Connecticut’s Top RINO Explains Her Support for Connecticut’s Gun Violence Restraining Order

Themis Klarides (courtesy

“Last month, Connecticut lawmakers passed a bill requiring alleged domestic abusers to turn in their guns 24 hours after being served with a temporary restraining order,” Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agitpropmesiters report at thetrace,org. “Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy signed the bill on Tuesday, and when it takes effect on October 1, Connecticut will be the 16th state to remove guns from alleged abusers prior to a full hearing for a final order of protection.” The 16th state to deny gun owners their Constitutional rights to due process. This they did aided and abetted by Republican minority leader  Themis Klarides (above). Here’s how she justified the “compromise” that ensured the bill’s passage . . .

Under the current system, a full court hearing on converting a temporary restraining order to a permanent order is held within 14 days of the TRO being issued. The compromise Connecticut lawmakers struck was an amendment that shortens that period to seven days when the person seeking the order checks a box on the application indicating that the accused abuser is a gun owner. Klarides says she would have preferred a hearing within 24 to 48 hours, but Connecticut doesn’t have night and weekend courts, making such expedited hearings impossible.

Even more important than due process concerns, Klarides says, was the fact that the state had no protocols for returning guns after a restraining order ultimately expires. Before the bill’s passage, the subjects of expired orders called the state police and made an appointment to get their guns back, a process that had no formalized deadline. Under the new law, subjects of expired orders will get their guns back within five days. To gun owners, “that was the biggest deal with this legislation,” Klarides said.

Was it? Was it really? If so, shame on them. The biggest deal is that this bill empowers the Constitution State to confiscate residents’ firearms on the say-so of a judge, without being able to defend themselves and/or confront their accusers in a court of law. A fact that Klarides swept to one side as she frog-marched fellow CT Republicans to support the bill.

By the time the bill was up for a vote this year, it was Klarides who persuaded her fellow Republican lawmakers not to stall the bill again.

“I wouldn’t have voted for it last year, I’ll tell you that,” she tells The Trace. Though the bill is “nowhere near perfect,” it “balanced the needs of domestic violence victims, which are certainly very important, and the rights of firearm owners.”

“We see this domestic violence tragedy occur on a daily basis,” she says. “And if it will save lives, I think we have to be willing to give it a shot.”

So the Minority Leader understands that the bill sacrifices liberty for the mere possibility of safety. Until and unless Connecticut voters express their displeasure with RINOs at the ballot box, their elected representatives will continue their erosion of citizens’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Let that be a lesson to us all.


  1. avatar Ralph says:

    Maybe she’s not a RINO. Maybe she’s just a woman politician, making her support predictable for this law, which is anti-male.

    There are several culture wars out there. Guns, white skin and testes are all targets.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      But you would agree with me, would you not, that multiple appellate courts have concluded that prehearing seizures do not constitute a violation of due process? And would you further agree that given this state of the law, a prompt hearing and a requirement that the police expeditiously return firearms is a pretty good compromise? I think you would also agree that the failure of the police to promptly return forearms–or at all in many cases–is a continuing problem. In fact I was reading about one just the other day–a TRO, a seizure after expiration of the TRO, and a refusal of the police to return guns despite the proper procedures having been followed. It happens out here on the left coast with ridiculous frequency.

      1. avatar Timmy! says:

        “But you would agree with me, would you not, that multiple appellate courts have concluded that prehearing seizures do not constitute a violation of due process?”

        Ok, I would agree with the exact wording of that statement… but that does NOT mean that I agree that it is truth. Appellate courts may SAY there is no violation of due process, but there sure as hell IS!

      2. avatar Pond Hipster says:

        I don’t play “Would You Agree” games. I’d bet my left nut Ralph doesn’t either.

        Too many females are nuts, in my experience. They will lie through their teeth and play the victim card if they are pissed off at you.

      3. avatar Ralph says:

        No, Mark, a surrender to the lunatic left is never “a good compromise.” At best, it’s a sellout. At worst, it’s just another Feminazi man-bashing scheme.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Tsk, tsk Ralph. What a wonderfully evasive answer. Which in this day an age is an implied admission that I am correct as to the underlying legal premise that there is no due process violation. (If you can’t win, change the subject.)

          And I don’t really care what you other nonlawyer commentators have to say. When a court “says” it, that is the law, no matter what you might think. I am not saying you have to agree, only that you lose. Period. And by the way, those authorities go all the way to the US Supreme Court, and that makes it the law of the land. As of course Ralph well knows, which is why he ducked the question.

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          Mark N, there’s plenty of time to allow the man the notice and opportunity to be heard that the Constitution requires.

          We absolutely know as a matter of legal certainty that there is no emergency involved because CT’s new law allows an entire day for the man to turn in his guns.

          If surrender was so important, why would the man be allowed a 24 hour day to turn them in? And during that day, why can’t he have the opportunity to be heard?

          This law is a crock. I will keep my thoughts about you to myself.

      4. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        No, I do not care what any court says, it is ex-parte and therefor they are taking property without due process. The fact that some places will actually return the stolen property does not in fact make it acceptable! If you go further into the problem, you discover that divorce lawyers (especially for the woman) routinely demand, and automatically receive a temporary restraining order makes it even worse. Until temporary restraining orders require both parties to be represented then any taking of any property by anyone, even a 3rd party is unacceptable!

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          That’s unadulterated bullshit. It is unethical for a lawyer to advise his client to commit perjury, and a TRO requires a statement of the victim under oath. No matter what you personally may think of lawyers, the vast majority are ethical, since getting caught means losing one’s meal ticket. Divorce lawyers have many ways to sticking it to the other side, the favorite being maxing out credit cards and emptying bank accounts. In my experience, the vast majority of TROs are sought by unrepresented parties.

          Yes, it is a taking. So is an arrest (seizure of a person). Or a seizure pursuant to a search warrant. If they seize drugs, do you think they should have to give them back until there’s been a conviction? What about murder weapons–should they give those back too? How about the bank accounts of fraudsters like Madoff? We can go on like this forever, but tough luck kiddo. You will never win your due process argument.

        2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          As far as ethical lawyers, well I have a fair amount of observation of lawyers in my background by way of my employment, and that has lead me to believe some of them are truly ethical (and really good guys). But the vast majority of them ethical, nope not gonna buy that. As far as advising a client to commit perjury, of course they don’t actually do that, but asking the right series of questions the right way will lead right into the same thing.

          Oh by the way, bringing up a red herrings like criminal proceedings that result from actual probable cause and arrest is actual step in it lawyer like bull crap!

        3. avatar brian says:

          Mark – let me explain the TRO process here in CT to you.

          There’s no lawyers. The applicant doesn’t stand before a judge. They fill out a three page form, none of the information is verified, the form is handed to a judge, who then signs most of them.

          Then, in 14 days there’s a hearing, at which point more than 50% of such TROs are thrown away.

          Nobody is ever prosecuted for perjury for lying to get a TRO.

          And there’s no provision in the law for the return of non-transferrable firearms. Nor is there any protection for anyone who may have forgotten to register a magazine or two — they are effectively forced to incriminate themselves in order to obey a potentially fraudulent TRO.

          Also any court that says this does not violate due process is wrong.

        4. avatar Ralph says:

          It is unethical for a lawyer to advise his client to commit perjury


          Among the matrimonial bar, it’s considered a tactic.

      5. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

        Just because YOU enjoy stuffing your head up Marx’ rotted backside doesn’t mean the rest of us have to do it, nor does it make you right if a court says it’s the “cool” thing to do.

  2. avatar Jeffrey Hunt says:

    Seriously, this isn’t as bad as you make out. If you are deemed a danger to yourself, or others, without a court order, you can be held for as long as 3 days before you have to be released or a court orders a longer hospital stay- that’s for your and the general public’s safety. Where is your screaming for rights about this? I feel this is the same issue for temporary restraining orders. As long as the law requires weapons to be returned in a timely manner after a timely hearing, these laws should be fine. I’m also saying this as a person who had a crazy tenant try to get a restraining order on me, but the judge dismissed the emergent and ultimately any restraining order. State may hold someone for a proscribed time before charges must be brought against a citizen- another similar instance. Again, let’s be reasonable here.

    1. avatar MeRp says:

      When TROs stop being abused as a near-automatic first salvo by a woman initiating a divorce, then we can talk about what is a reasonable suspension of constitutional rights prior to due process on the basis of immediate need.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        ^^^^^ This.

        Judges give out TROs like they were party favors.

        1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          I wonder if the firearms addition gives standing to go after crappy T R O practices on due process grounds?

          It be interesting to create an example of “gun rights = civil rights.” That would be worth it just to watch the right people’s heads spin.

    2. avatar brian says:

      We already have a law for dealing with a case where there’s an actual danger — it’s called the risk warrant, and it is in Section 29-38c of the Connecticut General Statutes.

      The gun grabbers said that was no good because it got the police involved. Meanwhile, they were supporting another bill to require police to be present during the service of a TRO.

  3. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

    Successful politicians are usually wheeler dealers not ideologues.

    1. avatar Frank Masotti says:

      And that’s why nobody likes or trusts politicians.

      1. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

        But votes for them none the less.

  4. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    Can I file a restraining order on ALL of her body guards?

  5. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “I think we have to be willing to give it a shot.”
    In other words, ” we have to do something, because nothing has worked yet. People have too much freedom”

    Why not issue a firearm to those taking out a TRO.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      They want guns turned in within 24 hours, then they damn sure better expedite within 24 hours a carry permit for the victim if so requested.

      That is a reasonable ‘compromise’…

      1. avatar brian says:

        So now a person files a TRO, it gets served, and instead of perhaps taking some time to chill out, the recipient now knows he has 24 hours to “solve” the problem in a permanent fashion.

        Nothing good can come of this. I think the political class are counting on that.

      2. avatar Bob in Calif says:


      3. avatar Ralph says:

        They want guns turned in within 24 hours

        Which gives actual bad guys a whole day to do their worst. And they will.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          You have a point…


  6. avatar JDS says:

    So some girlfriend gets pissed at boyfriend and they take his guns. Well they take the guns they know about. The privately owned guns or gun he doesn’t turn over stays. Then BF turns around and does same to GF. She finds herself disarmed and he has no problem hunting her down and shooting her.
    No woman would ever call the cops out of vengeance and report her man for the sole reason of vengeance/revenge. Since no hearing before his rights are violated he still gets whats “coming to him”. She can just skip the hearing and in a week or so he may get his stuff back. No harm no foul right? Its not like the a-hole didn’t deserve the hassle. What’s he going to do, come over and make a big deal out of it risking yet another call to the cops?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Why would GF be disarmed? A little bit too long of a leap in logic there.

      1. avatar tfunk says:

        He mentioned bf filing a TRO on the girlfriend

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Women get TROs if they request them, and they usually do. Men don’t usually request them, and when they do, they don’t get them.

          The purpose of the GVRO isn’t to keep women safe, it’s to give women another hammer.

        2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          Make that an ax instead of a hammer.

    2. avatar brian says:

      A friend of mine had her estranged abusive husband file AND RECEIVE a restraining order against her and he got her disarmed. It was a way to extend and continue the abuse.

      That’s going to happen a lot more since they don’t have to be master manipulators to convince a judge to grant an actual RO where they have to present evidence.

      This law is going to get people killed.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        But if it only saves one life, its worthwhile!

  7. avatar BDub says:

    GVROs are a threefer – they violate 3 enumerated Rights with a single law.

  8. avatar C.S. says:

    Yup, gun owning women should be very afraid… gun owning men, not so much.

  9. avatar PPGMD says:

    Oh ghee thanks our rights of due process are only violated for 12 days.

  10. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    “We see this domestic violence tragedy occur on a daily basis,” she says. “And if it will save lives, I think we have to be willing to give it a shot.” How about giving concealed carry a shot, you fool? It saves lives.

    1. avatar brian says:

      In addition, CT’s own domestic violence research agency cannot show a single instance in the past two years where someone was killed with a firearm while under the protection of a TRO.

      The entire premise of the law is a lie. I personally believe that it was pushed by the anti-gun groups in this state because they intend to take advantage of the fact that nobody is ever prosecuted for perjury to harass peaceful citizens.

  11. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    Connecticut the Constitution state?
    Constitutional Toilet maybe……………………..

  12. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    This kind of crap is yet another reason why men are less likely to get married in modern times, that and who wants to pay a woman to sit home and do nothing until she can fool some other guy into being the resource bank. If you don’t marry the woman the worst you are likely to get hit up for is child support, and you ought to be involved with your kids anyway.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Men are less likely to want to get married these days. Some of that reluctance may be caused by the absurdity of American laws, some may be caused by the attitude of Feminists, but an underestimated factor is the shitty economy that makes having a family too costly for an underemployed man.

  13. avatar Resident CT says:

    Not bipartisan, there is only one party in CT.

    1. avatar Resident CT says:

      The shameless, amoral Progressives in CT, led by Dan the Gov. are driving out businesses like GE (moving to Massachusetts, that is how bad CT has gotten) while giving out $22 million to a hedge fund run by Ray Dalio. To be fair there is a relatively small group of Republicans and Democrats that are not bad, but there are enough sellouts to throw in their support of Democrat bills for trifling favors. I believe Themis falls into this category, or worse she got nothing and gained nothing of value for the sellout.

      Connecticut has declined under Dan Malloy, except in the PR sector that the state funnels money for lies and rosy outlooks.

      1. avatar brian says:

        The Democrats have not needed the Republicans to pass anything in this state for the past two decades. The Republicans have been literally locked out of the budget negotiations since Malloy took office.

  14. avatar OkieRim says:

    And miss hottie is a former model and ring girl for WWE…
    Wonder what else bends her way?

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      Yeah, you read her profile on that wiki page,

      Naw, she doesn’t have an agenda. /sarc

  15. avatar alexander says:

    “citizens’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right …” Ah, scratch out “Constitutionally protected” – a piece of paper that’s been totally ignored for decades or more cannot protect anyone.

    1. avatar Matt says:

      Funny thing is, it is enumerated in our state constitution as well…

  16. avatar Groutboy says:

    “You have been Declared an Enemy of the state !!! You WILL surrender all property to the local police department immediately or deadly force will be used against you #!!!”

    Yup, that sounds more like a future
    USA …Thank a politician today…
    HELL Who needs due process
    Anyway! ? Just Let your local police
    Department issue their own warrants!

  17. avatar Groutboy says:

    I think CT. citizens injured, or killed by this CT. law should be able to sue the life out of that Female RINO pictured above….What part of “infringement ” doesn’t she understand!

  18. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Seems to me that having your guns confiscated before due process of law is applied would be a pretty good motive for murder.

    But I’ve probably just watched too many episodes of Colombo.

  19. avatar Stu in AZ says:

    At least they still maintain a shred of honesty by acknowledging that the abuse is “alleged”.
    It’s like when we allege that they’re all a bunch of commies, we can honestly say we’ve come closer to their level of (dis)credibility.

  20. avatar Tym O'Byrne says:

    The bright side: CT is an economic black hole and sexbots are getting better by the day.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Do women fully understand the consequences of when a reasonable facsimile sexbot becomes available (and affordable! Watch the Chinese manufacturing base suddenly become popular again in the US) that male tolerance of BS will do to their willingness to put up with said BS?

      (Frank Drebbin had it right inquiring about the ‘Swedish Suckulator’)

  21. avatar Jay W. says:

    I guess the next step in legislation will be to also have anyone with a TRO also turn in their hammers, screwdrivers, box cutters, any knife over 2 or 3″ long, any heavy object (2 pounds or more?) including say a wrench from a toolbox or the tire iron from their car or a roll of quarters and any sock they could put them in, etcetera.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      I don’t think so. Leftists don’t care about items that can be easily used to kill the women the leftists claim they want to protect. They care only about weapons that might make people a threat to the political elite or agents of the state.

  22. avatar DaveinLA says:

    So even a bogus YRO earns the named person the loss of thier firearms for a couple of weeks….. and since ammunition is also confiscated by the same BS laws, ammo that most LE offices will not return to the owner for some other made up reason…. depending on the person…you can deprive someone of some serious cash as well. Maybe even donate thier priceless stash of 6 bricks of .22LR to whichever cop can tote them to his truck first…… what a bonus! And don’t worry about all the gouges and scratches on your $15K Arrietta shotguns…those are just new identifiable marks.

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