely sure whether this is a good thing. What was the firearm law (expanding access or reducing access)? I have no idea what this story is about and I can’t find out and now I NEED TO KNOW!
It was a question of whether to join the Brady Center in supporting a recent CT law governing firearms. The district court decision upholding the law is here:
Click to access gov.uscourts.ctd.101021.125.0.pdf
The Brady Center’s district court brief, which would likely be similar to the appellate brief (a draft of which I am still looking for) is here: http://ia601705.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.101021/gov.uscourts.ctd.101021.96.0.pdf
Seems like the right call, to me, regardless of the content of the brief. There’s little benefit in a membership organisation signing up in support of any initiative which is (a) outwith its core remit and (b) opposed by roughly half of its members.