Constitution State Set to Punt Due Process for “Gun Safety”

Natash Pierre Esq. CT Victim Advocate (courtesy myrecordjournal.com)

To review, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that “No person shall . . .  be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In other words, the government can’t kill you, imprison you or take your stuff without giving you a chance to defend yourself against criminal charges in a court of law. So how does that square with California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law? It doesn’t. A judge can order the police to confiscate your guns and computers and prohibit you from buying, bearing or possessing firearms, then give you a chance to defend yourself against domestic abuse charges (within 21 days). How great is that? So great Connecticut wants the same law for itself . . .

Connecticut’s new victim advocate [above] is joining other state and federal officials in calling for a stronger gun ban to better protect domestic violence victims.

Pierre, 44, of Windsor, said one of her priorities will be pushing state legislators to add a gun ban to Connecticut’s law on temporary restraining orders. Firearm bans are issued in permanent restraining orders but not in temporary ones, which Pierre and other advocates call a dangerous loophole.

Malloy proposed the same law change in September during his re-election campaign. Several Democratic federal lawmakers, including Connecticut Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, are backing a similar federal proposal.

myrecordjournal.com reports that Connecticut’s Senators and other Democrats (surprise!) want to deep-six due process nationwide. There’s no disguising – only justifying – what they’re up to.

Temporary restraining orders generally are in place for two weeks until a hearing is held before a judge to allow the subjects of such orders to contest them. Pierre said temporary orders and other legal filings can be triggers [sic] to violence and a gun ban is needed in the two weeks before the orders become permanent.

“When a woman leaves her abuser, that period of time is the most dangerous time,” Pierre said. “It’s very dangerous. The person (abuser) realizes they’ve lost control of the situation. If something bad is going to happen, it’s going to happen during that time period.”

There ought to be a law to protect these women (never men, of course)! Oh wait, there is. A restraining order. But…guns! Never mind any other potential weapon. We have to remove guns from these guilty-until-proven-innocent guys for two weeks (goodbye property). While we’re at it, why not lock the guys away somewhere where they can’t get ahold of a gun (goodbye liberty). Oh what the hell, why don’t we just kill them (sayonara life). Fifth Amendment that.

Never mind all that. There’s statistical proof that Connecticut needs this law. Or not.

There have been about 14 domestic violence homicides each year over the past decade in the state, with guns used in nearly 40 percent of the deaths, according to the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. They are among about 20,000 family violence incidents in the state each year. State judges issue about 9,000 restraining orders a year, according to the coalition.

The Constitution State’s “victim advocate” and gun control advocates want to to ditch its citizens’ Constitutional protections because of 56 women? Out of 200,000 “violent incidents” and 90,000 restraining orders? As TTAG commentator mark_anthony_78 points out below the number of women killed in firearms-related domestic violence homicides in the last decade represents 0.028% of the total “violent” incidents.

Two questions: what about the weapons (or lack thereof) used in the majority – 60 percent – of these domestic violence homicides? And is there something else at work here, other than protecting female (not male?) domestic abuse accusers from firearms-related homicides? I’m thinking yes. Yes there is.

It gets worse . . .

[State Undersecretary for Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Michael] Lawlor also said state and local police have been training in recent months to better assess domestic disputes to see if anyone is in danger, including checking access to guns and determining if legal actions were filed recently.

Memo to gun-owning men (and women) in Connecticut: it’s a trap! On every level you can possibly imagine. Meanwhile, pity your ballistic brethren in California waiting/hoping for the courts to strike down the deeply unconstitutional Gun Violence Restraining Order and its PC clones.

comments

  1. avatar AllAmerican says:

    Yeah the people who want to pass these laws don’t know jack about domestic abuse. But then again it’s really not about domestic abuse is it?

  2. avatar Kyle in CT says:

    This is the same state that thinks it’s OK to force medical treatment on a mentally-competent 17 year old girl who has explicitly refused it. Thanks a lot Hartford and New Haven, you bought the Malloy ticket, now we all get to take the ride.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      That would be Stamford, Bridgeport, Waterbury, Hartford and New Haven. The rest of the state does not matter to democrats and they hardly know it exists.

      1. avatar Juju says:

        Aint dat fugly sow bees belongin in church sumwhere makin a foul noise stankin up da room an sheeut?

    2. avatar glad i left ct joe says:

      I cheered when it looked like malloy was losing then i cried that ct got boned again………… i left ct 13 years ago and i never looked back. its a shame my family wont get out!……lol Texas is amazing

  3. avatar Fuque says:

    It only makes sense,California, Connecticut.. I dont see much difference…

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      I see this as similar to the paradox in the fight against the spread of communism. On one hand you have a philosophical evil of an economic/political system that you want to fight at every level. On the other hand, if you let it alone to fail under the weight of its self-inflicted burdens….

      Do we fight the spread of anti-gun sentiment? Or do we let it fail of its own lunacy, confident in the superior nature of our own states’ policies? Will the spread cease in time to spare us the pain, or will cooler heads prevail in our legislatures? Are we moving in the right direction or are we at the mercy of just one more horrific tragedy? Perhaps our readiness to respond to the next evil atrocity will help keep the anti from spreading. Think of that the next time a discussion here leads someone to state that they will not act unless they or a loved one is in danger. When you act to save a stranger, you just may be saving your own RKBR.

      1. avatar Matt G says:

        I don’t think the antis will recognize failure when they see it… 1934 & 1968 should give you a good idea of how things operate. Pass it, forget it, move on to the next brain dead idea.
        Letting it wallow in its own misery will be a really long con that we may not be around to enjoy.

  4. avatar fishydude says:

    What next? Will they ban the subjects of restraining orders from training in martial arts? After all martial arts training, under the law, turns hands and feet into deadly weapons.
    Ban shoes, boots, pot and bans, all kitchen knives too.
    A gun is a tool that a minute portion of the population use for criminal means.
    But the “advocate” has nothing to say about the substantial number of men who are beaten and killed with his wife’s favorite cast iron skillet.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      I’m certain Pierre, Esquire is a narrowly skilled, politically correct prejudiced advocate for all things ‘progressive’. Who needs due process when there are people like Malloy, her and the other Democrats ruling CT to lord over the little people for the good of the favored. Gun owners are certainly not ‘favored’ in CT these days.

      Doubtful this is truly about restraining order protection; simply anther reason and means to effect confiscation. Facts and constitutional abrogation’s don’t matter; the ends justify the means for these extremist, rhetorical anti-gun legal bullies, just as in CA.

      Plus, she has to do something to justify her new, taxpayer paid political anti-gun hustle position. Might as well ride on the back of the work of others.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        Certainly this “women’s rights” advocate knows she’s being not so deceptively used to push the antis agenda. She appears to be more than willing to take collaborative steps under the guise of the anti-male family protection agenda, even if it’s primarily a façade for more restrictions on lawful gun ownership.

    2. avatar Amok! says:

      You missed common hardware store tools like screwdriver shanks and claw hammers.

    3. avatar int19h says:

      Karate was actually banned in the USSR outright in 1983, once it started to gain popularity. Article 219.1 of the Crime Code of RSFSR, “Unlawful teaching of karate” – up to two years in prison. It has only been repealed in 1991.

      And before they put the law in place, there was a slew of articles in the newspapers with headlines like “Karate: sport or murder?”.

      Its location in the Code is also telling. Article 218 is titled “Unlawful carrying, storing, obtaining, manufacturing or selling of weapons, ammunition and explosives”.

  5. avatar Robert Inguaggiato says:

    I hate to be the bubble brusted here but in Ct. On a domestic you are booked then when you are released you have 72 hours to turn all firearms that they know about anyway and the division of the State police the Department of Safty sends you a letter that list the firearms on file that must be surrendered to local PD or State Police or you will be arested again for failure to comply. Then if found guilty you lose all gun rights if and this is the part that really eats me up is if found not guilty they do not have to release your firearms back to you. Now if Malloy had any brain in that noggin of his he would know that this has been law for many years in the state of Ct. If you fight the court you will get your guns back but the first thing they tell you is they don’t give guns back. This of course is true if you don’t fight to get them back.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Can you just use that 72 hours to get with your FFL and legally transfer them to a friend with a pistol permit?

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      All that may well be true, but the gist is at the beginning of your post…IF you are busted…

      This new ‘restraining order’ crap goes far beyond that. Current domestic violence laws might well stretch “probable cause” for arrest to the breaking point, but uncorroborated statements by ‘disinterested’ third parties shatter the Fourth Amendment so finely there are HUGE problems with this whole mindset.

      I have some trouble getting my mind around anyone thinking this stuff is a good idea. If only there was some historical model, from the 1930’s perhaps, that we could look to see what happens when neighbors start wholesale ratting out each other for perceived problems/differences.

      Oh wait, there is.

      https://www.facinghistory.org/sites/default/files/hhb_ch4.pdf

      1. avatar int19h says:

        With family violence, unfortunately, you often do need to rely on this kind of “ratting out”, because it is not observable otherwise. The spouse might be intimidated into silence in public by threats, or have a financial dependence on the abuser and not speak out on those grounds, or be physically prevented from even leaving the house, or be from a culture where it’s shameful to tell of such abuse outside the family. So following up on reports like, “this guy’s wife seems to have hematomas every time I see her”, is not unreasonable, and may be e.g. reasonable grounds for the cops to show up and request that they can talk to the woman alone, to find out more, and make sure that she knows and understands all the options available to her if she needs help (and provide it right away if requested).

        But to actually do something like confiscation based on such reports alone is insane.

    3. avatar Tom says:

      Sue the officers individually. Having to pay out of pocket for lawyers will make LE (no pun intended) gun shy Unless Connecticut has no laws or ethics regulations that prohibit government employees using their employers resources for personal use.

    4. avatar int19h says:

      Is it law, or just policy?

      Either way, it should be very easy to shoot down in court – it’s blatantly contrary to the Fifth Amendment.

  6. avatar Stevie says:

    Ban men. Problem solved.

    1. avatar bobmcd says:

      Or maybe arm and train women.

      1. avatar NEOWA says:

        Such women would no longer be victims thus would stop voting demtard. That is NOT the endgame.

    2. avatar DoomGuy says:

      Ban Marraige.

    3. avatar Spaceman Brown says:

      Screw it. Ban everyone.

  7. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    and the downfall of society begins. It’s up to the supreme’s now to do whats right and knock this law out of existence. We all know the ninth circus will not.

  8. avatar Another Robert says:

    RF–please, a cite to the Texas law? I know someone who is under a “domestic violence protective order” cannot possess a gun. But a PO is not the same thing at all as the kind of TRO’s Cali has and Conn wants. Is there something else out there? Not finding it via Google..

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Same here – first I’ve heard of such a law in Texas. Can anyone point me to it?

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        I’ve heard about it a lot on this and similar threads–but never got a cite. Texas has long had Family Violence Protective Orders, generally brought forward by a prosecutor, not by a private attorney. They require a finding that family violence has occurred and will likely occur again. Once one is issued against someone, that person cannot be in possession of firearms for the duration of the order. But there was not, and AFAIK, still is not, any provision for automatic confiscation of firearms by the court/police. And they are adversary hearings, with the full panoply of due-process rights available in civil cases. There is a provision for an emergency, temporary order, but IIRC those are of very short duration, and again, do not require that the cops come to you and take away your guns or anything else. They are geared to prevent violence, not specifically to grab guns.

        1. avatar pyratemime says:

          The Texas AG website (1) on protective orders does not list any restrictions on firearms. I could not find anything specific on the Family Violence Protective Order.

          Likewise when I looked in Title 1 Chapter 5 of the Texas Criminal Code (2), titled “Family Violence Prevention” and did a key word search for ‘firearms’ and ‘weapons’ nothing came up.

          Not saying these restrictions are not a de facto execution of the law but I cannot find them to be a written part of the law.

          (1) https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/cvs/protective-orders

          (2) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/CR/htm/CR.5.htm

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Look in the Family Code for Family Violence Protective Orders. They do include the firearms prohibition. Also, if someone is put on probation for the criminal offense of “family violence”, they cannot possess a firearm for the duration of the probation. One of our judges here was very conscientious about warning defendants about that when taking their pleas on “family violence” charges. But again, all of that comes with all the proper due process, and again, there is no provision that I know of for the cops to come to your house and grab your guns, even AFTER the hearing.

  9. avatar Anon in CT says:

    This isn’t even about guns, not at its core. It’s about the SJWs limiting the rights of men and giving women special rights and priveleges.

    1. avatar int19h says:

      Seeing how domestic violence laws don’t restrict the gender of the victim nor the abuser, and equally protects females abused by males as well as males abused by females, how does it give anyone more rights?

      Or, you mean that, because males abuse females much, much more often, the law is applied more often against men? Tough shit; so do pretty much all other laws – males steal, rape and murder more often, as well, for example, and so more of them end up in prison for that kind of stuff.

  10. avatar Dave says:

    While I agree wholeheartedly with the author of this article this section is inaccurate:

    “The Constitution State’s “victim advocate” and gun control advocates want to to ditch its citizens’ Constitutional protections because of six women? In the last ten years? Out of 200,000 “violent incidents” and 90,000 restraining orders?”

    The article being quoted cites 14 domestic homicides PER year for 10 years, 40% of which is 56 women in the last 10 years, not 6. Yes, it’s an average of 5.6 per year, but in the interest of not inviting scrutiny from the anti-gun crowd I thought it might help to clarify the point made.

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      Still a whopping 0.028% of the total “violent” incidents.

    2. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Math. Not my strong suit. Text amended.

      1. avatar Dave says:

        Not trying to nitpick, I just see some moron running with an insignificant mistake and trying to invalidate the argument associated with it.

  11. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    How about free gun training and a loaner firearm for a woman who has a protection order against someone who is known to be an abuser?

    Removing an abuser’s gun will do about as much good as the restraining order itself … which is none. If the abuser is going to kill the other person, they will do so, gun or no gun. If they’re not, they won’t. It’s not as if they can’t use their fists, or a bat, or a hammer, or a knife, or something else to inflict damage.

    Getting the victim some REAL protection would go a lot farther to actually preventing further violence.

  12. avatar Anonymous says:

    Phhhht.

    There’s statistic proof that [insert any law here] is required.

  13. avatar Anonymous says:

    …including checking access to guns and determining if legal actions were filed recently.

    Cop: You forgot to register it??? Seize him! Subjugate! Confiscate!

    That is how it’s going to go down.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      From the context, the inquiry is whether any legal proceedings between the spouses have been initiated that would reflect an on-going animus and threat of harm.

  14. avatar Todd S says:

    Since when did that pesky Constitution have any effect in these communist states?

  15. avatar Anonymous says:

    A judge can order the police to confiscate your guns and computers and prohibit you from buying, bearing or possessing firearms, then give you a chance to defend yourself against domestic abuse charges (within 21 days).

    This is correct and this is exactly what it is.

    Now, with these new 3rd world country laws, they confiscate first (with no probable cause or evidence – just mere accusation) and then have a short time period in which they can appeal. Guilty until proven innocent.

    The penalty for bearing false witness? Misdemeanor. All under the guise of safe guarding people.

    1. avatar Tom says:

      Giving government the ability to confiscate one`s legally obtained property without compensation is a massive step backwards as in going back to the days of autocratic kings and queens. Just as disturbing not being allowed to have a trial by jury in these cases. Property rights is fundamental to freedom as the right to bear arms, right of trial by jury, freedom from arbitrary searches without warrant and freedom of speech.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      You are so very wrong about the California law. First you have to understand that “probable cause” is established in a criminal case by an affidavit of a police officer saying what he saw or what he was informed about and believes to be true. The issuance of a Gun Violence Restraining Order, in exactly the same fashion, requires an affidavit or affidavits, i.e., sworn statements, establishing evidence that a person is a threat of harm to himself or others. The judge then decides if these affidavits, just as in a criinal case, establish probable cause. This is also the exact same standard applied to police and to medical personnel in imposing a “5150” hold, i.e., an involuntary detention for determination if a person is a threat of harm to himself or others–and which carries with it a 10 year ban on the possession of firearms.

      Second, the part of searching papers, computers and records does not apply to GVROs.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        I’m confident near every judge is going to exercise an abundance of caution in his decision regarding issuance of a GVRO. Once PC is presented, whether accurate, or inaccurate without merit, based on the perceptions of the declarant(s), the gun owner in question may simply be up shits creek.

        What judge is willing to have his/her name associated with an individual who he doesn’t know and who may, however remote the possibility, go on a shooting spree after he (the judge) failed to issue the GVRO requested if the declarant’s testimony proves to be true.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          The issuance of a TRO by the judge comports with due process, just as an arrest or search pursuant to a warrant does. The temporary orders are good for only 21 days, at the end of which there is a formal hearing. The complainant (i.e., family member or police officer, not the subject of the tro) must present clear and convincing evidence to sustain issuance of a “permanent” order that lasts for one year. Clear and convincing is just a small step below “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and is a hard burden to meet. In any event, and Robert’s personal (nonlegal) opinion aside, the statute appears to comport with due process requirements under both the state and federal constitutions. Whether the statute is offensive to some is a question of policy, not a question of constitutional law. moreover, and as i explain below, the California GVRO statute has nothing to do with gun seizures pursuant to a domestic violence restraining order–an issue upon which there is a separate statutory scheme in California and in Connecticut as well.

  16. avatar Shakey says:

    RF,

    You added some extra zeros. The numbers are 20,000 and 9,000, not 200,000 and 90,000.

  17. avatar Matt says:

    The best part is those statistics don’t even actually say how many of the women killed had taken out restraining orders or if they even had a chance to bring legal proceedings to that point… If someone stays with their abusive spouse and does nothing about it and ends up getting killed for it they will end up into that statistic…

    I’ve said for a while that my beloved CT is actively trying to make itself the east coast CA, just more proof of it.

  18. avatar Ken Bach says:

    “Fifth Amendment that.”

    No. Fourteenth Amendment that. The Fifth Amendment’s due process clause applies to the Feds; the Fourteenth’s applies to the States. Fix it before Gura notices!

  19. avatar Mark N. says:

    Robert, you are again mixing apples and oranges. California’s new law for GVROs has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with domestic violence whatsoever. For domestic disputes, California has a well established system for the issuance and service of DV TROs under the Family Code, and yes it has a gun proscription, but it only allows the police to confiscate for safe keeping until expiration of the order (14 days). During that period, a gun owner can dispose of his weapons by transfer or by storing them with an FFL. As with all other TROs, an application must be supported by an adequate affidavit, and hearings on such orders are held promptly. A conviction of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor, is a separate criminal offense, is a life time ban under FEDERAL and state law.

  20. avatar Mark N. says:

    Question: of the 56 women murdered by their domestic partners, how many were shot, as opposed to stabbed, beaten or throttled?

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    In other words, the government can’t kill you, imprison you or take your stuff without giving you a chance to defend yourself against criminal charges in a court of law.

    That’s not exactly what the Due Process Clause says or means. You cannot be imprisoned without a trial. However, your stuff can be taken without a trial. It always has been that way. But yes, gun confiscation based on unsupported allegations by a spurned or angry significant other is no more than a litigation tactic supported by government overreach.

    Let’s face it — courts give out DROs like they were party favors. Mostly to women. I’m very lucky that none of my exes stooped that low.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Have to disagree, Ralph–there is a “takings clause” that applies to property, and it does require “due process” (read: notice and an opportunity to be heard) before the government can deprive you of your legally-owned property.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        I have to agree with Ralph. What you say is true with respect to permanent takings in civil actions, but not to criminal cases, including the quasi criminal and criminal cases of domestic violence. Property seized pursuant to a warrant needs no more than a PC hearing before a judge to satisfy due process considerations. On the other hand, I have long held that the civil forfeiture statutes are unconstitutional as imposing the burden of proof on the person whose property is seized as opposed to the entity doing the seizing.

  22. avatar Pieslapper says:

    If we’re really concerned about domestic violence, rather than give them a restraining order why not give (loan, rent) them a gun? You know, if we’re really concerned their protection.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      An officer acting in the course and scope of his employment is entitled to a defense and indemnity from his employer–meaning a public entity, for any and all claims short of intentional misconduct that takes him/her outside the scope of his employment. So no, no LE will be paying for the defense of a lawsuit out of pocket.. T

  23. avatar JoeVK says:

    God, people these days are ridiculous. Anything more than 0.000000000% is too much. My son complains all the time whenever my daughter does something that irritates him (usually she’s minding her own business, but sometimes she’s purposely annoying him) and that my wife and I “never do anything about it”. We do get after her for it, but if she does it again later, in my son’s eyes it means we did nothing, and we don’t care. Because if we did care, and did something, she would never do it again. It seems most people these days are like my (and probably many others’) children. Someone does something they don’t like, and whatever it is must be eliminated, even if it’s not breaking any laws or hurting anyone.

  24. avatar teebonicus says:

    Maybe you can vacation in Florida until the SCOTUS tears Connecticut a new anus.

  25. avatar Jenkem Jones says:

    She should move to somewhere she can fuss about spears.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email