Previous Post
Next Post


TTAG reader Pascal writes:

Click here to read Connecticut’s SB 650. AN ACT CONCERNING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS is the Constitution State version of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order. Check out Section 3(b) of the CT bill. The bill creates a cop carve-out. Whereas non-LEOs (law enforcement officers) may have to wait up to 14-days to get a hearing with a judge , to begin the process of recovering his or her firearms, if it’s a cop who’s subject to a pre-crime gun-confiscating TRO, well, that’s different. The law now says . . .

“such peace officer may request of the Judicial Branch that the hearing on the application be held as soon as practicable.”

In other words, a police officer who’s had a spouse, significant other or family member ask the court to remove his or her firearms pending an official hearing gets an immediate hearing.

Once again, it’s one rule for us and a different rule for them. Which begs the question: if the legislature is so worried about domestic violence, why do police get a special carve out?

ED: this is a terrible, terrible law that violates the 2nd amendment of the Constitutional and the presumption of innocence found in 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. It should never see the light of day. It should be sent back to the dark corners of unrepentant statism from whence it came. That said, it’s also worth noting this [via]:

The National Center for Women and Policing noted in a heavily footnoted information sheet, “Two studies have found that at least 40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10 percent of families in the general population. A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24 percent, indicating that domestic violence is two to four times more common among police families than American families in general.”

Cops “typically handle cases of police family violence informally, often without an official report, investigation, or even check of the victim’s safety,” the summary continues. “This ‘informal’ method is often in direct contradiction to legislative mandates and departmental policies regarding the appropriate response to domestic violence crimes.” Finally, “even officers who are found guilty of domestic violence are unlikely to be fired, arrested, or referred for prosecution.”

I’m thinking enforcement of existing domestic abuse statutes would be an excellent place to start tackling this issue, for both non-LEO and the police charges with protecting them.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Given that the Federal Lautenberg Act says “No Gunz For U” the moment any restraining order is filed until its adjudicated -LEO ,.mil, or bricklayer- isnt this a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?

    • I think Lautenberg only applies if you committed violence, not just if you get a “stay-away” TRO/PPO. Lots of restraining orders just say “stop harassing me” and include no violence.

  2. This exemption should be challenged in court on grounds of this carve out violating the equal protection clause. Having a badge does not grant special rights. Will anyone step up in Connecticut?

  3. I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that the 14-day hearing is not “ex parte”, which means only one side appears before the judge. An “ex parte” hearing is what starts the gun confiscation in the first place, typically. The next hearing (in this case, the 14-day hearing) is the one where both sides are supposed to have the opportunity to appear and present evidence. That being said–it’s all garbage, just paying lip service to due process. Someone hopefully will carry one of these up on appeal as a “taking” case.

  4. Again, I fail to find the Constitutional distinction between LEO citizens and non-LEO citizens, therefore it must be a politically expedient classification until the politicians no longer need it.

    • It is because the Democratic legislature in loves the unions more than it loves women.

      • Or because statists need to have their enforcers armed more than they need individual women protected.

  5. If it really was about keeping people safe, and not gun control, there would be no “carve out” for LEOs. Multiple studies have shown that at least 40% of LEO families will be involved in domestic violence, as opposed to only 10% of the Non-LEO population…..

  6. Can someone explain this sentence to me:
    “Finally, “even officers who are found guilty of domestic violence are unlikely to be fired, arrested, or referred for prosecution.”

    If they’ve been “found guilty,” doesn’t that mean that they’ve been arrested and referred for prosecution, tried and convicted? Or did I get due process backwards?

    • Somebody got some kind of process backwards, didn’t they? Nice catch, went right by me when I first read it.

    • The LEO will have his guns confiscated BUT he gets to go in front of a judge to plead his case. The non-LEO goes directly to jail and some later to be determine point will get his chance. The non-LEO does not go free he is guilty until proven innocent. The LEO looses his guns but is innocent until proven guilty. That is the issue.

      • I’m afraid you are hopelessly mixing-up the civil gun-confiscation process with the criminal prosecution process.

        • There is a reason for that, the civil gun-confiscation process is prohibited by the constitution.

  7. Here comes the cop bashing again. Police officers did not write the law. Put the blame where it belongs. As a LEO, I believe everyone should get an immediate hearing. As for domestic violence being handled internally in agencies, bullshit! I have arrested a LEO from my agency for domestic battery. No where in Florida statutes does it say that law-enforcement officers have to make an arrest. But I can tell you for a fact that any officer in my agency that commits an act of domestic battery will be arrested without failure.

    • The LEOs did write the law but their union representatives where front and center and had access to legislators that the regular gun owner did not. CCDL and other gun rights groups testified at the hearings and made calls but much fell on deaf ears. The police unions had direct access. That is the difference.

    • Cops understandably don’t want to be judged by the actions of other cops. This seems particularly true when something happens outside of their city or state yet for some reason it is fine for a cop to make a determination about how LE handles everything everywhere else based on the way things are handled where they happen to work. In this case it is supposedly BS that cops handle things internally anywhere because a cop in Florida says so.

    • Pascal is right, the cops have written all these carve out laws. We just had another LEO carve-out here in Michigan. Everyone except the LEOs publicly spoke against it in hearings. The LEOs complained that they’d been working hard to get this carve-out and we fellow gun-owners should not be fighting against them. Yeah, right.

      Wake up.

    • Gregory, you can’t say with an honest face that that stuff doesn’t happen. It’s not domestic battery, but we just had a case published here where a LEO pistol-whipped an older gentleman in a road rage incident. He didn’t get arrested on the spot. In fact, he hasn’t been arrested at all (at least yet). The cops reporting to the call laughed about it with the abusive LEO and let him go. The only reason it’s now being investigated is the victim took photos and went to the news about it.

      You mention Florida because I assume that’s where you are a LEO. Just a few years ago a female Florida State Trooper was stalked, harassed, and threatened because she had the temerity to arrest another Florida LEO. She’s now suing.

  8. Once again, it’s one rule for us and a different rule for them.

    That’s one of the perks of being one of them.

  9. Over 10 yrs ago, the police chief of Tacoma Washington, shot and killed his estranged wife and then shot himself. Their children were just yards away. I’m sick and tired of police carve-outs.

    • There are people with all kinds of mental issues in every profession. There is no way to filter out every single person with issues in the hiring process for law enforcement. Fortunately these people are few and far between. They make all of us look bad. By the looks of some postings on this blog, one would be led to believe all LEO’s are scum of the earth just waiting to violate someone’s rights. For those people posting these types of views, you lead one hell of a pitifull life.

    • Probably happens more than you think. Just last year a cop in Colorado, who many people knew from a very popular online forum, killed his wife (who was also a LEO dispatcher) and then killed himself. Statistically LEOs are less law abiding on average than non-LEOs, so I agree, why have special carve-outs?

      • Again, it’s because the statists need their enforcers to be armed. But of course they can’t say it that way. But you knew that I reckon. I can’t figure out what excuse they could come up with as the “official” explanation.

  10. I have a better idea: a cop convicted of domestic violence gets booted from the country, permanently, to somewhere they’re never, ever allowed to touch a weapon of any sort again.

    The guardians have to be held to higher standards.

    • Most of us would be happy if they are just held to the same standard. Simply eliminate the carve out.

  11. Really, we don’t even boot illegal aliens (OMG, I made a politically incorrect statement) from our country. You want to boot citizens out?

    • Heck, I can think of a lot of citizens I would like to boot out….and some illegals I would just as soon keep. Just wish we could make the swap.

  12. the ‘bad apples’ of LEO’s…take their hostilities out on their families and friends ..WHEN they do not have you in their’ sights’….and the POLITICIANS who THEY work for protect them at all costs…seems to me that the POLITICIANS also need to be held accountable for THEIR employees misdeeds…..imho

  13. When will the Democrats’ War on Women ever end? I don’t know. In the meantime, I would just encourage every woman out there to take all lawful steps necessary to defend themselves, regardless whether your abuser is the State or your spouse.

  14. Correct me if I am wrong Pascal, but I believe we already have a mechanism for this in place in CT…. I can’t remember the section(s) of the statutes it is in.

Comments are closed.