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.
Have you ever seen anyone convicted of attempted suicide?
Ever seen anyone even tried for it?
If your are convinced that a friend of your will blow his brains out if left alone, what are you going to do?
If you attract the attention of "law enforcement", this will be one of the charges if you happen to be in the vicinity of a firearm.
Actually, "preventive detention" is far less of a threat to liberty, because it's too obvious. If the state were to lock up 10% of the populace on suspicion that they might do something wrong, the state would find itself being hard-pressed to justify keeping most of the people locked up. On the other hand, if it disarms 10% of the populace, it will have much less trouble justifying their continued disarmament.
Don't leave him alone.
Do you think that taking away someone's gun will prevent the use of some other instrumentality to commit suicide? Guns are hardly the only effective means of committing suicide. Unlike some other ways, firearms allow someone to back out without pulling the trigger, and with no harm done. Someone who ingests excessive quantities of certain over-the-counter medicines might decide an hour later that they don't want to die, but by that point they may be mortally harmed.
This is outrageous! Unconstitutional on it’s face.
The citizens affected should file a class-action federal lawsuit against the State.
Or, the should take up (other) arms and throw these lawless dictators out; permanently.
Intervention is a completely different subject and is a private matter. The issue here is government deciding what is best for the public outside of the protections provided for us under the Constitution.
We all have potential to act out violently and are free under our own jurisdiction until we do so. Government or Law enforcement has no business getting involved until a crime has been committed. I this case they are acting out of suspicion and violating Constitutional authority.
This will only morph into complete government tyranny if it is allowed to continue. It won’t stop here. It never does.
Aren't well meaning individuals that take a person's property guilty of theft and don't they risk possible harm to themselves if dealing with an emotionally disturbed person? What right do they have to act?
I don't find the answer that we do NOTHING until after the person has harmed himself or others to be acceptable and yet I loath prior restrain especially in the form of routine domestic restraining orders.
Where is the balance? Is there a balance?
Guns are not the only effective means of suicide but I’ve not yet heard of anyone going on a murder then suicide spree using prescription pills.
If you think that an individual’s 2A rights are so absolute that nothing barring a conviction and incarceration is grounds for disarming, then just say so.
I’ve seen many threads where freepers will concede that mentally defective people should not have firearms, yet is seems on this thread that everyone believes that even mentally defective persons should be armed as they please.
Is there a balance? If so, where is it?
Amendment Four
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So...
Per the article their process involves an investigation, a warrant, and judicial review.
Like it or not, it seems that they clear the hurdles of the 4A.
bump
Throw Connecticut on the pile with California, Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey and maybe a few others.
They decided they didn’t LIKE democracy, and voted in something else.
Who knows, maybe they’ll sack up some day and demand democracy back at the ballot box, or at gunpoint.
Until then, I have way more important stuff to worry about than other people’s stupidity.
How about when there is sufficient evidence to justify detaining the person; in some cases, people might in some circumstances be allowed conditional release (e.g. contingent upon their continuing to take their medicine), but even such people would be clearly recognized as wards of the state.
In short: free people have the right to keep and bear arms. If there is just cause to deny someone's freedom, then and only then may that person be disarmed.
Okidokie then, I feel like you are an unstable guy, please turn in yer guns...THE LAW says so...
"RIGHTS" arent to be suppressed/removed/denied w/o due process...if somebody thinks/feels/believes there is a threat, I suggest arming themselves and vetting the situation thru the entire judicial system...
the lip service of a couple 'statements' by cops and an 'investigation' is BS... as the percentages of granted warrants indicates...
It properly should be the burden to PROVE the need...
IOW...people should quit being helpless and take care of themselves...
Probable cause 'of what'?
The Fourth Amendment has been watered down (i.e. ignored) to the point that a cop who swears before a judge that someone else told him the sky was probably blue could get a warrant on that basis. I see no reasonable basis for holding the requirement to be anything less than requiring that warrants be supported by oath or affirmation of the affiant's personal knowledge that (1) a crime was probably committed, and (2) the proposed search would probably find evidence of that crime. It's disgusting how many warrants are issued without the police coming anywhere close to meeting those requirements.
Okay, so the largest non-government mass murder was committed with a gun. Uh, no. Depending upon how you count, the top several were committed with box cutters and airplanes.
How about the next largest after those? Nope. ANFO bomb (Murrah building).
Next largest? Gasoline (Happyland Social Club).
The most effective way of stopping people who would use a gun to commit mass murder is for the intended victims to be armed. Politicians who are given power to disarm people arbitrarily and capriciously are just as likely to cause an unchecked mass murder (by disarming a victim who could otherwise have stopped it) than to prevent one.
Bad things happen. Some are predictable. That does not mean that we should act to prevent all potentialities. To do so destroys Freedom, which is worth far more than a few million lives. Just ask the millions who have given their lives to protect and promote freedom. Personally, I'd take the opinion of one who gave their life for Freedom before I'll take the opinion of those who think that people should be punished before they do something bad.
That person who is exhibiting signs... might just right themselves... avoid the temptation... find Christ... might get distracted by a shiny object... or anything else. Allowing government to start acting against those who merely "show signs" simply invites them to open those interpretations... as they ALWAYS do... and literally invites the worst authoritarian state you can imagine.
Cripes, every male child between the ages of 8 and 18 (okay, 28) exhibits signs of pyromania, tendencies towards physically violent reactions to physical challenges, an amazing propesity towards nearly-uncontrollable lust towards attractive females, etc. Shall we lock up all the boys now?
So outside or commitment or incarceration there is nothing that can or should be done?
In principle this is no different than figuring out when to call child protective services when there isn't obvious abuse but there are strong indications that kids are in imminent danger.
After the fact, people often feel that someone should have done something, but no one had the courage to do something.
Again, if you believe that someone is in crisis and cannot act rationally, when do you act and what do you do if you cannot personally intervene?
No, I’m not talking about the routine day to day irregularities that plague us all.
I’m talking about when you are convinced that something will happen without intervention....someone will act violently and has the means to do so but has not yet broken any laws.
Is it really the collective opinion of this thread that we enjoy our popcorn, then shake our heads and say that we knew it was just a matter of time?
Try reading the thread a bit more carefully.
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.