CT State Police to Stop Threatening Gun Confiscation. In Certain Cases . . .

Screen Shot 2013-10-05 at 9.08.06 AM

Connecticut Carry President Richard Burgess press release:

In a letter dated September 10th, 2013, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) admitted to ‘mistakes’ in sending threatening letters to citizens that were the subject of ex parte restraining orders and unlawfully demanding the surrender of their firearms under the threat of arrest. The letter comes as an apparent response to Attorney Rachel M. Baird’s criminal complaint sent to the FBI against the DESPP for deprivation of civil rights . . .

While the DESPP assures us that these kinds of threats are to be ‘no longer mailed when an ex parte restraining order is issued’, we still have serious concerns about this and other topics when the DESPP and their legal counsel were unable previously to properly distinguish between an Ex Parte restraining order and a restraining order. The facts of this case as well as others only serve to further emphasize the severe lack of legal understanding within the Connecticut State Police.

Connecticut Carry expects that this lack of understanding is only going to get worse considering the 130+ page gun ban implemented by our legislature as of 4/4/2013. We first publicized the topic of Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection threatening gun owners back on July 1st, 2013.

The lack of understanding of these basic legal constructs as well as the constitutional issues exposed within them was the subject of a letter to the US House of Representatives and Senate after Senators Blumenthal and Murphy signed on to try and change the legislation to cover DESPP’s tracks.

No agency, whether federal, state or municipal should be issuing threats of arrest without a full understanding of the law.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

27 Responses to CT State Police to Stop Threatening Gun Confiscation. In Certain Cases . . .

  1. avatarJeff the Griz says:

    I wonder how many people that had received these threats had a tragic boating accidents that same day?

  2. avatarJason says:

    Mine was a smelting accident gone terribly wrong!

  3. avatarPaul53 says:

    Light dawns on marble head! And they say right up front it’s going to get worse! And they haven’t even factored in the lawsuits by private citizens, NRA, FAF, ACLU etc ad infinitum. Maybe TTAG will need to start a separate web site just for Connecticut? This should be good. Hey Governor, hold my brain while open this can of worms for ya.

    • avatarJeff the Griz says:

      They might if this was the truth about gun laws… Now that would be an expensive site to keep updated.

      • avatarJay1987 says:

        Keepin that site updated would be impossible

        • avatarJeff the Griz says:

          Nah, they would have to have Lawyers retained in all 50 states, with 2-3 in DC and 2 in states that have are more “restricted”.

  4. avatarRalph says:

    I guess that we’re supposed to believe that the Attorney General of CT didn’t know the law. Suuuuuure.

    He knew. He just didn’t care. And he would have gone on not caring except that there’s this pesky lawyer named Rachel Baird who called his bluff.

    http://www.rachelbairdlaw.com/

    • avatarPascal says:

      Of course he knew, and he is not the first AG to ignore the law to support a political agenda.

      If he does not follow the law, what is the worst that can happen? That is right, absolutely nothing! Because there is no penalty for not upholding the law.

      When there is no accountability for your actions, you pretty much whatever you damn well please. Even in this instance, what will happen, a sorry for threatening you under the color of the law and nothing more.

      We live in a time where supporting your chosen political agenda trumps following the law.

  5. avatarFrank Masotti says:

    Kill them kill them all. Not seriously, but, I hope the suit continues anyway.

  6. avatarPat says:

    No way on earth the piggies get my gats. You would have the spine of an earthworm to turn them in on a letter. Evil ‘Big Gov’ commie libtards (democrats).

  7. avataruncommon_sense says:

    “The facts of this case as well as others only serve to further emphasize the severe lack of legal understanding within the Connecticut State Police.”

    Oh, they understand full well … they don’t care!

    You would be a fool to assume that all law enforcement agencies are focused on securing the inalienable rights of citizens.

    • avatarMike says:

      IMO, you would be a fool to believe that *any* law enforcement agency was focused on securing the inalienable rights of the people, muchless yours.

      • avatarPascal says:

        This could be fixed very easily. Should anyone in the police or in the justice system is found by grand jury to have violated a civil right, any civil right, then they are on the hook to pay their own legal bills without protection from the state.

        Since right now they have pretty much immunity from prosecution unless they outright kill someone (and then, it is still YMMV), they can do whatever they feel like.

  8. avatarBob7 says:

    Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of a long struggle. We are becoming a country where enforcement is based on the opinion of a small minority of autocrats, not the laws enacted by the consent of the people. It will take a lot of strength to take that scepter of power from these would-be tyrants and return it to its rightful place — the people. It will take the kind of strength that a handful of colonies in a new world had over 200 years ago. It may sound odd to many to hear it, but we are in an incredibly important period in history that I know will be studied for hundreds of years…perhaps thousands. I kind of wonder who will be the Paul Revere or Thomas Paine of our time?

  9. avatarCoe says:

    Didn’t understand the law?

    Inept or corrupt. Pick one big brother… because either way, both are equally terrible and require replacement.

  10. avatarShire-man says:

    The same state that promised an end to police quotas and passed a law reinforcing the fact that filming cops was not a crime where quota memos are still discovered and people are still arrested for filming.

    The “law” in CT is a mafia all its own that does whatever it wants whenever it wants. So far the feds have come down on at least four different departments in the past five years for widespread abuse and corruption and the state still refuses to learn.

    • avatarPascal says:

      Uhm, no. I suggest you double check your info. The police are well aware they can be filmed. There is also federal law hat trumps state law and SCOTUS ruled in the Illinois case which pretty much covers filming of police as long as you do not interfere.

      What was not passed, and should have passed, was a law that would make the officer personally and financially liable if they are taken to court for violation of the law. The current AG and the PD of course fought this however in MD it may pass in the fall. It is the only way to stop the police from violating the 1st amendment right.

  11. avatarTaco Ninja says:

    I never understood how a restraining order, one person’s word, could revoke the 2nd amendment rights of another… What ever happened to “shall not be deprived of rights without due process of law” aka convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers?

    • avatarJohn L. says:

      Follow the link in the article to read the description.

      Basically, it’s supposed to be a short-term way to prevent someone from doing something irreversible, until a judge can sort out whether s/he has the right to do it or not.

      Unfortunately, while in a rational society this is a reasonable provision to have around, in practice it’s easy to abuse. For example, the whole thing is based upon assuming the person asking for the order is acting in good faith, and not just trying to cause trouble for the other person.

      Read the article.

  12. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    Would we be having these problems if there were more Libertarians in office?

    • avatarJohn L. says:

      Probably.

      This sort of thing seems systemic to me, meaning you’d need to replace not only the politicians but also the unelected bureaucracy that actually runs the government at pretty much all levels. That latter is a real challenge.

  13. avataraskeptic says:

    Have you people completely lost your minds?
    Expecting the police to actually know, and be able to follow, the LAW!
    OMG, what a concept!

  14. avatarGruney says:

    Can an AG be disbarred for ethics violations because they knowingly let the law be broken?

    Maybe you don’t have to be an attorney to be AG, just a mealy mouthed politician. I’m looking at you Eric (place)Holder.

  15. avatarBob says:

    Testing, testing. I haven’t been able to post comments for a few days. Trying it here.

  16. avatarSeth Janisse says:

    You better check this info again. Letters have gone out, and arrests are about to happen. Blood will be spilled.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.