[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!

[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?

[Gilbo_3]

"It certainly has not been abused. It may be underutilized,"

Nothing like due process eh ???

The things 9 yrs old and I dont recall this nanny tattletale BS before, but hopefully there will now be a challenge following Heller...

LFOD...

[Force of Truth]

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!

You forgot one thing: The defendants don't have their guns anymore, so they can't do a damn thing about it if they really had to anyway.

The most important reason to own guns is to discourage a tyrannical government from taking possessions(that goes for overbearing taxation), life, and liberty from its rightful citizenry. It's not a matter of if, but when the current police state consummates its end to dispossess its citizenry of its right to bear arms, the citizenry will be at the complete mercy of the horrendous oligarchy. We already see the effects of this. For example, look how the US Congress rules the citizenry without any regard for our wishes. It's scary that an oligarchy with a 9% approval rating can still singlehandedly take away a nation's right to own property and do with that property what the individuals of that nation deem proper and necessary. We are the only country in the world that will not drill for our own oil that we all know we have. When worse comes to worse, the US Congress simply has no reason to fear the citizenry anymore.

[editor-surveyor]

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

Even in Communesticut?