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.
This would appear to be abuse just as there are other abuses of any law.
But my question still stands:
Suppose that you know of someone who you believe to be an imminent threat to themselves or others...what do you do and should there be a mechanism for intervention?
...before they set up the border checkpoints...at the state line...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
In 1956 when going from Arizona into California remember ALL
vehicles stopped at border for inspection....think they were against AZ fruit or something like that....was 16 so not really paying a whole lot of attention as I already ‘knew everything”....
Even the most ardent 2A supporters (of which I claim to be) concede that in cases of mental incompetence or incapacity there is no presumption of unrestricted rights, but the discussion rarely gets past the fears of the VA massively misdiagnosing vets of PTSD to disarm them.
I can’t recall anyone saying that a schizophrenic who doesn’t always take his meds should be granted unrestricted 2A rights, and I don’t think I will.
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?
Or does he have to start acting out his threats and have the local SWAT team called out before something happens and you can give your quote to the newspaper that you knew it was just a matter of time until he snapped?
We don’t talk about this much on FR but maybe we should.
I heard that Obama’s bodyguards plan to riot if Obama loses. They are armed, dangerous and have no brains.
Prior Restraint goes on steroids. How nice.
lol!
I don't understand why I've never seen mention of this onerous law in the 5 years I've been following F.R. closely.
the law took effect in October 1999
It's the absolute worst in the nation.
You answer your own question before you ask it...
Maybe an investigation, a warrant, and judicial review?
Our freedoms are FAR more important than the quest to minimize criminal acts before they occur. There are few more onerous, dangerous, wicked, and stupid ideas than Prior Restraint.
ACLU where are you?? This is a legit case here..
The ACLU was no doubt applauding the law when it was passed.
If laws like this can be passed in Connecticut, they can be passed in other places as well and the Connecticut law has stood for 9 years.
As mentioned in the article it takes a great deal of money to challenge a law through the court system. If ever there was a case for some organization with muscle to get involved, like the NRA, this is it.
That's not good.
The Department of Pre-Crime is hard at work again! Anybody yet appeal on 2nd Amendment grounds?
So according to Connecticut law, the logical end of the argument is to take guns from every disgruntled employee. That makes me just want to pack everything up and move right to Connecticut and work there the rest of my life. Perhaps, maybe, possibly, it could be imagined, that if those workers who where shot had there own guns on them at the time and the shooter knew the victims where armed, that the shooting would have never happened in the first place. I think I'm asking too much to ask a liberal to think logically though.
After paying my sales expenses and moving costs, I had $80,000 to put down on my house in Idaho. I sold stock in 2002 to pay off the mortgage. The $117K payoff saved me $180K in interest over the life of the loan. Neither the stock nor an interest bearing account on that principal would have paid as well. I decided a free and clear house was a necessary resource if job alternatives fail to produce the level of income I'm making now. Paying $2080 in annual income tax is affordable for nearly anyone. Especially for a 3900 sq ft house on 1/3 acre.
bump & a ping
Gun owners don't have the resources to wage a decades-long legal battle, so it's Unconstitutionality won't be established.
And the intentions are good, so the mere speculation that it might have saved lives trumps the Constitution anyway.
After Heller, these people should be imprisoned for willful violation of Civil Rights under Colour of Law.
Cheers!
You forgot one thing: The defendants don't have their guns anymore, so they can't do a damn thing about it if they really had to anyway.
The most important reason to own guns is to discourage a tyrannical government from taking possessions(that goes for overbearing taxation), life, and liberty from its rightful citizenry. It's not a matter of if, but when the current police state consummates its end to dispossess its citizenry of its right to bear arms, the citizenry will be at the complete mercy of the horrendous oligarchy. We already see the effects of this. For example, look how the US Congress rules the citizenry without any regard for our wishes. It's scary that an oligarchy with a 9% approval rating can still singlehandedly take away a nation's right to own property and do with that property what the individuals of that nation deem proper and necessary. We are the only country in the world that will not drill for our own oil that we all know we have. When worse comes to worse, the US Congress simply has no reason to fear the citizenry anymore.
The very fact they are illegal would constitute the taking of their guns, I would presume.
They have, but what anyone is willing to do about it is a different story.
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.