Connecticut to pass gun confiscation bill

[alpacaheat]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016...e-key-details/


Connecticut Governor to Sign Gun Confiscation Bill — Here Are the Key Details

Connecticut lawmakers have passed legislation to permit law enforcement to confiscate guns and ammunition from anyone accused of domestic abuse. The bill is headed to the desk of Gov. Daniel Malloy and he’s expected to sign it.

Under the legislation, suspects would have 24 hours after being accused to surrender all firearms.

After nearly three hours of debate, the bill was approved with a 23-13 amid failed attempted by Republicans to amend the bill.
The Connecticut Post explains the intention behind the legislation:

The goal is to protect women from the increased lethality at a critical point in a relationship: when they are trying to leave their abusers. About 14 domestic homicides occur annually in Connecticut, half of which are caused by guns.
While 5,000 temporary restraining orders are issued annually, about half result in permanent orders. The bill, which was approved last week in the House, would require court hearings within seven days and if judges decide against extending the orders, weapons would be returned within five days later. Currently, court hearings are held 14 days later.

Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney argued the “possible inconvenience to gun owners” should not come at the “expense of the great danger to victims of domestic violence.”
“That’s why this bill is exactly what we should be doing in this area,” he added.
Though there was some opposition to the bill due to gun rights concerns, the Post reports “there was little evidence of gun-rights activists in the Capitol on Monday.”
“I do believe we have to honor the Constitution, we have to honor the Second Amendment and we have to honor the rights of individuals,” Republican Sen. Rob Kane said.

Multiple attempts to contact Democrats in the Connecticut Senate were unsuccessful.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/...es-7388578.php

Senate approves gun seizures in violent domestic breakups

HARTFORD — Accused domestic abusers would have to surrender firearms within 24 hours under legislation that won final approval in the Senate on Monday afternoon and now heads to the governor for his expected signature.
The bill was approved 23-13 after a two-and-three-quarter hour debate, in which Republicans failed in three attempts to amend it. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who proposed the legislation, indicated right after the vote that he supports the bill, which would require alleged domestic abusers — in most cases, men — to immediately give up their guns and ammunition if their partners seek restraining orders.

The goal is to protect women from the increased lethality at a critical point in a relationship: when they are trying to leave their abusers. About 14 domestic homicides occur annually in Connecticut, half of which are caused by guns.
While 5,000 temporary restraining orders are issued annually, about half result in permanent orders. The bill, which was approved last week in the House, would require court hearings within seven days and if judges decide against extending the orders, weapons would be returned within five days later. Currently, court hearings are held 14 days later.
“This is a very important bill,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney, noting that the issue goes back to the summer and fall of 2014, when a task force found that compared to other states, Connecticut fell short in protected victims of domestic abuse.


Recalling Oxford killing
Looney said the current procedure which can drag on 14 days or more, can be demoralizing and stressful.
“To focus to a greater extent on the possible inconvenience of gun owners at the expense of the great danger to victims of domestic violence is not the balance that we should strike in looking at this issue of policy,” he said. “That’s why this bill is exactly what we should be doing in this area.”
Republican lawmakers including Sen. Tony Hwang, of Fairfield, Rep. Toni Boucher, of Wilton and Sen. L. Scott Frantz,, of Greenwich, voted with Democrats in favor of the bill. Sen. Catherine Osten, D-Sprague, voted against the bill.

“We have a moral obligation to work to prevent needless tragedy and to make this the law,” Malloy said in a statement just after the vote. “Women in abusive relationships are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a firearm. Between 2000 through 2012, Connecticut averaged 14 intimate partner homicides per year, and firearms were the most commonly used weapons. When an instance of domestic violence rises to the point that a temporary restraining order is needed, we must do everything we can to prevent tragedy.”
During the Senate debate and last week’s discussion of the bill on the House floor, lawmakers cited the 2014 murder of Lori Jackson in her parents’ Oxford home. Jackson had been unable to have her estranged husband, Scott Gellatly, served with a restraining order because he ventured out of state. He bought a handgun in Massachusetts and shot her mother, Merry Jackson, in the face, before killing the 32-year-old mother of twin toddlers, who were sleeping nearby. Gellatly was recently sentenced to 45 years in prison.


Gun-rights argument
Carolyn Treiss, executive director of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, said that the time of greatest threat for intimate-partner violence is right after a restraining order is served. Currently, targets of restraining orders don’t have to surrender weapons until a judge rules.
“This was never a ‘gun rights’ bill,” Treiss said. “Rather, it’s a common-sense prevention of tragedy and a real victory for women’s safety.”
Republican opponents of the bill said it would infringe on the constitutional rights of lawful gun owners who could have their weapons taken away without due process. One of the Republican amendments would have required the targets of temporary restraining order (TRO) to be served with the orders in person, rather than marshals having the option of leaving off the orders at the targets’ homes if they were not home.
While opposition against the legislation emerged during a daylong public hearing earlier this year, there was little evidence of gun-rights activists in the Capitol on Monday. Republican opponents kept the debate going for nearly three hours, though.
“I do believe we have to honor the Constitution, we have to honor the Second Amendment and we have to honor the rights of individuals,” said Sen. Rob Kane, R-Watertown, whose district includes Seymour and Oxford.
State Sen. Michael A. McLachlan, R-Danbury, said that “persistent” advocates in his district who favored the bill asked for his support got him thinking long and hard. The three GOP amendments, however, clarified his objections, particularly in cases where guns are taken away but judges decline to issue TROs.
McLachlan ultimately voted against the bill.
“I will say that the process of protecting the rights of an individual from a failed TRO is of big importance to be,” he said.
“The right to live is more important than any other right we have,” said Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Killingly, who has worked in recent years on domestic-violence issues.

[Wilderness 1864]

Again, just the patina of "due process". I see no apparent remedies for abusive and unfounded accusations and confiscations. So there is no deterrent to prevent them, just incentive to use them. No judge will ever politically run the risk of rescinding a confiscation within five days of its issuance. I can foresee the law becoming a negotiating leverage tool for extracting bigger alimony settlements in divorce and separation proceedings. Fighting for return of the firearms will cost more than any man can afford. I am guessing that the three rejected amendments probably put real due process protection into the bill. Wish the story had bothered to show that side of the debate, but this that would not be in the interest of the gun control media.

[Jhaydeno]

The bill, which was approved last week in the House, would require court hearings within seven days and if judges decide against extending the orders, weapons would be returned within five days later

So now it's guilty until proven innocent... great, one more step towards communism.

It's a pie in the sky dream if anyone believes the hearings will be held in 7 days, or better yet, that you will get your guns back in one piece (or at all). The disdain I feel towards D politicians like those in CT, CA, NJ, NY and MD is intense to say the least. I think they all need a lesson in "Constitution Mother*&^er".

[Mitch10mm]

Just think of the laws that will be passed once Hillary gets elected, picks her SCOTUS judges and we get a clearer understanding of what the Second really means.

[staylo]

They have this all wrong. If they would just make murder illegal that would solve this whole problem.

[PocketProtector]

Just think of the laws that will be passed once Hillary gets elected, picks her SCOTUS judges and we get a clearer understanding of what the Second really means.

If That cow gets elected you will do one of these 3 things.

1. Turn in your guns
2. Have them confiscated
3. Be in a civil war.

[lemko]

If That cow gets elected you will do one of these 3 things.

1. Turn in your guns
2. Have them confiscated
3. Be in a civil war.

I'll take Door #3, Monty!

[lemko]

I can see two things immediately happening - unstable wives and girlfriends using this as leverage against their significant others or truly violent abusive husbands and boyfriend simply killing their women if threatened because they don't want to lose their property to the state.

[IIIIIREPOIIIII]

If That cow gets elected you will do one of these 3 things.

1. Turn in your guns
2. Have them confiscated
3. Be in a civil war.

[Hokkmike]

In Pennsylvania if a PFA is issued against you don't you have to temporarily give up possession of your guns?