.

Police confiscate citizens' guns "just in case"

Little-AcornLittle-Acorn Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
The thought police have found a new home in the state of Connecticut. If a neighbor informs on you, and the police find you have commited no crime at all, but they somehow divine that you might commit one in the future, a judge can issue a warrant on those grounds and send the police to your house to confiscate any guns you own... just in case.

This in an country where the highest law of the land says your right to own and carry such weapons cannot be restricted or taken away.

One of the reasons the Founding Fathers put the 2nd amendment in place, was so that people could resist tyranny of their own government, by massive physical force if necessary. They knew that governments sliding into tyranny, would frequently disarm their citizens beforehand, so as to make the takeover easier. Factual accounts of this are legion, and can be found all over the world. So the 2nd amendment was passed and ratified, in particular to prevent such disarmament.

Well, guess what. Governments do this by passing laws, saying certain people can't have guns. Then they pass a few more, detailing a few more groups that can't have them. Then a few more, etc. And they authorize the police to confiscate guns from those people.

Exactly as Connecticut is doing here.

Guess what else. Forcibly resisting or overthrowing a government, no matter how tyrannical, is ALWAYS against the laws of that government - d'OH! And if a state can authorize its police to confiscate guns from people who haven't committed a crime, "just in case" they might commit one in the future... such as the crime of resisting or overthrowing that government... well, that's EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment was written to prevent.

The bottom line: the most important reason for the 2nd amendment, is to make it impossible for any govt in the US to prevent its citizens from overthrowing it, if they feel they need to. IMHO this law in Connecticut, is the most direct violation of the 2nd amendment in the history of our country.

And the argument by govt officials supporting that law, seems to amount to a statement that the government hasn't abused it YET. They seem to want us to trust government to not do that. The Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves.

I wonder how this squares with the Supreme Court's recent decision that residents of Washington DC who have not committed any crimes, clearly have the right to have guns in their houses. Are the law-abiding residents of Connecticut so different, that the Supremes would issue a different verdict in their case?

What did they do to deserve that?


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71435

State: Just in case, we'll take your gun
Cops allowed to seize firearms even before crime is committed

Posted: August 04, 2008
10:05 pm Eastern

A new report to the Connecticut state legislature shows police have used the state's unique gun seizure law to confiscate more than 1,700 firearms from citizens based on suspicion that the gun owners might harm themselves or others.

The state's law permits police to seek a warrant for seizing a citizen's guns based on suspicion of the gun owner's intentions, before any act of violence or lawbreaking is actually committed.

The law was first proposed in 1998, following a mass shooting at the Connecticut Lottery Corporation that left five dead, including the gunman. Since the law went into effect Oct. 1, 1999, according to new Office of Legislative Research report, police have made more than 200 documented requests for warrants to seize firearms from citizens, and only two of the requests have been denied.

The law has remained hotly debated since its passage, as some point to possible murders and suicides it may have prevented, and others worry that police would abuse the law.

"It certainly has not been abused. It may be underutilized," Ron Pinciaro, co-executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, told the Waterbury Republican American. "The bottom line from our perspective is, it may very well have saved lives."

Attorney Ralph D. Sherman, who has represented several of the gun owners whose firearms were confiscated under the law, disagrees.

"In every case I was involved in I thought it was an abuse," he told the newspaper. "The overriding concern is anybody can report anybody with or without substantiation, and I don't think that is the American way."

Joe Graborz, executive director of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, an affiliate of the ACLU, told WND the law "continues to invest unusual and far-reaching powers in police authority that does not belong there" by requiring "police to act as psychologists in trying to predict and interpret behavior."

"What is the standard of proof on this?" he asked. "The way this law is written, it can and will be easily abused by police."

Under the statute, dubbed the "turn in your neighbor" law by opponents, any two police officers or a state prosecutor may seek a warrant, following a specified process of investigation, to confiscate guns from people deemed a risk to harming themselves or others. The vast majority of cases, however, begin when a person - usually a spouse or live-in, according to the OLR report - file a complaint.

Shortly after the law was passed, Thompson Bosee of Greenwich, Conn., had his guns and ammunition seized by police. Bosee told WND in 1999 he suspects a neighbor, with whom he has had words regarding the neighbor's driving on Bosee's property, might have reported him.

"They had a warrant for my guns, they arrested my guns," said Bosee.

A member of both the NRA and the American Gunsmithing Association, Bosee said he works on his guns in his garage and is not ashamed of it.

(snip)

In October 2006, according to the Republican American, police obtained a seizure warrant after a man made 28 unsubstantiated claims of vandalism to his property. The police application for seizure described the man as paranoid and delusional, citing extensive self-protection measures installed on the man's property, including alarms, cameras and spotlights.

Four months after the man's guns were taken, a judge ruled that police had failed to show the man posed any risk and ordered the guns returned. According to the ruling, the gun owner had no history of documented illness, criminal activity or misuse of firearms. "In fact, the firearms were found in a locked safe when the officers executed the warrant," the ruling said.

The law dictates that courts hold a hearing within 14 days of a seizure to determine the eventual fate of the guns. In most cases, according to the OLR report, the guns are held for a period of up to a year, destroyed or sold. The Republican American reports that in 22 of the more than 200 cases, the guns were ordered returned.

Connecticut State Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, House chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of the chief authors of the law, told the Republican American he wasn't aware of any pending challenges to the law's constitutionality.

"The whole point was to make sure it was limited and constitutional," he said.

Sherman however, said the law hasn't been challenged yet, simply because it is used sparingly and a test case would prove too costly for the average gun owner.

Comments

  • joshmb1982joshmb1982 Member Posts: 8,929
    edited November -1
    as a resident of ct that is deeply disturbing. with any other item in your home wouldnt that be illegal search and siezure? can they confiscate cars because youve been accused of being a bad driver?? i mena if there gonna take your firearms for fear you MAY harm someone. should they take any knives, vahicles, baseball bats, hockeys sticks, hammers, pickaxes, pitchforks as well. and what about shovels. if they ban shovels you wont be able to get rid of the evidence right.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    Look for more legislation JUST like it. Maybe better.


    [xx(]
  • Hunter MagHunter Mag Member Posts: 6,603 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What kind of suprises me is you would think all of the origional 13 colonies who drafted the constitution would be staunch supporters of the constitution.
    Can anyone say Bennedict Arnold? [xx(]
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
    What kind of suprises me is you would think all of the origional 13 colonies who drafted the constitution would be staunch supporters of the constitution.
    Can anyone say Bennedict Arnold? [xx(]
    Your point is well taken Hunter, however, "New America" has stated, loudly and clearly, that they are willing to allow government to exceed it constitutional and just authority.

    We are merely witness to the escalating result.
  • Hunter MagHunter Mag Member Posts: 6,603 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
    What kind of suprises me is you would think all of the origional 13 colonies who drafted the constitution would be staunch supporters of the constitution.
    Can anyone say Bennedict Arnold? [xx(]
    Your point is well taken Hunter, however, "New America" has stated, loudly and clearly, that they are willing to allow government to exceed it constitutional and just authority.

    We are merely witness to the escalating result.
    Sadly, I know 496...[:(]
    I have a book at home called "Our First Century"(I think)and it's printed in 1880? About 2" thick and has all kinds of info and stories in it from famous duels that have been forgotten to how the people back then were concerned how the government was becoming too consumptuous/controlling. If they only knew how today is.[xx(]
    It's a good book but hard to read the way the language was back then. The book itself is in fair condition.

    Maybe I'll take some photos of it when I remember. LOL
Sign In or Register to comment.