M14 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
922 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
From Fox News:

HARTFORD, Conn. – As state officials across the U.S. grapple with how to prevent mass killings like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and near the University of California, Santa Barbara, some are turning to a gun seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.

Connecticut's law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that a person is a danger to themselves or others. A court hearing must be held within 14 days to determine whether to return the guns or authorize the state to hold them for up to a year.

The 1999 law, the first of its kind in the U.S., was in response to the 1998 killings of four managers at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters by a disgruntled employee with a history of psychiatric problems.

Indiana is the only other state that has such a law, passed in 2005 after an Indianapolis police officer was shot to death by a mentally ill man. California and New Jersey lawmakers are now considering similar statutes, both proposed in the wake of the killings of six people — three stabbed to death and three fatally shot— and wounding of 13 others near the University of California, Santa Barbara, by a mentally ill man who had posted threatening videos on YouTube.

Michael Lawlor, Connecticut's undersecretary for criminal justice planning and policy, believes the state's gun seizure law could have prevented the killings of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, if police had been made aware that gunman Adam Lanza had mental health problems and access to his mother's legally owned guns.

"That's the kind of situation where you see the red flags and the warning signs are there, you do something about it," Lawlor said. "In many shootings around the country, after the fact it's clear that the warning signs were there."

Gun rights advocates oppose gun seizure laws, saying they allow police to take people's firearms based only on allegations and before the gun owners can present their side of the story to a judge. They say they're concerned the laws violate constitutional rights.

"The government taking things away from people is never a good thing," said Rich Burgess, president of the gun rights group Connecticut Carry. "They come take your stuff and give you 14 days for a hearing. Would anybody else be OK if they just came and took your car and gave you 14 days for a hearing?"

Rachel Baird, a Connecticut lawyer who has represented many gun owners, said one of the biggest problems with the state's law is that police are abusing it. She said she has had eight clients whose guns were seized by police who obtained the required warrants after taking possession of the guns.

"It's stretched and abused, and since it's firearms, the courts go along with it," Baird said of the law.

But backers of such laws say they can prevent shootings by getting guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people.

"You want to make sure that when people are in crisis ... there is a way to prevent them to get access to firearms," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the nonprofit Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence in Washington, D.C.

President Barack Obama tried to tighten gun regulations after the Newtown massacre, but proposals to expand background checks for gun purchasers failed to get enough votes to pass in the Senate in the face of strong opposition from the influential National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups. Some states such as Connecticut have tightened gun restrictions since Newtown, but others have expanded the right to openly carry firearms in public places.

Connecticut authorities report a large increase in the use of gun seizure warrants involving people deemed dangerous by police over the past several years. Officials aren't exactly sure what caused the increase but believe it's related to numerous highly publicized mass shootings in recent years.

Police statewide filed an estimated 183 executed gun seizure warrants with court clerks last year, more than twice the number filed in 2010, according to Connecticut Judicial Branch data. Last year's total also was nearly nine times higher than the annual average in the first five years of the gun seizure law.

Connecticut police have seized more than 2,000 guns using the warrants, according to the most recent estimate by state officials, in 2009.

Police in South Windsor, about 12 miles northeast of Hartford, say the law was invaluable last year when they seized several guns from the home of a man accused of spray-painting graffiti referencing mass shootings in Newtown and Colorado on the outside of the town's high school.

"With all that we see in the news day after day, particular after Newtown, I think departments are more aware of what authority they have ... and they're using the tool (gun seizure warrants) more frequently than in the past," said South Windsor Police Chief Matthew Reed. "We always look at it from the other side. What if we don't seize the guns?"
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
States look to gun seizure law after mass killings

States look to gun seizure law after mass killings
Published July 06, 2014Associated Press
937


FILE: June 14, 2014: Diana Rodriguez with a picture of her daughter, a victim of gun violence, at a rally outside city hall in New York City.AP
HARTFORD, Conn. – As state officials across the U.S. grapple with how to prevent mass killings like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and near the University of California, Santa Barbara, some are turning to a gun seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.

Connecticut's law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that a person is a danger to themselves or others. A court hearing must be held within 14 days to determine whether to return the guns or authorize the state to hold them for up to a year.

The 1999 law, the first of its kind in the U.S., was in response to the 1998 killings of four managers at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters by a disgruntled employee with a history of psychiatric problems.

Indiana is the only other state that has such a law, passed in 2005 after an Indianapolis police officer was shot to death by a mentally ill man. California and New Jersey lawmakers are now considering similar statutes, both proposed in the wake of the killings of six people — three stabbed to death and three fatally shot— and wounding of 13 others near the University of California, Santa Barbara, by a mentally ill man who had posted threatening videos on YouTube.

Michael Lawlor, Connecticut's undersecretary for criminal justice planning and policy, believes the state's gun seizure law could have prevented the killings of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, if police had been made aware that gunman Adam Lanza had mental health problems and access to his mother's legally owned guns.

"That's the kind of situation where you see the red flags and the warning signs are there, you do something about it," Lawlor said. "In many shootings around the country, after the fact it's clear that the warning signs were there."

Gun rights advocates oppose gun seizure laws, saying they allow police to take people's firearms based only on allegations and before the gun owners can present their side of the story to a judge. They say they're concerned the laws violate constitutional rights.

"The government taking things away from people is never a good thing," said Rich Burgess, president of the gun rights group Connecticut Carry. "They come take your stuff and give you 14 days for a hearing. Would anybody else be OK if they just came and took your car and gave you 14 days for a hearing?"

Rachel Baird, a Connecticut lawyer who has represented many gun owners, said one of the biggest problems with the state's law is that police are abusing it. She said she has had eight clients whose guns were seized by police who obtained the required warrants after taking possession of the guns.

"It's stretched and abused, and since it's firearms, the courts go along with it," Baird said of the law.

But backers of such laws say they can prevent shootings by getting guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people.

"You want to make sure that when people are in crisis ... there is a way to prevent them to get access to firearms," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the nonprofit Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence in Washington, D.C.

President Barack Obama tried to tighten gun regulations after the Newtown massacre, but proposals to expand background checks for gun purchasers failed to get enough votes to pass in the Senate in the face of strong opposition from the influential National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups. Some states such as Connecticut have tightened gun restrictions since Newtown, but others have expanded the right to openly carry firearms in public places.

Connecticut authorities report a large increase in the use of gun seizure warrants involving people deemed dangerous by police over the past several years. Officials aren't exactly sure what caused the increase but believe it's related to numerous highly publicized mass shootings in recent years.

Police statewide filed an estimated 183 executed gun seizure warrants with court clerks last year, more than twice the number filed in 2010, according to Connecticut Judicial Branch data. Last year's total also was nearly nine times higher than the annual average in the first five years of the gun seizure law.

Connecticut police have seized more than 2,000 guns using the warrants, according to the most recent estimate by state officials, in 2009.

Police in South Windsor, about 12 miles northeast of Hartford, say the law was invaluable last year when they seized several guns from the home of a man accused of spray-painting graffiti referencing mass shootings in Newtown and Colorado on the outside of the town's high school.

"With all that we see in the news day after day, particular after Newtown, I think departments are more aware of what authority they have ... and they're using the tool (gun seizure warrants) more frequently than in the past," said South Windsor Police Chief Matthew Reed. "We always look at it from the other side. What if we don't seize the guns?"

Now thats progress! More than 2000 guns confiscated in 2009. How many mass shootings were there? No big deal, just another violation of OUR Rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDudeAbides1970

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
This law when enacted in CT was called turn in your neighbor law. If a neighbor got in an argument over neighbor things like a roaming pet, barking dog, tree limbs, loud party, typical neighborhood things. If one was a gun owner the other could call and the police could seize the owners guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,473 Posts
I call "bovine fertilizer" on this one.

Ok, "the law" takes guns from the "crazies" and, pray tell, what will prevent them from purchasing a firearm from the criminal element to perform an intended crime??? These people are "crazy", not stupid. They are fully aware of what they do and intend to do. Because of their awareness of their crimes I don't have any compassion/mercy for them when they commit these horrible crimes against humanity.

In the case of Adam Lanza, "if" his mother would have locked her guns in a safe without sharing the combination with a son that she was in denial about his "sickness" maybe that sad incident could have been prevented...maybe...I don't really know.

I firmly believe that if the victims and bystanders at these shootings were armed I think the "crazies" would have thought twice about attacking armed citizens.

Meeting force with equal or greater force can be a great deterrent against those with evil intent.

Here's an additional option: If "the law" knows that a person is mentally ill then "the law" should get them some help before they "explode" on society! "Yeah, wait on this one."

My non-scientific opinion...and you know the rest of the story...

Best regards,
D1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,318 Posts
Let's see this piece of liberal crap was enacted 15 years ago , it sure worked wonders preventing sandy hook didn't it ? Stopped that whacko lanza in his tracks , didn't it? "Invaluable" in nabbing an alleged graffiti sprayer, & No doubt a "weapon of choice" of anti-gun neighbors, in their quest to eliminate guns from legal owners in their neighborhood. What a success story. What a crock! It's not about taking guns from the crazies, it's about clearing the path, getting seizures of guns palatable and acceptable in the publics eye, Keep cranking up the heat, a little here, a little there, just like lobsters in the pot.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
As I stated, just another violation of OUR Rights. Just because LE 'thinks' someone 'might' mis-use their firearm gives them the ability to violate that individuals Rights? BS. Ok, so every banger I see should be arrested because I think the person 'might' be involved in criminal activity. Anyone driving a car that looks fast should get a ticket because they might exceed the speed limit. What a bunch of BS! Once again OUR government is totally out of line!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
"And that's nothing but pure and simple old fashioned Communism"-Sheriff Buford T. Justice(Jackie Gleason),"Smokey and the Bandit"-1976.....Enjoy the vid clip:[ame]http://youtu.be/uE3TELJlsKU[/ame]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
870 Posts
There is a problem with that pesky thing called Our CONSTITUTION.

These laws should be wiped clean until a Constitutional Convention is Conviened, and OUR RIGHTS are taken.

I bet SHTF will happen soon after............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
870 Posts
And of course, the CT Law does not work unless everyone registers their guns. Have to know who owns what firearms of course. And they wonder why we are so against Firearm registeration.

Rakin
Registration worked great for Adolph Hitler. Is the current Ct Gov. a National Socialist too?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,821 Posts
And of course, the CT Law does not work unless everyone registers their guns. Have to know who owns what firearms of course. And they wonder why we are so against Firearm registeration.

Rakin
You beat me to it!!GI5
 

·
In the gilded halls of Valhala
Joined
·
13,515 Posts
Sounds like a good law to me. Until it is abused or used for mass confiscation.

Lots of states have this.

In fact, in Texas Any peace officer can take up your guns if they think your mentally ill.

Sadly it's not mentally ill people who execute these attacks it is sociopaths that do it. The Texas law is just perfect for abuse, but luckily a doctors signature and you may can get them back. I think only personal doctors should be responsible for endorsing a judges order to disarm someone. And a judge must weigh family testimony, etc.


Sociopathy is not a mental illness it's a disorder of personality such that you don't feel remorse. This is why they either surrender or kill themselves.


They can plow through kids or innocent adults murdering them in cold blood, but as soon as THEY feel in danger their brains selfish preservation functions enough to either preserve their life and surrender or preserve their freedom by taking the cowards way out.





I very much wish more people would understand the mentally ill cannot even run their own life much less plan, gather weapons and execute a plan.


These mass Shooters are EVIL not crazy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
870 Posts
Sounds like a good law to me. Until it is abused or used for mass confiscation.

Lots of states have this.

In fact, in Texas Any peace officer can take up your guns if they think your mentally ill.

Sadly it's not mentally ill people who execute these attacks it is sociopaths that do it. The Texas law is just perfect for abuse, but luckily a doctors signature and you may can get them back. I think only personal doctors should be responsible for endorsing a judges order to disarm someone. And a judge must weigh family testimony, etc.


Sociopathy is not a mental illness it's a disorder of personality such that you don't feel remorse. This is why they either surrender or kill themselves.


They can plow through kids or innocent adults murdering them in cold blood, but as soon as THEY feel in danger their brains selfish preservation functions enough to either preserve their life and surrender or preserve their freedom by taking the cowards way out.





I very much wish more people would understand the mentally ill cannot even run their own life much less plan, gather weapons and execute a plan.


These mass Shooters are EVIL not crazy.
Bull manure.

You want my right follow the law to do it.

Don't trample my rights because of the Clown/Idiot.

If we could do that I could put a sock in your mouth and tell you to shut up. I won't and I wouldn't. You have a right under the 1st.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
article said:
...Police in South Windsor, about 12 miles northeast of Hartford, say the law was invaluable last year when they seized several guns from the home of a man accused of spray-painting graffiti referencing mass shootings in Newtown and Colorado on the outside of the town's high school...
Um, can't they just seize the crazy man making vandalistic threats instead?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
And of course, the CT Law does not work unless everyone registers their guns. Have to know who owns what firearms of course. And they wonder why we are so against Firearm registeration.

Rakin
Not true, the officer has to get a search and seizure warrant that any Connecticut judge will sign.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,073 Posts
At the risk of being called Mr. Obvious, wouldn't it make more sense to have a law to seize the crazy person instead of inanimate objects in the case that person is verifiably crazy? If you just seize the crazy guy's gun, what is stop him from creating a huge bomb or running people down with a car, especially given you just angered him more by taking his guns?

Given those questions it makes me think that either the people that wrote this law are @#$%ing stupid or they just wanted a vague law they could use to confiscate people's weapons based on little to no evidence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
Given those questions it makes me think that either the people that wrote this law are @#$%ing stupid or they just wanted a vague law they could use to confiscate people's weapons based on little to no evidence.
Laws are written vaguely so as to create confusion, and new court precedents become the result. The Safe act, good for the children act, more for everyone act. it's all the same. It's an act.

FWIW it was a republican in the Gov's mansion that signed the law into effect. IT's not all the Dems that are running and ruining things throughout. End of rant.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top