PDA

View Full Version : Preemptive gun confiscation


trfcrugby
08-05-2008, 10:23 PM
I read this article, and then I wondered how long it will be before some California lawmaker gets the idea that this would be great.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71435


A new report to the Connecticut state legislature shows police have used the state's unique gun seizure law to confiscate more than 1,700 firearms from citizens based on suspicion that the gun owners might harm themselves or others.

The state's law permits police to seek a warrant for seizing a citizen's guns based on suspicion of the gun owner's intentions, before any act of violence or lawbreaking is actually committed.

The law was first proposed in 1998, following a mass shooting at the Connecticut Lottery Corporation that left five dead, including the gunman. Since the law went into effect Oct. 1, 1999, according to new Office of Legislative Research report, police have made more than 200 documented requests for warrants to seize firearms from citizens, and only two of the requests have been denied.

The law has remained hotly debated since its passage, as some point to possible murders and suicides it may have prevented, and others worry that police would abuse the law.

"It certainly has not been abused. It may be underutilized," Ron Pinciaro, co-executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, told the Waterbury Republican American. "The bottom line from our perspective is, it may very well have saved lives."

Attorney Ralph D. Sherman, who has represented several of the gun owners whose firearms were confiscated under the law, disagrees.

"In every case I was involved in I thought it was an abuse," he told the newspaper. "The overriding concern is anybody can report anybody with or without substantiation, and I don't think that is the American way."

Joe Graborz, executive director of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, an affiliate of the ACLU, told WND the law "continues to invest unusual and far-reaching powers in police authority that does not belong there" by requiring "police to act as psychologists in trying to predict and interpret behavior."

"What is the standard of proof on this?" he asked. "The way this law is written, it can and will be easily abused by police."

Under the statute, dubbed the "turn in your neighbor" law by opponents, any two police officers or a state prosecutor may seek a warrant, following a specified process of investigation, to confiscate guns from people deemed a risk to harming themselves or others. The vast majority of cases, however, begin when a person – usually a spouse or live-in, according to the OLR report – file a complaint.

Shortly after the law was passed, Thompson Bosee of Greenwich, Conn., had his guns and ammunition seized by police. Bosee told WND in 1999 he suspects a neighbor, with whom he has had words regarding the neighbor's driving on Bosee's property, might have reported him.

"They had a warrant for my guns, they arrested my guns," said Bosee.

A member of both the NRA and the American Gunsmithing Association, Bosee said he works on his guns in his garage and is not ashamed of it.

Although Greenwich Police would not comment, they released a list of the guns and ammunition they seized from Bosee, including six handguns, three rifles, one shotgun, one submachine gun and 3,108 rounds of ammunition.

The new OLR report shows that in most cases, relatives or neighbors of the gun owner filed the complaint when they feared for their own safety or feared the owner was suicidal. In a case from Southington, however, a man had his gun taken for threatening to shoot a dog.

Attorney Ralph Sherman told WND the law's cruelty to animals justification for gun seizure worries him.

"If I throw a rock or a newspaper at a dog in my yard or in my garden, that doesn't mean I'm mentally unbalanced," he said. "What if a neighbor doesn't like me and sees that?"

In October 2006, according to the Republican American, police obtained a seizure warrant after a man made 28 unsubstantiated claims of vandalism to his property. The police application for seizure described the man as paranoid and delusional, citing extensive self-protection measures installed on the man's property, including alarms, cameras and spotlights.

Four months after the man's guns were taken, a judge ruled that police had failed to show the man posed any risk and ordered the guns returned. According to the ruling, the gun owner had no history of documented illness, criminal activity or misuse of firearms. "In fact, the firearms were found in a locked safe when the officers executed the warrant," the ruling said.

The law dictates that courts hold a hearing within 14 days of a seizure to determine the eventual fate of the guns. In most cases, according to the OLR report, the guns are held for a period of up to a year, destroyed or sold. The Republican American reports that in 22 of the more than 200 cases, the guns were ordered returned.

Connecticut State Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, House chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of the chief authors of the law, told the Republican American he wasn't aware of any pending challenges to the law's constitutionality.

"The whole point was to make sure it was limited and constitutional," he said.

Sherman however, said the law hasn't been challenged yet, simply because it is used sparingly and a test case would prove too costly for the average gun owner.

I especially like the last line. Some legal system we have here....

CSACANNONEER
08-06-2008, 8:09 AM
If someone is determined to be a (5150) threat to themselves or others, they can not possess a firearm or ammunition within this state already. So, we already have tthis in place.

ViPER395
08-06-2008, 3:29 PM
More proof that gun laws and those who diligently write them are not in the business to make society safer, but rather to ensure their safety from society.

AJAX22
08-06-2008, 5:18 PM
This is going to wind up getting someone preemptively shot when they come knocking or kicking down doors.

Its unfortunate that they force officers to take that kind of risk just to violate the constitutional rights of a gun owner.

scary stuff...

no one wins when they pass this kind of B.S.

Brooke
08-06-2008, 5:32 PM
If someone is determined to be a (5150) threat to themselves or others, they can not possess a firearm or ammunition within this state already. So, we already have tthis in place.

True. The taking of firearms seems small when compared to the fact that they can take you into custody.

IllTemperedCur
08-06-2008, 5:42 PM
Here's the report. (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0280.htm)

Some interesting stuff here. The methodology for determining PC seems REALLY sketchy.

Yankee Clipper
08-06-2008, 8:09 PM
That really is an obscene trampling of individual rights and will, hopefully, be legally overturned. The heartbreaking irony is (at least for me) this state was once the foremost defender of individual freedoms. I often visited the area where the rock is located under which the original charter of the patriots of Connecticut was hid from the British. The things these patriots did not want to give up to the British monarch, and his minions, were their charter and their firearms.
It is interesting that the two largest cities, Hartford and New Haven, have the fewest warrants/firearm confiscations than the out-lying towns. I don't believe, but I don't know, that these two centers of firearm manufacturing were not involved in order to protect their legacy firearms heritage.

falawful
08-06-2008, 8:40 PM
Hartford and New Haven not confiscating firearms to preserve heritage?!! hahahahahaha!!!

This crap goes on in the outlying towns due to the presence of small minded gun bigots in government. Just like in CA.

The CT charter was hidden in an oak, thus the 'Charter Oak'. Go to the CT museum in downtown Hartford, some cool stuff there.

That this anti-gun crap is going on in CT is sad. Particularly considering the history of the place....

Matt C
08-06-2008, 8:42 PM
This is going to wind up getting someone preemptively shot when they come knocking or kicking down doors.

Its unfortunate that they force officers to take that kind of risk just to violate the constitutional rights of a gun owner.

scary stuff...

no one wins when they pass this kind of B.S.

+1 They can preemptively confiscate it from my cold dead hands, I know not to keep everything in one place again.

SOneThreeCoupe
08-06-2008, 10:16 PM
Copy of my post on THR:

We're all whining about this, but how many of us are actually going to do ANYTHING about it?

Please, if you've commented here, send an e-mail here:
governor.rell@ct.gov
-The Governor

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=n...28&cat=Opinion -Chris Dodd, Senator

http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact/...rding=question
-Joe Lieberman, Senator

http://www.house.gov/shays/contact/
-Chris Shays, Representative

http://www.house.gov/formchrismurphy/ic_zip_auth.htm
-Chris Murphy, Representative

http://www.house.gov/delauro/IMA/issue.htm
-Rosa DeLauro, Representative

http://courtney.house.gov/email/
-Joe Courtney, Representative

John B. Larson doesn't want to talk to you if you don't live in CT, but you can try, using the zip of 06106.

By the way, the law is in Chapter 529, sec. 29-38c.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/pub/Chap5...#Sec29-38c.htm

swhatb
08-06-2008, 10:40 PM
scary....

MrPlutonium
08-06-2008, 11:02 PM
pretty interesting that even an ACLU affiliate finds this to be utter crap.

radioburning
08-07-2008, 1:14 AM
As usual, gun owner=guilty until proven innocent.

Theseus
08-07-2008, 1:26 AM
As usual, gun owner=guilty until proven innocent.

But its to save lives! Certainly it is worth the cost. :D

Nevermore
08-07-2008, 6:32 AM
pretty interesting that even an ACLU affiliate finds this to be utter crap.
That's probably because the ACLU isn't looking at the issue as a 2A matter, but a 4A matter; ergo, something they can get behind.

outersquare
08-07-2008, 7:18 AM
post heller this seems readily struck down

Yankee Clipper
08-07-2008, 5:30 PM
post heller this seems readily struck down
It will be but not soon enough. Itís really hard to understand why the electorate put the dippy people, that pass such laws, into office. The jerk office holders had to have known this law would not pass muster. In so many ways, it's such a big waste of money.

Matt C
08-07-2008, 5:33 PM
post heller this seems readily struck down

People keep saying that, but are apparently unaware that Heller only applies to the Federal Government at this point, and the only thing Heller itself really stopped the federal government from doing was enacting a total handgun ban in the home.

javalos
08-07-2008, 8:54 PM
Scary stuff, wouldn't be surprised if it was liberal Democrat that wrote this. Politicians are arrogant SOB's believing that intrusive laws such as this is for our own good and they know better, meanwhile they are using the Constitution as toilet paper.

I've had bored neighbors that are in everyones business, its those that you got to watch out for.

CA_Libertarian
08-07-2008, 9:08 PM
Its unfortunate that they force officers to take that kind of risk just to violate the constitutional rights of a gun owner.

I hope you're joking... like they're having to twist arms to get the cops on board with disarming the subjects? Even if you were joking, you shouldn't... too many sheeple actually believe that crap.

We need to stop giving our civil servants a pass on knowing right from wrong. If your boss asks you to do something immoral you should refuse. I don't care if you're an accountant or a cop - if you don't have the principles and the courage to choose what's right over your pay check, then you deserve to be locked up for a very long time with a very large man that really likes you.

AJAX22
08-08-2008, 12:04 PM
I hope you're joking... like they're having to twist arms to get the cops on board with disarming the subjects? Even if you were joking, you shouldn't... too many sheeple actually believe that crap.

We need to stop giving our civil servants a pass on knowing right from wrong. If your boss asks you to do something immoral you should refuse. I don't care if you're an accountant or a cop - if you don't have the principles and the courage to choose what's right over your pay check, then you deserve to be locked up for a very long time with a very large man that really likes you.

I'm not joking. I find it unfortunate that Law Enforcement Officers are being ordered into the croshairs of law abiding citizens.

Yes it is their job, they have to follow the orders and enforce the laws that we enact.

some LEO's justify their actions by becoming true believers, but as our own community shows not all LEO's embrace the party line when it comes to civil and enumerated constitutional rights.

It is inevitable that someone will stand up and assert their rights when the door gets kicked in some dark night and there is a chance that good people will die enforcing laws that they do not believe in.

To totally write off all LEO's is very counter productive to our cause. They can be our biggest allies in the fight to reclaim our 2A rights or they can be our biggest obsticle.

Hearts and minds

ViPER395
08-08-2008, 12:29 PM
#1: We who? I didn't vote for any of this bull****.

#2: Yea, not all... Props to BillCA-- he's about the only one.

#3: Here's their chance to become our biggest allies: Stop kicking in doors. Stop accepting these SWAT mission orders. Fight your agency's administration using your union. Creat a LEO club in your agency or community that supports 2A rights, civilian gun ownership and visibly opposes these JBT tactics. Inform top brass to join or be accepted as a public enemy. Explain how LE top brass' support of this stuff is destroying police credibility and respect among the law abiding community. But we all know none of this going to happen.

I'm not joking. I find it unfortunate that Law Enforcement Officers are being ordered into the croshairs of law abiding citizens.

Yes it is their job, they have to follow the orders and enforce the laws that #1 we enact.

some LEO's justify their actions by becoming true believers, #2 but as our own community shows not all LEO's embrace the party line when it comes to civil and enumerated constitutional rights.

It is inevitable that someone will stand up and assert their rights when the door gets kicked in some dark night and there is a chance that good people will die enforcing laws that they do not believe in.

To totally write off all LEO's is very counter productive to our cause.#3 They can be our biggest allies in the fight to reclaim our 2A rights or they can be our biggest obsticle.

Hearts and minds

AJAX22
08-08-2008, 12:41 PM
#1 we are part of a community of laws, if you really cared about it, you'd be going door to door to get a votor initiative put on the ballot to put legal protections against any future legislation of this nature. "Not voting' is not the only way to participate in the system.

#2 There are more LEO's who are on our side than you can possibly imagine. The simple fact that more of them do not come out and confront the bashing when it occurs and tollerate some of the continued generalizations and abuse is very indicative of their committement to the 2A and our community. I wouldn't stick around in an place where I was lumped in with puppy stompers by the other members because I belong to the same agencies.

#3 We can effect much more meaningfull change from within LEA's Liberal institutions, government beuracratcies and striking from inside the belly of the beast.

If we just hang out with gunnies convincing eachother of how right we are, and railing against the evil 'them' in this world we well NEVER make any substantial progress and will at best be hard put to maintain the status quo.

Expecting individual officers to go head to head with the top brass in open media conflict is an assinine proposition. They can be much more effective giving the right nudge from within at the right point.

CA_Libertarian
08-09-2008, 11:02 AM
I'm not joking. I find it unfortunate that Law Enforcement Officers are being ordered into the croshairs of law abiding citizens.

Yes it is their job, they have to follow the orders and enforce the laws that we enact.

some LEO's justify their actions by becoming true believers, but as our own community shows not all LEO's embrace the party line when it comes to civil and enumerated constitutional rights.

No, they don't. If my boss asks me to fudge his accounting books it is my moral duty to refuse. To do otherwise is dishonest and immoral. It should be easy for LE to tell their boss "no, I will not violate the liberty and endanger the life of my fellow man."

It is inevitable that someone will stand up and assert their rights when the door gets kicked in some dark night and there is a chance that good people will die enforcing laws that they do not believe in.

Good people don't enforce laws they don't believe in. Bad people do. They are deserving of death if they violate the life or liberty of their fellow man. Having that badge doesn't give them a pass - wrong is wrong.

To totally write off all LEO's is very counter productive to our cause. They can be our biggest allies in the fight to reclaim our 2A rights or they can be our biggest obsticle.

Hearts and minds

I agree it would be counter-productive to "write off all LEO's." It is apparent that you're insinuating that is what I have done. In fact, I have not. I have only written off the LEOs that choose to violate human rights in exchange for job security. They are cowards and traitors, no better than the non-LEO thieves and murders.

Gator Monroe
08-09-2008, 11:05 AM
I agree it would be counter-productive to "write off all LEO's." It is apparent that you're insinuating that is what I have done. In fact, I have not. I have only written off the LEOs that choose to violate human rights in exchange for job security. They are cowards and traitors, no better than the non-LEO thieves and murders.

Ditto! But a very high percentage of Leo Higher ups and even a number of rank & file are in some ways Anti -2A and against Private Firearms ownership in most cases ...

ViPER395
08-09-2008, 11:12 AM
One has to wonder what happend to them between rookie Deputy and County Sheriff that changes their outlook.

Ditto! But a very high percentage of Leo Higher ups and even a number of rank & file are in some ways Anti -2A and against Private Firearms ownership in most cases ...