Posted on 08/03/2008 8:43:28 AM PDT by Graybeard58
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.
They go after the law abiding citizens, my man.
The crimonals are no threat to their power, the law abiding citizen is. Therefore,they [the politicans] do not give a damn about the criminals.
Oh, on a slow day they may catch a few, but, their main focus is to keep their boot on the necks of law abiding citizens.
I totally agree. It is a shame more don’t wake up to the fact that the average citizen does not mean much to the powers that be.
Even in Communesticut?
Just because a law is not “abused” does not make it right.
This law is 100% unconstitutional just on the PRESUMPTION of guilt BEFORE a crime.
There is a certain bureaucrat mentality which will cause bureaucrats to both act when they should not and fail to act when they should. It is such a mentality that caused the INS/ICE to start deportation proceedings against a woman whose husband was killed on 9/11, since she was in the country on her spouse's employment visa and her citizenship was still pending.
If there were some way of being sure that bureaucrats would never use their power arbitrarily and capriciously, then maybe it would make sense to entrust bureaucrats with power. But there isn't, so it doesn't.
The harm that would be done by bureaucrats given the power to arbitrarily deny people whom they think might commit crimes would make any harm that such people might otherwise have done seem trivial by comparison.
No, not at all. Most jurisdictions have laws that outlaw threats of violence, but if I couldn't get the local authorities to do anything against the offender, and I felt justified, I would take action in order to keep order despite the law. But this assumes that something substantive has to be proven to be true first. The idea of just taking away someone's rights based on an ambiguous and arbitrary judgment without anything of substance to back it up will cause more harm than good.
If you think someone is going to use a gun to kill someone, you must have a reason of substance to back that claim up, and yes you need to be able to prove that reason in a court of law before a judge should be able to sign a warrant for that person's arrest. After the arrest the person needs to be tried and then a hearing can be held to determine if that person should have his/her guns taken away. It must be done in an orderly fashion or the whole concept of substantive and objective law and order lies in the fancies and whims of anyone who can make the decision. And even after all of that, a criminal will still be able to get a gun if he/she really wants to, so taking a gun from a law-abiding citizen does no real good anyway.
I am convinced that many people who have been in prison and have been released will act violently again, but are currently free in society.
We can no more legitimately lock those people up, using the legal system than we can a person who has yet to break any laws.
You are free to try to find your own solutions, which are likely to be highly variable and individualistic depending on the situation. To ask for general answers to extremely rare hypotheticals is not particularly useful.
Not call the cops or the government to save him — that’s for d*nm sure. If I am convinced my friend is going to kill himself if left alone, I need to go to the source of the problem: my friend’s desire to kill himself. Calling the cops on him and getting him entangled in the bureaucracy on top of his other problems is overwhelmingly likely to make matters worse — and he’ll find another way to off himself.
So, the solution proposed in this article a) isn’t likely to help anyone; and b) is very likely to make a virtually unaccountable, power-abusive government even worse.
PREEMPTIVE CRIME CONTROL? Are you a mind reader? The courts are not, the cops are not, nor is the legislature. And Prior Restraint is unconstitutional in the first place. Sorry, you lose. Next contestant, please.
A couple was on vacation at a quiet lakeside resort, which suited them both well, since the husband liked to fish and the wife liked to read.
One morning after getting up early to go out and catch a few, the husband came back from fishing and took a nap.
Thinking the lake beautiful and serene, the wife decided to take the boat out although she wasn’t familiar with the lake. At all events, she rowed out, anchored the boat and started reading.
Before very much time had passed, along came the town sheriff in his boat. Without ceremony, he pulled alongside and the woman what she was doing.
“Reading my book,” she said.
He told her she was in a restricted area, and there was a fine for fishing in those waters.
“But, I’m not fishing,” she said.
“It may be true that I was not able to catch you doing it,” the sheriff said, “but, you have all the equipment, and I’m going to take you in and write you up.”
“I see,” the woman answered. “Well, then, I think it only fair to tell you that if you take me in, I’ll charge you with rape.”
“But, I didn’t even touch you,” the sheriff protested.
She answered, “Yes, but you have all the equipment.”
Confiscation of anything based upon some Butthead’s supposition that a crime MIGHT be committed is not only a fatuous travesty, it’s plainly and quite blatantly unconstitutional.
the only way a Right might be 'GRANTED' is by having PRIOR RESTRAINT...therefore, individual 'People'/citizens have the duty/responsibilty of preparing themselves against the unmedicated schizo who can and will arm himself regardless unless locked up, and LOCKED UP should take FULL due process...
What if your neighbor and poker buddy runs through a very bad streak in life....fired from work, wife runs off with a female circus midget and cleans out the savings, etc etc etc and starts talking crazy enough to honestly scare you. What can you do? Is this a time or place for government intervention?
same as above...
Sorry EE, but I did answer yer question...
People should ARM THEMSELVES and the governments 'job' would be to thoroughly review the evidence, as petitioned by eligible citizens...
The economic events are already changing minds. See NY’s Governor for example. The pain is becoming widespread. You would be how fast people give up on utopian dillusions of grandeur when it finally effects THEM.
I call the person’s immediate family and/or I call the authorities if an individual is talking of suicide or hurting others.
If an individual of any sort pulls a gun and starts firing into a crowd, I hide behind whatever I can and start squeezing off rounds into the perps body no longer moving. This is common sense.
You have or you would?
If an individual of any sort pulls a gun and starts firing into a crowd, I hide behind whatever I can and start squeezing off rounds into the perps body no longer moving. This is common sense.
You have or you say you would?
One thing to say you will but another to do it.
Both. I have and I will.
You are telling me that you have had opportunity to take out a perpetrator in a public mass shooting by the way you describe?
Forgive me, but can you appreciate why I’m skeptical?
My bad on the semantics, I fully understand that government does not grant rights they are supposed to protect existing rights.
I’m still not satisfied that the best and right thing to do is to nothing but wait for someone to hurt themselves or others because we can’t risk violating his rights.
Rights also mean responsibilities.
What I’m asking is what do you do when someone cannot be trusted to act responsibly with firearms?
Sit back, wait and watch?
I think the article stated that in CT there were about 200 cases which is about 20 per year, each case was (supposedly) investigated, a warrant issued, then the case received further judicial review so it doesn't appear that these actions were arbitrary or random or done without oversight.
I personally know of someone who is ok while on his meds (paranoid schizophrenic) but gets very whacked out when not. Even mentioning his meds provokes paranoia. Thank God he doesn't have any guns that I know of as I do not know what he might to if he quit his meds and I may not be in a situation to intervene personally.
There are many others like him or in similar situations who may legally own fire arms but may have episodic behavioral malfunctions.
So far the *best* advice seems to be to wait for them to do something illegal THEN call the police and it isn't sitting well with me.
If it becomes accepted that the government has a duty to disarm people who seem likely to wreak havoc, then every rampage committed by someone whom the government didn't disarm will be used as an excuse to broaden the standards used to disarm people. Since government personnel seeking to expand their power will benefit from rampages, they would have an incentive to ignore menaces to society while using their power on the innocent (bearing in mind that the innocent may be dangerous to corrupt politicians or their allies).
Does that really sound like a good plan to you?
Don't they already do that?
Every time something happens MMM and Sarah Brady trot out their litany against guns, but they try to disarm everyone.
How many times do we hear about the loonies who go postal and afterwards their acquaintances all remark about how they knew it was going to happen and yet they did nothing when they could have intervened.
We sure don't seem to have a problem intervening to protect property by killing an intruder on our property do we?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.