The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld the constitutionality of gun laws passed in Connecticut and New York in response to the Sandy Hook school shooting, finding the prohibitions on semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines impinge on Americans’ Second Amendment rights but pass constitutional muster because of their goal of preventing crime.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen hailed the decision, while gun rights groups, including the Groton-based Connecticut Citizens Defense League, vowed to take Shew vs. Malloy to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Malloy said in a press release that "Connecticut would be better off if every state and the federal government enacted similar, sensible gun safety rules." He commended the attorney general's office for its defense of the law.

"Connecticut has the smartest, toughest, most common sense gun safety laws in the nation – approved with broad, bipartisan support – and the court's ruling validates it," the press release said. "It's all designed to keep our communities safe, while respecting the Second Amendment. We've clearly done that. The court today made the right decision, and time after time, court challenges aimed at whittling down our smart gun laws are proving unsuccessful."

“This decision is deeply gratifying, particularly in light of the terrible events that gave rise to the laws challenged in this case,” said a press release issued by Jepsen. “At a time when many Americans have abandoned hope of government’s ability to address gun violence in our schools and on our streets, Connecticut’s laws — and today’s decision — demonstrate that willing states can enact meaningful reform to improve public safety without violating the Second Amendment."

Scott Wilson of New London, president of the CCDL, said the plaintiffs would file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court within the required 90 days. He said the decision was disappointing but not unexpected.

“Connecticut gun owners are not going to sit back and surrender our constitutional rights without a fight,” Wilson said in a phone interview. “We are in disagreement with the vast majority of the logic and reason behind their upholding (the law).”

Circuit Judges Jose A. Cabranes, Raymond J. Lohier Jr. and Christopher F. Droney heard arguments in the case on Dec. 9, 2014, and Cabranes wrote the decision. The three-judge panel overturned Connecticut’s prohibition of the Remington Model 7615 because it is not a semi-automatic weapon. They also upheld another court’s decision that the section of the New York law allowing only seven rounds of ammunition to be loaded into a magazine is not constitutional.

In the decision, the court admits law-abiding Americans own millions of the firearms in question and tens of millions of the large-capacity magzines and that the laws "impose a substantial burden" on the rights protected by the Second Amendment. Because of that, the court said it gave additional scrutiny to the laws but not the highest level of scrutiny, because it determined people could still use handguns for self-protection and could purchase any number of magazines with a capacity of 10 or fewer rounds.

“Because the prohibitions are substantially related to the important governmental interests of public safety and crime reduction, they pass constitutional muster,” the court wrote.

Connecticut’s law, enacted in April 2013, added to the state’s existing list of banned assault weapons, bringing the total to 183; limited the capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds or less; required background checks for all weapon sales; and established a statewide registry for people convicted of crimes involving dangerous weapons

The circuit judges noted semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines were used disproportionately in mass shootings.

“Plaintiffs complain that mass shootings are ‘particularly rare events’ and thus, even if successful, the legislation will have a minimal impact on most violent crime,” the court wrote. “That may be so, but gun control legislation need not strike at all evils at the same time to be constitutional.”

k.florin@theday.com

Twitter: @KFLORIN