Police can confiscate citizens' guns "just in case" they might commit crime in future
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
Epicurus
Reasonable
lol
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
It's incredible. The first sentence of the link YOU gave me talks about how the judge has to hear the case before granting a warrant. You guys are trying to make this out to be something where someone accuses someone #2 and the police department goes and steals their weapons. That is simply not the case.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/ps/rpt/2002-R-0795.htm
from GoodLiar:
"Why don't you point out the clause that requires due process of law in determining the mental state of a citizen BEFORE the guns are confiscated? You cannot, because the law allows guns to be confiscated from SUSPICION alone. "
From your link:
"The gun seizure law, which took effect on October 1, 1999, allows police, under limited circumstances and following specified procedures, to get warrants and seize guns from anyone posing an imminent risk of harming himself or someone else. It requires a judge to hold a hearing within 14 days of the seizure and decide whether to return the guns or order them held for up to one year (CGS § 29-38c)."
What's also amazing is how you guys will argue that Bush needs IMMEDIATE authority to wire tap anyone he chooses to ketch da terrorists fer ya, yet when it comes to seizing guns to save lives that have been directly threatened, then putting that up for review after the fact, you start crying.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/ps/rpt/2002-R-0795.htm
from GoodLiar:
"Why don't you point out the clause that requires due process of law in determining the mental state of a citizen BEFORE the guns are confiscated? You cannot, because the law allows guns to be confiscated from SUSPICION alone. "
From your link:
"The gun seizure law, which took effect on October 1, 1999, allows police, under limited circumstances and following specified procedures, to get warrants and seize guns from anyone posing an imminent risk of harming himself or someone else. It requires a judge to hold a hearing within 14 days of the seizure and decide whether to return the guns or order them held for up to one year (CGS § 29-38c)."
What's also amazing is how you guys will argue that Bush needs IMMEDIATE authority to wire tap anyone he chooses to ketch da terrorists fer ya, yet when it comes to seizing guns to save lives that have been directly threatened, then putting that up for review after the fact, you start crying.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Look sparky, lets try this again. The act of getting a warrant does NOT involve any sort of hearing, testimony from mental health professionals, or the ability to present a defense.
And why don't you lighten up on the generalities. There are a LOT of gun owners who have bitched about the patriot act. I have written letters, argued, and been ready to bitch-slap more than a few idiots who favor that disgusting piece of legislation. I also can see several people who are arguing against the law in CT that have also argued against the Patriot Act.
And what lives have been directly threatened? If someone threatened another person, there are already laws in place to deal with that, and the confiscation of the guns can be a part of that.
So try and stick to relevant facts, ok?
Oops. Facts intrude on the Con circle jerk fantasy about liberals stormtroopers coming to get your guns.
My guess? They actually believed the World Net Daily article, which is a rightwing rag infamous for misreporting and mischaracterizing stories to get a pavlovian dog reaction from wingnuts.
I don't understand why cons are so intent on allowing dangerous, mentally ill people with histories of violence, the absolute and inalienable right to own some guns.
I don't want fuckers like that living next door to me and armed to the teeth.
Epicurus
Reasonable
What do you define as mentally ill? I don't think someone with ADD should be banned from possessing a firearm, but someone with dementia sure.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I think we should prevent people with ADD from owning them but allow people with dementia to.
Epicurus
Reasonable
I think that people who have whatever you have should definitely be prevented from exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
I don't really expect Prissy to answer. He can't debate. He tends to just make ridiculous statements and then run away without addressing criticism of them.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You mean cancer?
Epicurus
Reasonable
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Again:
"It requires a judge to hold a hearing within 14 days of the seizure and decide whether to return the guns or order them held for up to one year (CGS § 29-38c)."
Sounds like a hearing is involved to me.
So, lets see. Not only do the police have to make the case that their seizures of the guns was unavoidable because there was no other recourse, but they can only hold the guns for up to a year even if the guy is mentally defective. They have to do this in front of a judge. Judges have denied the police three times, by the way. Hard for that to happen without a hearing.
you mean like me?
the supremes did not say absolute and inalienable, i.e, federal checks for weapons purchases have not been rescinded - how about my .22 revolver with a 12" barrel or my 'horrors' 9mm semi-automatic (it was given to be by my mother and it was hers since 1950) - on another tentacle, i am mentally ill, but i keep my weapons in a safe and my wife has the key...
ps i plan on giving my pistols to my 32 years old son who also has a safe and likes to go shooting (usually in an indoor underground range) - he also has my 30-06 rifle that i inherited from my brother when he was killed
- i still have my brothers .22 match rifle and will likely keep it for a while before i give it to my older son - weapons in the hands of citizens help keep society free
Epicurus
Reasonable
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Weapons in the hands of citizens forces society unfree by means of fear.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Not a real sentence.
i guess we will have to agree to disagree
how is it ok for the police, national guard and military to have weapons but not citizens, that seems to me to be rule by fear - government over citizens
This sounds entirely reasonable. And it was a Republican governor who signed it.
Who on earth would be against this?
And more importantly, how did the circle jerk start, that this was some sort of sign of the apocalypse, with liberal stormtroopers coming to steal your guns?
Who on earth would be against this?
And more importantly, how did the circle jerk start, that this was some sort of sign of the apocalypse, with liberal stormtroopers coming to steal your guns?
it is too easy to abuse - what happens when someone that does not like a neighbor accuses the neighbor or if a person acts eccentric - citizens should not be subject to subjective decisions by their government