Discussion in 'Legal' started by Zedicus, Aug 3, 2008.
Well don't that beat all. Good thing I don't have any guns.
Reminds me of "precrime" from the movie "Minority Report."
If someone has actually made an illegal threat and there is credible evidence, that would also be assault and I can see a seizure there. But this sounds mostly like east coast idiocy in the common way. Glad I don't live there.
Translation: "It certainly has not been abused. But we intend to change that."
And everyone one of those confiscations were peaceful?
Not a very unique law. This sounds like a prequel to the Katrina incident. It is scary that laws like this have a place in the U.S..
Our rights are being eroded more and more.
Reading that article reminded me so much of 1984.
Everything is ok. Don't worry about it, we'll let you know if we excessively abuse you. No worries as Comrade Lawlor, D-East Haven has your best interests at heart.
Lenin is laughing himself silly.
The moral of the story is, dont comply with registration, and store multiple guns off-site.
A friend of mine went through something similar.
Non violent domestic dispute between friend and his (insane) wife involved cops. Wife's made so many outrageous accusations against her husband, her adult kids and the grandchildren that the cops all have the woman's number.
My friend's mistake was to tell the officer that, as a devout Catholic, he has been raised to reject the idea of divorce (even though his own priest said he should for his own personal safety) and that he was at the end of his mental rope.
The cop asked him if he believed he was a threat to himself or others, he told the officer that he was nearly ready to end it all.
They took him in to the ER for a psych eval and seized his 12 firearms, partly due to the psyche but mostly because they didn't trust leaving all his safe keys with a lunatic wife. He got them all back but it took a month.
He finally divorced her and he and all his adult children ended up with PFA's against her.
its not like the cops just up and decided to go steal these firearms. a judge actually had to sign a warrant to authorize it. there is at least some due process involved.
like all warrants it is a one sided affair where the side seeking the warrant can claim just about anything with no proof required of anything, so it will be abused, but that is no different than warrants of other types that are frequently issued in dubious circumstances, much like orders of protection.
there is still some due process involved, however slim, and better yet there is a record of what is being claimed.
Thus, never register your guns.
Wow, when putting in a security system makes you a threat to others, and a seizable offense, it makes me glad I don't own any guns.
Well, we keep fighting here in CT, but we have a long way to go.
I wonder how this law would play out down the road butting heads with the Heller Ruling? I mean I know that people cite the Heller ruling for things that it doesn't apply to, but this law seems to be in conflict with the 2nd ammendment.
Just like restraining orders and no-contact orders also.
Wow. Due process much?
"Lawlor said there have been no challenges on constitutional grounds because...a test case would be too costly for average gun owners."
Seems to me that this would be an excellent opportunity for the NRA or some state-level 2nd Amendment PAC to step in on the behalf of one of these owners and take this law for Judicial review. That Torrington case, superficially, looks like an ideal one to take up, and the funds and lawyers these groups can provide would make it a fair fight.
"The moral of the story is, dont comply with registration"
Well, that IS a solution...but the problem is that, if you are then found in possession of said unregistered firearm, depending on the state you may be guilty of a felony-level crime. Then you WILL lose that firearm, any others you may have, and the ability to get more. If you're willing to take that risk, go ahead.
this is not really a unqiue thing. AFAIK, every state has provisions that allow a court to claim you are a threat to a spouse and take your guns. usually the standard of proof is extremely lax.
I'm sorry, officer, I'm afraid you might shoot an innocent person with your sidearm. I'm going to need you to hand it over.
sounds to me like they can whip up anything. hey look, someone lost their job and owns a pistol. let's go get it.
I'd bet most of the time the people who have firearms confiscated under this law are not people you would want to have firearms anyway.
I would like to see more proof before guns can be confiscated under such a procedure, and a the very least some opportunity for the person in question to answer the allegations in advance. the 4th amendment still applies, and if they take your property and don't plan to give it back, they should have to pay fair market value for it.
^^^ you said it better than i did. they really need to use a lot of proof before they take stuff away. i was just being sarcastic.
Gee! And just WHO is accountable for this???
You folks in Connecticut need to get control of your state government before you lose ALL of your "inalienable" rights! Holy smoke!!!
JMHO, but there is something elementarily wrong when you have to fear your government's denial of your inalienable right and then have to risk bankruptcy or depend on others to defend yourself against your own government! What the heck is "free" about that?
How would you define tyranny? Scary! Really scary!!
Ah yes... The good old CT "turn your neighbor in" law has once again reared its ugly head.
"JMHO, but there is something elementarily wrong when you have to fear your government's denial of your inalienable right and then have to risk bankruptcy or depend on others to defend yourself against your own government! What the heck is "free" about that?
How would you define tyranny? Scary! Really scary!!"
I call it reality and a recognition that public fear, justified or not, will erode our rights faster than anything else. We only keep our rights as long as we are willing to fight for them...fear of crime, fear of terrorism, fear of all the random crap that happens and our desire to want to think we can "control" these things will push the public to endorse laws like this. We have become too soft, comfortable and complacent to want to endure anything that threatens our safety and "way of life" and therefore we are more than willing to "sacrifice liberty for safety".
Tyranny is when the government does something you oppose, and all you do is gripe without taking actual, effective action to fight what they're doing. Getting the NRA to fight the law as our allies with deep pockets is effective--throwing lots of smileys onto my posts isn't.
Separate names with a comma.