Police can confiscate citizens' guns "just in case" they might commit crime in future

Damocles said:
You read enough to dismiss the source regardless of quotes from the law's author and other people like the ACLU. Amazingly the area's Civil Liberties Union actually appears to fight for Amendment 2 unlike other areas.
Click to expand...
The ACLU doesn't even need to support the 2d amendment here. This is a taking plain and simple and the consitution of the united states forbids a taking without due process of law.
 
ib1yysguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

understood, but it still seems a bit too subjective to me - also, how many times have judges upheld the confiscation and how many times have they been released back

i still think that it is a bad law with too much potential for abuse, a free society is not a safe society - i do not think that we can have both a safe society and a free society - prior restraint i think is unconstitutional
 
DonQuixote said:
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
Click to expand...

Um, we're all subject to subjective decisions by our government always.
 
ib1reallystupidpussbrain said:
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.
Click to expand...
Note: I asked for due process BEFORE guns are confiscated, you describe the procedure in which a judge determines how long the guns are held AFTER they are confiscated.

The procedure BEFORE requires an "independent investigation" but does nothing to establish by what criteria a complaint is verified. Then the warrant is obtained under the limit of "no reasonable alternative exists", but does not define what constitutes "reasonable". Who defines "reasonable"? The ones who want to take away the guns. Brilliant that.

Did you people look at some of the cases? Multiple instances of nothing more than a vague "threat" from a person to commit suicide, with "unknown" (ie: no record what so ever) of mental disorder or criminal activity. Yet they take their guns, some of which are given back after a year (gee, how generous!) and some of which were destroyed or sold.

I do not oppose keeping arms out of the hands of people with severe mental disorders. But using post-facto due process is NOT the way to go about it. Have the PROPER hearing, including psychological evaluations, etc. BEFORE as part of the process for obtaining the warrant that allows confiscation of a persons weapons; rather than "within 14 days" AFTER.
 
The judge defines "reasonable" and gives the guns back if he or she decides the cops acted in bad faith.

If someone is going to commit suicide or hurt someone else, or the cops have reason to believe they will, then they need to be able to act immediately without taking days and days to get permission first.

Starting to see how this is similar to the FISA courts, which I assume you support?
 
ib1yysguy said:
The judge defines "reasonable" and gives the guns back if he or she decides the cops acted in bad faith.

If someone is going to commit suicide or hurt someone else, or the cops have reason to believe they will, then they need to be able to act immediately without taking days and days to get permission first.

Starting to see how this is similar to the FISA courts, which I assume you support?
Click to expand...
In the first place, I do NOT support the FISA laws as rewritten to allow U.S. citizens communications to be tapped without warrants. So you can stuff your brain dead all-2nd-Amendment-advocates-believe-in-all-the-same-things ASSumptions.

Second, as you freely admit, the judge defines reasonable AFTER the fact. Post-facto due process is not constitutional - it is totalitarianism.

What is to prevent using your above reasoning to allow law enforcement to simply arrest people before they commit any type of crime if "police have reason to believe they will", and go through due process after the fact? If someone is planning to rob a convenience store - possibly killing the clerk in the process, or rape the neighbor's daughter, or steal the latest Halo game, etc., police have to be able to act immediately without taking days and days to go through due process first. Right?

Didn't think so.
 
So you shouldn't be arrested for committing a crime until the police have gone to court and proved you're guilty?

That's post-facto due process by your definition.

I didn't read the rest of your post.
 
ib1yysguy said:
So you shouldn't be arrested for committing a crime until the police have gone to court and proved you're guilty?

That's post-facto due process by your definition.

I didn't read the rest of your post.
Click to expand...
Does not matter if you read the rest of my post since you demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension from the first part.

Arresting people AFTER they commit a crime is part of the criminal justice process. Arresting people BEFORE they commit a crime is not, but arrest before a crime is committed is a natural extension of what you say law enforcement should be able to do based on suspicion of future intent.

Confiscating people's property BEFORE they do anything based on suspicion they MAY do something in the future is what you defend. Arresting them BEFORE they do something because police think they may commit a crime in the future is no different.
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
I read enough to realize the story was without substance and it wasn't answering the very basic questions I started the story with. It was a load of tripe, and I lost patience with it.
Click to expand...
And thus the darkness of ignorance descends upon us.
 
Cons, just admit....when you read the World Net Daily article, you were totally misled on the nature and scope of this sensible gun law.
 
Darla said:
LOL.
Am I the only one here who just can’t get enough of Water’s posts?
Click to expand...

Don't encourage the boy. He's only inspiring a whole new generation of once level-headed posters to troll. Even though I agree with Water more often than not, the guy's an insatiable troll. No question.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Don't encourage the boy. He's only inspiring a whole new generation of once level-headed posters to troll. Even though I agree with Water more often than not, the guy's an insatiable troll. No question.
Click to expand...

Seriously, why do you guys call him a troll? He posts on topic very often, and has a lot of interesting stuff to say. And I know he spazzes out then, but that makes me laugh. I don’t get the troll designation though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top