Unique law lets police seize guns before a crime is committed

Waterbury Republican-American ^ | August 3, 2008 | Paul hughes

[april15Bendovr]

[grey_whiskers]

Lawlor said there have been no challenges on constitutional grounds because of the way the law was written. "The whole point was to make sure it was limited and constitutional," he said. Sherman said it is because the law is used sparingly, and because a test case would be too costly for average gun owners.

Lawlor, Crook, and Sherman don't see the legislature repealing or revising the gun seizure law. Pinciaro said Connecticut Against Gun Violence doesn't see any reason why lawmakers should take either action.

"The bottom line from our perspective is, it may very well have saved lives," Pinciaro said.

Remember, the authors of the law see nothing wrong with it.

Gun owners don't have the resources to wage a decades-long legal battle, so it's Unconstitutionality won't be established.

And the intentions are good, so the mere speculation that it might have saved lives trumps the Constitution anyway.

After Heller, these people should be imprisoned for willful violation of Civil Rights under Colour of Law.

Cheers!

[varon]

Slippery slope.

[TheNewPundit]

Gun owners don’t have the money, but the NRA might.

[Ben Reyes]

“The report to the legislature shows that state judges are inclined to issue gun seizure warrants and uphold seizures when challenged in court.”

‘Minority Report’ starring Tom Cruise?

[Logical me]

Any guess we are at the finishing touches to a police state?

[TruthConquers]

So do they apprehend illegals before they commit a crime with the same gusto?

If anyone has lost a family member to gang bangers and other assorted rotter’s, they should sue that state into the ground.

[Smokin' Joe]

From CITES BY TOPIC: Bill of attainder Defining Bills of Attainder-Thomas M. Saunders

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 165:

Bill of attainder. Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1715, 14 L.Ed. 484, 492; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 1079, 90 L.Ed. 1252. An act is a "bill of attainder" when the punishment is death and a "bill of pains and penalties" when the punishment is less severe; both kinds of punishment fall within the scope of the constitutional prohibition. U.S.Const. Art. I, Sect 9, Cl. 3 (as to Congress);' Art. I, Sec, 10 (as to state legislatures).

also (same site)

Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3:

"'No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.'" A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial.

I do not care whether the people who wrote the law like it or not. It seems pretty clear that they have overstepped their bounds.

[Popman]

Maybe the citizens of Conn. can pass a law to seize the assets of politicians so they can't run for office to pass such asinine anti constitutional laws.

They can have their money back after they promise never to run for office again and prove the danger has passed

[Smokin' Joe]

So do they apprehend illegals before they commit a crime with the same gusto?

If they are here in violation of our immigration laws, they have already committed a crime.

[TruthConquers]

So does Connecticut round the illegals up? Do they? Or are they going after law abiding citizens and stealing their guns instead?

[Smokin' Joe]

So does Connecticut round the illegals up? Do they? Or are they going after law abiding citizens and stealing their guns instead?

Apparently the latter. I live in North Dakota. I would not live in CT if you offered to pay me to (nor MA, CA, NY, NJ, MD, IL,...none of the states with heavily socialist gun laws).

[TruthConquers]

Someday we will leave California. I hope it is soon, and after the housing implosion. Sigh. Hubby has a good job that he has been with for over 30 years that he loves. But I have no desire to retire here.

[Smokin' Joe]

I wish you the best of luck. Just make sure to get out before they set up the border checkpoints...at the state line...

[wastedyears]

Well this is just wonderful news to learn about my state.

[wastedyears]

Minority Report was exactly what I was thinking of.

[wastedyears]

They’re all waiting for the ‘Go’ signal from their handlers, whoever they may be.

[Eagle Eye]

Under the law, any two police officers or a state prosecutor may obtain warrants to seize guns from individuals who pose an imminent risk of harming themselves or others. Before applying for warrants, police must first conduct investigations and determine there is no reasonable alternative to seizing someone's guns. Judges must also make certain findings.

Just asking, suppose that someone really did have or develop a problem that made it dangerous for them to possess a firearm? Is there any role at all for government to intervene?

If so, what procedure should they use? Perhaps one that requires an investigation, a warrant and judicial review?

[wastedyears]

Hey never, lookie here, we have a more Socialist law than you guys do.