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.
Thank you. I am sure that is coming ... sooner than most think.
The government shall not infringe on the rights of citizens to bear arms, and you are innocent until proven guilty. That seems to have fallen by the way side. But after the right was passed for government to sell your family farm to a developer that promises to pay more taxes passed, the right to private property is gone too.
It seems that while I have been overseas America became Amerika.
The only path I see in the future is laden with blood, either the blood of a rightous revolution, or the blood of the people in death camps at the hands of the present government of the US.
We have crossed that slippery slope a while back I am afraid, there is no turning back now.
Seems like an outright violation of the 2nd amendment to me.
By their own logic, these legislators should be arrested before they have the chance to write unconstitutional laws.
One of my favorite threads at Free Republic
Makes me want to be an American in Israel
Israel Army Girls!
magic_mania/ ^
Posted on Fri Jul 21 11:57:18 2006 by dennisw
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1669904/posts
Pinciaro......another village idiot.
Quick, let’s seize all the cars in case someone might have a accident!
Nothing like due process eh ???
The things 9 yrs old and I dont recall this nanny tattletale BS before, but hopefully there will now be a challenge following Heller...
LFOD...
One of my favorites, too.
Like a policeman that took the gun in the first place or some politician who Fancy's a newer model. From my cold dead fingers,
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.Then hypothetically ....There are nearly 900,000 privately owned firearms in Connecticut today.
if the Legislature was about to pass a law, say an onerous Tax Increase, that they believed would 'outrage' the citizens, they could then first seize all 900,000 guns in the state under the guise that there'd be "concerns about gun owners intentions" if said law was passed.Yep, definitely constitutional.
/s
Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
With women like that in the Army it gives a whole new meaning to the word Shalom.
What would you propose?
Maybe an investigation, a warrant, and judicial review?
Just asking.
So just suppose someone became a risk to themselves or others and someone suspected? Then what? What should be done?
So if your dog pees on your neighbor’s flowers, and your neighbor calls the police on you and says he is afraid, the police will violate the Constitutional protection against privacy and seizure of private property, and unlawfully take what is yours.
This law is invalid, and therefore illegal.
Didn’t you read the article? Particularly the individual who was “suspected” by Police because he filed several vandalism complaints without satisfaction. He then resorted to installing a security system to protect himself, with motion detectors, video cameras etc,,,. All police found when they raided the home was his guns locked up in a safe. They confiscated them anyway.
It appears that any citizen who installs home security or locks their guns up is behaving “delusional” or “Paranoid”, which warrants them to storm the premises and confiscate all firearms.
Here again, based on their interpretation to all the facts. And you have trouble seeing what is wrong about all of this in the first place?
I don’t get that.
Fascism when practiced by government is still fascism. Only it’s called “law”.
“...the state imposed a sales tax if you didn’t put the proceeds of your sale back into California real estate.”
Really? We sold our condo and bought our current home in 2001. At least we are within a 10 minute drive to hubby’s work and in a stable area that is not getting hit with foreclosures, yet. But I didn’t know we had the same thing that NJ has, an exit tax to leave the state. At least we aren’t upside down with a 30 year fixed, no funny loan stuff for us. We had been upside down in our condo for years, glad we got out of that. This market would be terrible for condo’s.
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.