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.