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.
Yes. And hopefully most people never will know someone like that.
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.
Not the same thing. I'm talking about someone who legally possesses but suffers an emotional or psychological breakdown that allows their thinking to become irrational. Or perhaps they stop taking their meds.
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.
Understood that there is a high threshold for involuntary commitment as there should be.
But if there are provisions to deprive liberty in such situations what about depriving of property temporarily in similar situations?
“But if there are provisions to deprive liberty in such situations what about depriving of property temporarily in similar situations?”
If they can be deprived of liberty, there is no reason to deprive them of property.
Understood but when commitment isn’t appropriate, then what?
They try. Codifying a government's duty to disarm potentially-dangerous people would cause them to do it a lot more.
Every time something happens MMM and Sarah Brady trot out their litany against guns, but they try to disarm everyone.
Yeah, Brady et al. want to disarm everyone, but do you think they would have any objection to disarming the populace piecemeal?
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.
And how many more times are there that people have such suspicions but nothing ever becomes of it? Of course, you never hear about those times, because nothing happens worthy of reporting (or even, in many cases, particularly remembering).
BTW, another point to consider: if people can only be deprived of liberty as a consequence of prohibited overt actions, then someone who thinks he might have some mental problems but wishes to retain his liberty would further his interests by seeking help, so as to avoid performing such actions that would cost him his liberty. If, however, people may be deprived of liberty as a result of perceived risk, then those who value their liberty would further their interests by avoiding any actions that might increase the perception of risks, even when such actions would reduce the actual risk.
People occasionally go off the deep end and do very bad things. That is unfortunate, but inevitable. Policies to act preemptively against such people before they commit any prohibited overt act will almost invariably (if not inevitably) have side-effects that are worse than the problem they are supposed to solve.
In some cases it may be appropriate for such people to be made wards of the state who are required to check in daily to confirm that they are on their medications, and who are subject to arrest if they fail to do so. As wards of the state, they would not be free persons protected by the Second Amendment. Note that daily monitoring of such wards would not be cheap, nor should it be. If someone would not pose a sufficient danger to justify the ongoing expense of such continued monitoring, they don't pose enough of a danger to justify disarmament.
IF someone is acting/speaking crazy then it would be their call/responsibility first...
I *think* the threshold for friends/neighbors is 3+ sworn statements for the same...
Again, IF somebody is dangerous and those closest to them dont speak up, then shame on em...but short of 'requiring' intervention [by law] by private citizens the only other pre-emption is to be armed yerself, fully prepared as citizens ought to be, to take appropriate action if it becomes necessary...
anything that warrants deprivation of property would/should reach the same threshold for liberty/freedom...
I would wager that every family or group of friends has a certain someone who could 'go postal' ...stopping meds, startin drinkin/druggin, clinical depresiion a divorce or layoff away etc...
MOST work thru to the other side without incident, sometimes though, somebody has to die so that I may live...
LFOD...
In Florida we knew that as the Baker Act.
With this the person gets detained involuntarily.
Again, we don’t seem to have a problem locking someone, do we?
Take him to involuntary mental evaluation but don’t disarm him!
Old hat. Never heard of “possession with intent” laws before?
IMHO, a schizophrenic who doesn’t always take his meds should be granted unrestricted 2A rights, or be confined to an institution where others take responsibility for his defense. If he is considered safe to walk free on the streets, he must be as free as I am, or I am myself not free. Now, you will be able to recall someone saying it. Which of us is the more ardent 2A supporter?
As to your "what if", your personal nervousness is insufficient cause to strip him of his 2A rights. Yes, he must act before you react. Otherwise, it is not a reaction at all, but the action of an elitist tyrant who thinks he knows better than his fellow citizen.
IMHO.
An individual’s 2A rights are so absolute that nothing barring a conviction and incarceration is grounds for disarming.
There ya go.
I'll be as plain as possible in my belief...
IF a person, ["time served felon", temporary or permanently mental defective, politician etc] is too unstable/dangerous to be armed and walking the same streets as my family, then they should be under lock and key...period...
That determination CAN AND SHOULD BE ONLY made by a thorough evaluation and vetting of solid evidence, in which the threshold is maintained at the highest levels...
Anything less is simple tyranny and ripe for abuse...of course the fact will remain that while the process plays out that extremes will happens both ways [innocent detentions which should be righted...and deranged predators amongst us]
the former could be settled with a little rope and a lotta tree for serious evil 'accusers'...
the latter should be dealt with on an 'as needed' basis by the armed citizenry...just as the case with 'old yeller'...
Free Men on Free streets in a Free society have the RIGHT to be armed...AS WELL AS those who would be the recipients of their intended evil deeds...
No problemo, my thoughts, too.
But what about those law abiding citizens that have been fine and stable but no longer are?
So far the best answer I get is incarcerate them or let them get violent.
geez louise EE, what are the alternatives???
Short of keeping an eye on someone, inside or outside of lockup, what else is accepatble in a FRee Republic???
Sounds as if you have a personal example, if so mail me and maybe I can help with a specific 'emotional malady'...
gilbo_3 [since 10-18-05]...
Nope, just noticing that the First Amendment is good but you cannot libel or slander or endanger others by yelling fire in a theater.
But the Second is so absolute no matter what, save arrest and conviction or commitment.
Just interesting imo.
” Is there any role at all for government to intervene?
“
There is and it is an adjudication of mental competency. The idea that police have that power is unconstitutional.
" Florida law permits a mental health professional, law enforcement officer, or judge who issues an ex parte order to initiate an involuntary examination only when a person meets the following criteria:"
http://www.psychlaws.org/PressRoom/faqonbakeract.htm
Maybe you should get up to speed....read the posted article...it said that there were investigations, warrants, judicial review...and do some research so you at least look like you know what you're talking abbout
No. I am telling you I have reported someone stating to me that they were going to harm someone else and I called the authorities. I stated that if the occasion ever arose where someone starting shooting into a crowd that I would have little reservations about firing back until either I was dead or the perpatrator was. Nothing to forgive, just reread the comments.
“to initiate an involuntary examination”
They can initiaite an M1 or ADAD hold but they do not make final determinations. Those holds are also only 3 or 5 days and are immediate. So, before you get all cocky about it, my wife is an LCSW and I have a long history working with the federal and state health and human services departments and know the laws and procedures intimately.
Then not unConstitutional as you claimed is it?
We are talking about cops seizing firearms based on their assessment and not based on a court order for mental illness. Those are two totally different things.
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.