“By a surprisingly strong vote,” ctmirror.org reports, “the House of Representatives overcame tenacious opposition from conservatives Wednesday night to pass a bill requiring gun owners to surrender their firearms within 24 hours of being served with a temporary restraining order in domestic violence cases.” And so Connecticut gun owners are set to lose their Sixth Amendment right to confront their accusers. Not to mention the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Check out what a Republican — one of 21 who voted for the bill — had to say about that . . .
“It’s a small price to pay for the precious lives we might save,” said Rep. Mitch Bolinsky, R-Newtown.
Yup, a Republican. In other words, the court will be removing Constitution State residents’ civil rights with no guaranteed benefit. At least one other CT Republican understands the concept:
Republicans Rob C. Sampson of Wolcott and Doug Dubitsky of Chaplin led the opposition, arguing against singling out firearms among other weapons and complaining that even temporary confiscation was a violation of due process and Second Amendment rights.
“We’re decimating the rights of our citizens,” Sampson said.
Needless to say, the Nutmeg State Dems were not impressed.
Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, said case law was well-established: There is a legal right to a hearing to contest a permanent court order, not a temporary one that lasts no more than two weeks. At least 20 other states have similar laws, including one of the bastions of gun rights: Texas.
“There are some who would say that their Second Amendment rights are being taken away, but the truth is the gun in fact can always be returned later to the rightful owner,” Tong said. “What can’t be returned, however, is the life that has been taken from a victim. The bullet that injures or kills someone cannot be unfired.”
And now, the facts: “Connecticut averaged 14 intimate-partner homicides a year from 2000 to 2014, with guns used in 39 percent of those 188 homicides.” (Two of which occurred before a full restraining order as chronicled by The Trace, ‘natch. Oh wait. The
Murders went down in Virginia and Oklahoma. Carry on.)
So a relatively small problem — that may better have been addresses by making it easier for victims of domestic abuse to arm themselves — requires the degradation of civil rights. Who knew? Politicians who want to be seen to be doing something.
The politicians that voted for this just made themselves a target.
O.K., I’m officially starting a TTAG pool.
Place your bets, how long until Stoop here suddenly disappears from TTAG?
My money’s on 9 months to never…
Define suddenly disappears, I’ll go in on it.
A target for ridicule, disdain, and a general dissatisfaction with their lack of regard for the US constitution? Yes, you are spot on.
We’re already working on it. Every single one of them is up for election in November, and candidates get chosen for the state races at caucuses in May.
If things go the way I want them to, there will be 21 different Republicans running in those districts come November.
Politicians need to learn that there is a price to pay for violating our rights. That price is unemployment.
Today it’s a TRO next week it’s being on a list of people who know someone bad. Next month it’s living in a high crime area or not having a job and being stressed over it.
CT, what a wonderful state.
Same law is in Texas
Naw, say it ain’t so!
Texas, a bastion of gun rights, OH yea, well compare to CT, I would say so, Now Arizona on the other hand…
And just how many temporary restraining orders get issued. Local PDs are going to love dealing with this.
What does Arizona have that Texas doesn’t?
Constitutional carry? Meh. I already have a license. Sure, I’d rather not have to have one, but given that I do, my daily life is no different here than from in AZ. If you’re an Arizonan who travels, you’d need a license, too.
May carry in establishments serving alcohol for onsite consumption? So can we, at restaurants, anyway. I don’t hang out in actual bars, so again this would be a “nice to have”, but no practical impact on me day to day.
The absurdity of the 1950s T.V. westerns myth that Texas is some kind of firearms free-for-all utopia has given birth to an equally absurd countermyth that Texas is a major firearms infringer hiding behind a firearms freedom mythology.
The whole thing is silly, when you look at actual laws, legal practices and social conventions.
So what does TX have that Illinois doesn’t. No FOID, but big deal $10 for 10 years and I need a CCL anyways. Oh everyone thinks it is impossible to get a gun in Illinois and there are all kinds of registrations, well I do have to give it to you that the cheapest source of magazines for my CZ will not ship to Cook County, but almost all others will. FYI I think penalties for carrying into “gun free zones” Texas are actually worse than Illinois.
Don’t know where you live but lots of Indiana/Will county gun sellers are more than happy to help Cook folks avoid Cook fees,taxes and BS. No-it ain’t that bad. I do get annoyed living a scant mile from the relative Indiana paradise…
So what does TX have that IL doesn’t?
Open carry. I know it’s only couple of months. But they can. We can’t.
And FOID is not just $10 every 10 years. It’s registration of all gun owners. Illinois State Police is supposed to issue them in 30 days. After CCW law passed some of my friends couldn’t exercise their RKBA for several months, because ISPD couldn’t keep up with demand. I also read stories about cop’s visits to collect guns from guys who let their FOID lapse.
In Texas there are a lot of limits as to where you can carry, even with a concealed handgun license, or now called a license to carry. Not to mention, Texas JUST recently started to allow open carry.
Not that this is the correct answer to this BS but it’s another reason to have a trust.
Once again I’m ashamed of what my state CT has done.
CT is nothing more than a test bed to see what the Progs can get away with.
First attempt at door-to-door confiscation? Bet on the Constitution State.
Looks like Texas need to fix their own issues
“any protective order for family violence, including a temporary ex parte order, must contain the following statement: “It is unlawful for any person, other than a peace officer, as defined by section 1.07, Penal Code, actively engaged in employment as a sworn, full-time paid employee of a state agency or political subdivision, who is subject to a protective order to possess a firearm or ammunition.”9”
Well at least they have the cop carve out, what about CT?
Why the carve out for LEOs who beat their wives? Is that supposed to make some kind of sense?
The plain truth, Larry, is that when that law went into effect, the unintended cinsequence was that a shocking percentage of officers would have to be disarmed for being the subject if such orders. The P.D.s couldn’t just dismiss vast swaths of their ranks, so they secured a carve out for cops.
It sets up a classic retort when this topic comes up with antis. If pulling guns is soooo vital under these circumstances, then why exempt cops? #copspouseslivesmatter
The irony that there is a crave out for a large group of abusers simply because they wear blue at their jobs. There was a study that found most anti abuse laws simply further enrage the abusers and escalates violence rather than reduce it. It is all political theater and shows many Reps are not on our side.
I guess you could make it so that they have to lock up their guns at precinct at shift’s end, and cannot be armed at any time other than when on shift. Still seems a bit bizarre to decide that the cop in question is perfectly safe around every single person that isn’t his wife. Maybe she has a “triggering effect”?
So CT says “surrender” and TX says can’t “possess.” is this the same? Does TX actually attempt to confiscate firearms upon a TRO being issued? Don’t see how that’s possible unless the subject of the TRO admits to owning a firearm(s).
What do you do when your ex shows them a picture of your gun collection. The boating excuse really doesn’t work.
In MI TRO/PPO says no possession, you can have a friend hold your guns for the year. Confiscated means the state will hold your guns for the year. Or hold? I mean destroy, steal, “lose”.
Are they going to confiscate knives, machetes (because diversity), and fists, too? How about relatives’/G’s knives, machetes, and fists, given the high likelihood that anyone who is an actual threat to a partner has some shady relatives or associates? Also, given that it is standard practice for women filing for divorce to also file restraining orders against men to harm their chances of grtting custody, is the state ready for the shtstorm they are in store for?
Firearms only enhance convenience. Historically, humans enjoyed little difficulty killing other humans. The only difficulty is exterminating the many. These laws will probably save some people. Domestic difficulties give rise to tremendous emotion and rage while firearms provide virtually instant convenience and lethality.
No law or laws will stop the violent nature of the human. When the terror of a violent domestic altercation arises, there are still numerous effective weapons available, they just take more effort.
These laws will save a whopping zero. Thanks for contributing to the progressive agenda.
Another do nothing law for the “feels good” crowd.
The Constitution State tramples 3 Constitutional Amendments in one swell foop.
How’s that for a headline for CNN? Never happen…
Same law exists in Texas
“any protective order for family violence, including a temporary ex parte order, must contain the following statement: “It is unlawful for any person, other than a peace officer, as defined by section 1.07, Penal Code, actively engaged in employment as a sworn, full-time paid employee of a state agency or political subdivision, who is subject to a protective order to possess a firearm or ammunition.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 85.026.
Aside from Texas bashing, this is relevant how, exactly, to the article?
And, no, it’s not the same law. In CT, you must surrender your firearms to the state. Despite their blithe declaration that “the gun in fact can always be returned later to the rightful owner”, you will NEVER get your guns back. The police will refuse to return them, in violation of the law. Then you’ll have to hire a lawyer, at expense likely exceeding the value of the gun(s) in question, ti obtain a court order. The police will defy that and you’ll have to go back to court again to get enforcement of the order. Eventually, you may get your gun(s) back, in God only knows what condition, or they may have gotten”lost” in evidence.
In Texas, you can hand them over to someone else for safekeeping. That in itself covers a lot of territory and preserves options, all of which end with you getting your guns back at no expense. Big difference from CT.
I not bashing Texas, I just think is is funny how everyone thinks that some new law is unbearable, and they live under a similar law. The new ammo and firearm taxes in Cook County and Seattle, but never mind the 11% federal tax already in place. Complaining about the hoops you have to go threw in Illinois to get a CCW, but Texas you have to do the same thing (at least in Illinois we don’t need finger prints), just not so much. Everyone complains about the BS universal background checks from the FEDs, I hate it more because it just another over reach of the Commerce Clause. Alt least with the current law only effects interstate firearm commerce.
I want to know how many of these guns will permanently disappear at police hands or get destroyed instead of returned to their owners ala California.
Also sympathetic to the RINOs. I voted against Mark Kirk in IL. Unfortunately he won. :/ His platform is anti 2A which means I’ll vote for a third party person in the general.
Considering that studies show that roughly 70% of restraining orders are Trivial or False, that means that 70% of those people accused in the state of CT will have their 5th, 6th and 14th amendments violated…but hey…it’s for the children so we’re good.
100% will have their rights violated, 70% of them for no good purpose.
Alright Trump folks, how does your candidate feel about this? Where does he come down on the 5A, 6A and 14A?
Answer: Nobody knows
Yeah, yeah, we don’t know about anyone else, either, from either party. You might know what they *SAY*, but they are all professional liars, except for Trump.
Cruz is very pro 2A and it has precedence. Go look up his post sandy hook stuff where he picks apart a huge amount of the crap they were trying to push through.
Actually, I would like to know that myself. Granted I’m not entirely sold on Trump but I have to admit that I’d take my chances with him before I even consider Hillary.
I had a discussion about this exact subject, seizure of weapons, with a co-worker not that long ago. When I disagreed with his stance, go figure, he stated that I only disagreed because I was so pro 2A that I wouldn’t even consider anything that would ‘infringe’ on it. I explained that while he might be correct in his assessment, I initially disagreed simply because it infringed on a persons right to due process and their right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. He initially got a blank look on his face. So I asked him how he would feel having his car seized or his bank account frozen just because I told the police that he dealt drugs. He said that would be a lie, to which I agreed. Then he said that it wouldn’t be right, to which I also agreed. Then he got my point. That was when I started having him look up information on the web about people having their property seized and bank accounts frozen because the gubment suspected those people of wrong doing but had no proof. He said that wasn’t fair, and once again, I agreed.
I think with some people, the whole pro-2A / anti-2A thing tends to come down to perspective.
These laws are all over the place. Yeah Kirk is a POS RINO. We’ll get “war heroTammy” to shill for president hildebeast. Illinois sucks…
How is this at all constitutional, this is a revocation of rights before due process. Considering that many lawyers consider a TRO as a tactic to get a spouse out of your house during a divorce as a default this is going to infringe upon the rights of thousands every year.
More legal wood on the fire. As a practical matter men are less and less likely to bother with marriage, since there is no real advantage for the man. From taxes, to divorce, to child custody a man is seen as slave labor barely worthy of notice except for his bank account. This just adds more reason for a man to skip the marriage part and walk if things aren’t working out well. Most judges routinely grant a TRO as a matter of course in a divorce filing.
Well, as for me… Something cold dead hands.
Too bad so many in this country are such wimps.
This really would depend on how easy or not so easy it is for someone to acquire said restraining order .
If a fellow stays out drinking with his buds one night and doesn’t come home until the next day because he isn’t willing to drive under the influence and his wife or girlfriend in a state of jealous confusion pops herself in the eye , scratches her neck and squeezes a few bruises on her arms and then calls 911 and says he violated her domestically and the law comes and throws all his guns in a confiscation box until he provides proof he did not perpetrate said offence , then in my neck of the woods , this would create a situation of much greater violence upon the person the law is trying to protect .
If on the other hand , there is real substantial proof that the man ( or woman ) has subjected another person to violence and threat , I can see a need for some action , however , unless everything in the entire house is removed , lamps , hammers , chainsaws , screwdrivers , nail guns , kitchen knives and even the Sunday paper , the law is just a show .
The solution is to arm the alleged victim with a weapon and training .
If someone were to confiscate my guns , I’m fairly certain , violence wood follow shortly after , and most likely against the confiscator(s) .
While not real common, your point is nevertheless valid and it does happen. Many people have been and still are incarcerated because some ignorant skirt said he did such and such to her. I have seen that happen first hand..well maybe second hand.
I know the difference between consensual sex and forced sex. I had some friends over with a few females of legal age. They went in a bedroom and fooled around. I could hear them. At a later date, I heard that one of the ladies was claiming that she didn’t consent. The thing is, I had another roommate for a long long time who was quite the ladies man. He had serviced….god, a hundred ladies at least. I know what consensual sex sounds like. So when I heard this one lady was accusing my other friend of forcing himself on her, I stepped up and let it be known that her story was 100% BS. I actually had a cop interview me about it and I set the record straight. It got dropped and she got labeled as a liar and unreliable.
As it turned out, she had done that to someone else also. It’s scary to think that some ignorant twit could actually make a false claim and make it stick! Here is a little fact, women are capable of tremendous evil and not lose a second of sleep about it.
So a law gets passed that definitely infringes on the 6th- what do y’all bet that guys like Justin Curmi from an earlier post (the HuffPo guy who says defending yourself by shooting an attacker infringes on the attackers 6A rights) and his ilk would be all in favor of this law though?
wow. i am surpised no one else mentioned this…
This law isn’t necessarily about temporarily removing firearms for a TRO. It is an end run around those that flaunted the registration attempt a few years back. Now they have a pretext to confiscating and PROSECUTING those who flaunted the registration.process.
Funny statements I see forthcoming out of this:
1) Uh… officer… when am I going to get these back? Like that one there… that’s a valuable heirloom.
2) Officer, what happened to my guns. They are all scratched up, thrown around. Look at the dents in this stock. What happened man??
3) Officer. I got robbed today. What do you mean the temporary restraining order turned out to be bogus? I told you I didn’t even know those people. Then right after you took my firearms they came in and robbed me. This is not how it was supposed to go.
4) Officer. The restraining order is bogus. I never made those comments, she is just getting back at me and using this to have my guns taken away. She knows hunting season is around the corner, that I love to hunt, and she is simply taking this away from me.
and the other kind…
5) Officer. There are no guns here. Yep. No guns. They were stolen. I know Connecticut requires firearm owners to report to local law enforcement within 72 hours of when they discovered or should have discovered the loss or theft. But I just found out they were stolen right now when you arrived. You saw it yourself… I opened the safe.. and they were gone. I’d like to report to you now… within the 72 hour period of course… that the firearms have been stolen.
6) Officer. There are no guns here. I don’t know who you talked to – but I don’t own any guns. They said I purchased the firearm before the “universal background check law?” No. That didn’t happen.
And the other… other kind:
7) You’re here take my what??? POP POP POP. Get his legs! Get his legs!
If someone were required to turn over their $20,000 gun collection to the state over simply an accusation from an estranged spouse, that’s not just a good motive for murder… It’s TV good!
Citizens say we have rights, legislator snickers and said we have laws that work around those rights,
Honestly, if the PPO process is setup correctly with good people running it, I dont see an issue with taking weapons from someone with a temporary, or permanent restraining order, provided there was a process to get all guns back undamaged. The thinking behind the temporary order, for me, is that in the time it would take to get a full hearing, this person would kill the victim. How about at the same time, we expedite the threatened person’s CPL application and give them some quick training, and return the guns to the person who hadn’t had his day in court? Then if the court finds the person is in fact a threat, take those guns and give them to the person who is in fear for their life?
Here in Detroit, we have folks, out on bond, who then kidnap and kill witnesses – happens frequently. That’s why I have no issue with this lehislation.
I was just served with a temp restraining order in Gilbert. There is zero merit to accusations and no evidence or crime was comitted. My entire collection was removed immediately. Guns were in a locked safe not exposed and I was “required” to hand over immediately or I would be arrested and lock would be broken and guns removed without my concent. I was living with an alcoholic who made false aligations with zero proof. I was not given 24 hrs and a hearing is not scheduled for 27 days. My right to due process has been violated. Please be aware this is happening! I don’t know what to do.