Leaders from both sides of the debate said they weren't surprised after the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Monday morning not to hear a local group's challenge to the state's assault weapons ban, but their similarities stopped there.

"In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, it's not too terribly surprising that they would not hear the challenge at this time," said Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, by phone Monday afternoon.

His group is the one that brought the challenge against Connecticut's April 2013 law, which Gov. Dannel Malloy signed four months after a shooter forcibly entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, killing 20 students and six educators.

The law bans more than 100 types of firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

"It was important (to challenge the law) because we felt that we never had our day at the legislature to get our point across," Wilson said. "We didn't feel it was fair and we feel it does nothing to protect anybody from crime."

Wilson said he's convinced the court will take up a similar challenge, whether from his group or another, once there's a full court, but Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said the opposite.

"I think this decision was very consistent with the Heller reading," Pinciaro said, referring to the court's 2008 decision to allow citizens to continue possessing guns commonly used for self-defense at home.

He pointed out that the Supreme Court has been reluctant to take up similar challenges ever since that decision was handed down.

"A more general statement in the Heller decision is that (the Second Amendment) is not the right to carry any weapon whatsoever in any place whatsoever for whatever purpose," Pinciaro said, referring to Justice John Paul Stevens' dissenting opinion.

"These weapons were intended for military and police use," he said. "They were never intended to be in the hands of civilians because of their potency and their lethality. They have no use other than to kill on a large scale."

In the majority opinion, however, the late Scalia wrote that banning an entire class of firearms commonly used for protection — in that case, handguns — would violate the Second Amendment.

"Where the case rested was on whether the weapon was in common use," Pinciaro said. "We think assault weapons are not."

In a news release, Wilson pointed out that the AR-15, one of the weapons that is banned in Connecticut, is one of the best-selling rifles in the country.

On Monday, Wilson said working to create gun-free zones is little more than a "utopian fantasy."

"Most mass murders are happening in these zones," he said. "But instead of dealing with that, politicians look to curtail our rights."

He said a better measure would be to discourage venues and facilities from banning firearms unless they employ armed security who can spring to action in the event of a shooting or other attack.

He also encouraged citizens who wish to be protected to arm themselves.

"The most recent attack on another gun-free zone, where many in the LGBTQ community were gathered, was, according to most accounts, targeted toward them based on their lifestyle," Wilson said of the June 12 shooting in a gay nightclub in Orlando that killed 49 people. "We hope the community as a whole seeks the ways and the means to be able to protect themselves and their lives."

Pinciaro, on the other hand, said he'd like to see other states enact laws similar to Connecticut's on the heels of the Supreme Court's denial of yet another assault weapons ban challenge.

"We've always felt that, while respecting Second Amendment rights, what the measure did was protect the public safety of the people of Connecticut," he said.

In a news release, state Attorney General George Jepsen, whose office has been responsible for defending the law from the challenge, said the Supreme Court's action shows that Connecticut's reforms were "reasonable, sensible and lawful."

Malloy, in his statement about the Supreme Court's decision, expressed similar sentiments.

"We must stand up against mass shootings," he said. "We cannot sit idly by and watch tragedy after tragedy, horror after horror.  We have the ability to act – the question is whether or not elected officials have the will."

l.boyle@theday.com