The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Hazcat on August 04, 2008, 08:46:35 PM
-
BY PAUL HUGHES REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN
HARTFORD -- Using a unique state law, police in Connecticut have disarmed dozens of gun owners based on suspicions that they might harm themselves or others.
The state's gun seizure law is considered the first and only law in the country that allows the confiscation of a gun before the owner commits an act of violence. Police and state prosecutors can obtain seizure warrants based on concerns about someone's intentions.
State police and 53 police departments have seized more than 1,700 guns since the law took effect in October 1999, according to a new report to the legislature. There are nearly 900,000 privately owned firearms in Connecticut today.
Opponents of a gun seizure law expressed fears in 1999 that police would abuse the law. Today, the law's backers say the record shows that hasn't been the case.
"It certainly has not been abused. It may be underutilized," said Ron Pinciaro, coexecutive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence.
Attorney Ralph D. Sherman has represented several gun owners who had their firearms seized under the law. His latest client was denied a pistol permit because the man was once the subject of a seizure warrant.
"In every case I was involved in I thought it was an abuse," said Sherman, who fought against the law's passage.
The report to the legislature shows that state judges are inclined to issue gun seizure warrants and uphold seizures when challenged in court.
Out of more than 200 requests for warrants, Superior Court judges rejected just two applications — one for lack of probable cause, and another because police had already seized the individual's firearms under a previous warrant. Both rejections occurred in 1999. The legislature's Office of Legislative Research could document only 22 cases of judges ordering seized guns returned to their owners.
Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, is one of the chief authors of the gun seizure law. In his view, the number of warrant applications and gun seizures show that police haven't abused the law.
"It is pretty consistent," said Lawlor, the House chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Robert T. Crook, the executive director of the Connecticut Coalition of Sportsmen, questioned whether police have seized more guns than the number reported to the legislature. Crook said the law doesn't require police departments or the courts to compile or report information on gun seizures. The Office of Legislative Research acknowledged that its report may have underreported seizures.
"We don't know how many guns were actually confiscated or returned to their owners," Crook said.
Police seized guns in 95 percent of the 200-plus cases that the researchers were able to document. In 11 cases, police found no guns, the report said.
Spouses and live-in partners were the most common source of complaints that led to warrant applications. They were also the most frequent targets of threats. In a Southington case, a man threatened to shoot a neighbor's dog.
The gun seizure law arose out of a murderous shooting rampage at the headquarters of the Connecticut Lottery Corp. in 1998. A disgruntled worker shot and killed four top lottery officials and then committed suicide.
Under the law, any two police officers or a state prosecutor may obtain warrants to seize guns from individuals who pose an imminent risk of harming themselves or others. Before applying for warrants, police must first conduct investigations and determine there is no reasonable alternative to seizing someone's guns. Judges must also make certain findings.
The law states that courts shall hold a hearing within 14 days of a seizure to determine whether to return the firearms to their owners or order the guns held for up to one year.
Sherman said his five clients all waited longer than two weeks for their hearings. Courts scheduled hearing dates within the 14-day deadline, but then the proceedings kept getting rescheduled. In one client's case, Sherman said, the wait was three months.
Many gun owners don't get their seized firearms back. Courts ordered guns held in more than one-third of the documented seizures since 1999. Judges directed guns destroyed, turned over to someone else or sold in more than 40 other cases.
A Torrington man was one of the 22 gun owners who are known to have had their seized firearms returned to them.
In October 2006, Torrington police got a seizure warrant after the man made 28 unsubstantiated claims of vandalism to his property in three-year period. In the application, police described the man's behavior as paranoid and delusional. They said he installed an alarm system, surveillance cameras, noise emitting devices and spotlights for self-protection. They also reported that he had a pistol permit and possessed firearms.
A judge ordered the man's guns returned four months after police seized them. The judge said the police had failed to show the man posed any risk to himself or others. There also was no documented history of mental illness, no criminal record and no history of misusing firearms. "In fact, the firearms were found in a locked safe when the officers executed the warrant," the ruling said.
Lawlor and Sherman weren't aware of any constitutional challenges to the law, or any state or federal court rulings on the question of its constitutionality.
Lawlor said there have been no challenges on constitutional grounds because of the way the law was written. "The whole point was to make sure it was limited and constitutional," he said. Sherman said it is because the law is used sparingly, and because a test case would be too costly for average gun owners.
Lawlor, Crook, and Sherman don't see the legislature repealing or revising the gun seizure law. Pinciaro said Connecticut Against Gun Violence doesn't see any reason why lawmakers should take either action.
"The bottom line from our perspective is, it may very well have saved lives," Pinciaro said.
Crook and Sherman said law-abiding gun owners remain at risk while the gun seizure law remains on the statute books.
"The overriding concern is anybody can report anybody with or without substantiation, and I don't think that is the American way," Crook said.
http://www.rep-am.com/News/357596.txt
-
Flush!
Bye, Bye, liberty.
-
Lawlor said there have been no challenges on constitutional grounds because of the way the law was written. "The whole point was to make sure it was limited and constitutional," he said. Sherman said it is because the law is used sparingly, and because a test case would be too costly for average gun owners.
Lawlor, Crook, and Sherman don't see the legislature repealing or revising the gun seizure law. Pinciaro said Connecticut Against Gun Violence doesn't see any reason why lawmakers should take either action.
"The bottom line from our perspective is, it may very well have saved lives," Pinciaro said.
That is MSM rhetoric for "They got Away With It!", To make sure it was "limited and constitutional"? That's a broad statement even TAB would agree this is a dangerous course. Rationalizing little tests at a time to erode the "SEIZURE", prior to conviction. Tombogan stated, there is a hold out of New England states with broad and less restrictive gun control law, it seems as with Mass., CT has followed suit.
"Law is used,....used sparingly"??? scary precedent for what could be the futureif used MORE frequently.. More frequent sounds like the plan.
-
WTF?!? This is almost as bad as Minority Report... I hope they all get sued into oblivion.
-
I can't believe that the NRA-ILA have not taken this one on. I believe this is more dangerous than the DC gun law that Heller tried to address. This law seizes guns on a whim.
"First they came…"
A poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
-
Lawlor said there have been no challenges on constitutional grounds because of the way the law was written. "The whole point was to make sure it was limited and constitutional," he said. Sherman said it is because the law is used sparingly, and because a test case would be too costly for average gun owners.
Lawlor, Crook, and Sherman don't see the legislature repealing or revising the gun seizure law. Pinciaro said Connecticut Against Gun Violence doesn't see any reason why lawmakers should take either action.
"The bottom line from our perspective is, it may very well have saved lives," Pinciaro said.
That is MSM rhetoric for "They got Away With It!", To make sure it was "limited and constitutional"? That's a broad statement even TAB would agree this is a dangerous course. Rationalizing little tests at a time to erode the "SEIZURE", prior to conviction. Tombogan stated, there is a hold out of New England states with broad and less restrictive gun control law, it seems as with Mass., CT has followed suit.
"Law is used,....used sparingly"??? scary precedent for what could be the futureif used MORE frequently.. More frequent sounds like the plan.
We have to keep working at it though as more and more of these assholes come north. >:(
-
We have to keep working at it though as more and more of these assholes come north. >:(
You mean that whole, "Live Free or Die" thing is fading? I have been thinking about moving to NH with the whole Freedom Project Idea. Got room on the couch? ;D
-
No abuses under this law?
The very law itself is abusive.
Whatever happened to prior restraint being illegal?
-
No abuses under this law?
The very law itself is abusive.
Whatever happened to prior restraint being illegal?
Simple, "feelings" and "it's for the children" over ride all logic and law. ::)
-
You mean that whole, "Live Free or Die" thing is fading? I have been thinking about moving to NH with the whole Freedom Project Idea. Got room on the couch? ;D
It's the only place I DO have room, Come ahead we need the help to displace the Massholes.
-
If laws like this ever take hold and sweep across the nation, it could be the 'trigger' that TomBogan asked about on another thread, "When do We start shooting?".
Think about this, too:
You are at a cookout over at the neighbor's house and get into a petty disagreement over who's the best NASCAR driver or something. You have a shouting match, or maybe it even comes to blows, but no major harm is done and you collect yourself and go home. You think things are settled down when a few weeks later 'John Law' comes a knockin' with warrants to seize ALL your guns because the neighbor turned you in as an 'unstable hothead' who he fears will come after him in the night like the Booger-Man.
Scary crap!
It is scary that this has been a law on the books for almost 10 years and many have never even heard of it, myself included.
I'm amazed the NRA hasn't broadcast it from the rooftops.
>:(
-
Something similar to this was proposed in PA. It was soundly defeated. The proposal was aimed at protecting women who thought an ex might use a firearm on her, but could be universally applied. The PA version didn't require an investigation before the seizure of the firearms, and any claim could be a basis for confiscation. Of course we all know that there are no unstable, vindictive or just run-of -the-mill anti-gunners of either sex who would abuse this type of law.
-
Something similar to this was proposed in PA. It was soundly defeated. The proposal was aimed at protecting women who thought an ex might use a firearm on her, but could be universally applied. The PA version didn't require an investigation before the seizure of the firearms, and any claim could be a basis for confiscation. Of course we all know that there are no unstable, vindictive or just run-of -the-mill anti-gunners of either sex who would abuse this type of law.
My brother's ex is the type of person that would do just that. She is the most unstable, vindictive human being I've ever met and would use a law like this against someone in a heartbeat.
That's where the main abuse would come from. People with a chip on their shoulders and out to get someone.
-
They mentioned that the law passed constitutional muster? Unlawful search and seizsure and due process? Maybe I missed something but a court challege would seem to up end this goosestepping law.