• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

States look to Gun-Seizure Law after Mass Killings.....

MMC

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Well now.....isn't this a nice surprise. States looking to Gun Seizure Laws. Oh and look who was the first to start such a law. Yes.....the same state out front pushing their agenda on to all others now. Hard to believe Indiana went with this type of Law. Now California and NJ want to take it up. Nah.....they aren't out to take peoples guns away. Not at all.....Right? What say ye?



Law allows judges to temporarily order guns seized after evidence that people are a danger to themselves or others.....


As state officials across the country grapple with how to prevent mass killings like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, some are turning to a gun-seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.

Connecticut’s law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that people are a danger to themselves or others. A court hearing must be held within 14 days to determine whether to return the guns or authorize the state to hold them for up to a year.

The 1999 law, the first of its kind in the country, was in response to the 1998 killings of four managers at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters by a disgruntled employee with a history of psychiatric problems.

Indiana is the only other state that has such a law, passed in 2005 after an Indianapolis police officer was shot to death by a mentally ill man. California and New Jersey lawmakers are now considering similar statutes, both proposed in the wake of the killings of six people and the wounding of 13 in May near the University of California at Santa Barbara by a mentally ill man who had posted threatening videos on YouTube.....snip~

States look to gun-seizure law after mass killings - The Washington Post
 
MMC said:
Well now.....isn't this a nice surprise. States looking to Gun Seizure Laws. Oh and look who was the first to start such a law. Yes.....the same state out front pushing their agenda on to all others now. Hard to believe Indiana went with this type of Law. Now California and NJ want to take it up. Nah.....they aren't out to take peoples guns away. Not at all.....Right? What say ye?



Law allows judges to temporarily order guns seized after evidence that people are a danger to themselves or others.....


As state officials across the country grapple with how to prevent mass killings like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, some are turning to a gun-seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.

Connecticut’s law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that people are a danger to themselves or others. A court hearing must be held within 14 days to determine whether to return the guns or authorize the state to hold them for up to a year.

The 1999 law, the first of its kind in the country, was in response to the 1998 killings of four managers at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters by a disgruntled employee with a history of psychiatric problems.

Indiana is the only other state that has such a law, passed in 2005 after an Indianapolis police officer was shot to death by a mentally ill man. California and New Jersey lawmakers are now considering similar statutes, both proposed in the wake of the killings of six people and the wounding of 13 in May near the University of California at Santa Barbara by a mentally ill man who had posted threatening videos on YouTube.....snip~

States look to gun-seizure law after mass killings - The Washington Post
Click to expand...
My only question is, How long before the desire to own and shoot guns becomes a diagnosable
psychosis, qualifying for gun removal.
Most of the tests are subjective, so anyone could fail.
 
MMC said:
Well now.....isn't this a nice surprise. States looking to Gun Seizure Laws. Oh and look who was the first to start such a law. Yes.....the same state out front pushing their agenda on to all others now. Hard to believe Indiana went with this type of Law. Now California and NJ want to take it up. Nah.....they aren't out to take peoples guns away. Not at all.....Right? What say ye?



Law allows judges to temporarily order guns seized after evidence that people are a danger to themselves or others.....


As state officials across the country grapple with how to prevent mass killings like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, some are turning to a gun-seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.

Connecticut’s law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that people are a danger to themselves or others. A court hearing must be held within 14 days to determine whether to return the guns or authorize the state to hold them for up to a year.

The 1999 law, the first of its kind in the country, was in response to the 1998 killings of four managers at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters by a disgruntled employee with a history of psychiatric problems.

Indiana is the only other state that has such a law, passed in 2005 after an Indianapolis police officer was shot to death by a mentally ill man. California and New Jersey lawmakers are now considering similar statutes, both proposed in the wake of the killings of six people and the wounding of 13 in May near the University of California at Santa Barbara by a mentally ill man who had posted threatening videos on YouTube.....snip~

States look to gun-seizure law after mass killings - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

We gave our permission when we did not object to such laws. Did we really think there were no consequences?
 
Instead of confiscating the gun right off the bat and requiring a trial why not just commit the person for 1 week to get a doctors determination of whether the guns should be confiscated or not? I have no problem taking guns away from those that are a danger to themselves and others. But it must first be proved that they are before any confiscation is done.

Besides what evidence can police actually give? Just because someone states that they want to kill someone once or twice on facebook? That's not enough evidence imo for any action to be taken. The ONLY people that should be making such determinations are doctors. You know...those people that went to shrink school to be able to determine if someone is a danger or not? The ones with the degrees? Not badges?

Why is it that the government always wants to apply the WRONG type of force? Or does the government only know one type of force...armed. (<---which is ironic if you think about it)
 
longview said:
My only question is, How long before the desire to own and shoot guns becomes a diagnosable
psychosis, qualifying for gun removal.
Most of the tests are subjective, so anyone could fail.
Click to expand...


Heya Longview :2wave: I am not certain.....but they are using the words Gun Seizure over the Radio Broadcasts. So that's evey 10-20 mins or so from their Breaking News.
 
I sort of grin when I think of someone trying to seize my guns.
 
Crimefree said:
We gave our permission when we did not object to such laws. Did we really think there were no consequences?
Click to expand...


Heya CF. :2wave: This still does not explain this guy getting out there and saying this. How could they even have known? How could the police even had known? There was no one there to take this guy on when he said such BS. That's the problem......and free time to say whatever to the press.


Michael Lawlor, Connecticut’s undersecretary for criminal justice planning and policy, believes the state’s gun-seizure law could have prevented the killings of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in December 2012, if police had been made aware that gunman Adam Lanza had mental-health problems and access to his mother’s legally owned guns.....snip~
 
MMC said:
Heya CF. :2wave: This still does not explain this guy getting out there and saying this. How could they even have known? How could the police even had known? There was no one there to take this guy on when he said such BS. That's the problem......and free time to say whatever to the press.


Michael Lawlor, Connecticut’s undersecretary for criminal justice planning and policy, believes the state’s gun-seizure law could have prevented the killings of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in December 2012, if police had been made aware that gunman Adam Lanza had mental-health problems and access to his mother’s legally owned guns.....snip~
Click to expand...

Well gee was he saying it before? Why not?

Hind sight is 20:20 vision and this charlatan is blind like everyone else when it comes to PREDICTING THE FUTURE.
 
MMC said:
Heya Longview :2wave: I am not certain.....but they are using the words Gun Seizure over the Radio Broadcasts. So that's evey 10-20 mins or so from their Breaking News.
Click to expand...

And try to get the CDC funding restored completely. Bet on it or something similar.
 
Crimefree said:
Well gee was he saying it before? Why not?

Hind sight is 20:20 vision and this charlatan is blind like everyone else when it comes to PREDICTING THE FUTURE.
Click to expand...



I agree....but this was his excuse. Yet none are there questioning him as to how it could have been prevented. For him to explain all this out. So that he can be made to look like a fool.

Someone should just throw him a crystal Ball and ask him.....what does he see now.
 
I had to think out the response a bit. First off, any judge worth his salt would rule this type of abomination unconstitutional, it violates not only the second amendment but the fourth as well, without an actual hearing any kind of "temporary safety firearms restraining order" or whatever these idiots are calling it is not legal.
 
MMC said:
Heya CF. :2wave: This still does not explain this guy getting out there and saying this. How could they even have known? How could the police even had known? There was no one there to take this guy on when he said such BS. That's the problem......and free time to say whatever to the press.


Michael Lawlor, Connecticut’s undersecretary for criminal justice planning and policy, believes the state’s gun-seizure law could have prevented the killings of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in December 2012, if police had been made aware that gunman Adam Lanza had mental-health problems and access to his mother’s legally owned guns.....snip~
Click to expand...

seizing someone else's guns should be punishable by 20 years in prison.
 
LaMidRighter said:
First offense, anything past two should be life without parole at hard labor.
Click to expand...

ideally, public officials who improperly seize the guns of a citizen should be shot. but LWOP and a well hung cell mate would be acceptable:mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
seizing someone else's guns should be punishable by 20 years in prison.
Click to expand...

Are these State Laws Constitutional? Indiana did this in 2005. Which I didn't hear of it at the time.
 
MMC said:
Are these State Laws Constitutional? Indiana did this in 2005. Which I didn't hear of it at the time.
Click to expand...
Prior to the fourteenth amendment the constitution applied only to the federal. The fourteenth bound the states to the U.S. Constitution, meaning any state, local, federal laws must derive from due process to be proper, no prior restraint laws are legal.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I had to think out the response a bit. First off, any judge worth his salt would rule this type of abomination unconstitutional, it violates not only the second amendment but the fourth as well, without an actual hearing any kind of "temporary safety firearms restraining order" or whatever these idiots are calling it is not legal.
Click to expand...

Heya LMR. :2wave: Well with them advertising so on the Radio. How long before other state then try and pick it up? Since they See California and New jersey now trying to pass such laws.
 
MMC said:
Heya LMR. :2wave: Well with them advertising so on the Radio. How long before other state then try and pick it up? Since they See California and New jersey now trying to pass such laws.
Click to expand...
They will keep them on the books as long as they can, legal or not they have to be overturned. Chicago has written the book on violating the constitution in bulk for temporary gains.
 
LaMidRighter said:
They will keep them on the books as long as they can, legal or not they have to be overturned. Chicago has written the book on violating the constitution in bulk for temporary gains.
Click to expand...


This guy has lost it......how were the warning signs there? He even tries to correlate this to other shootings around the Country.


“That’s the kind of situation where you see the red flags and the warning signs are there, you do something about it,” Lawlor said. “In many shootings around the country, after the fact it’s clear that the warning signs were there.”.....snip~
 
Already Attorneys say they are abusing this law. One would think people would be taking the State to Court and put that burden of proof on them.


Rachel Baird, a Connecticut lawyer who has represented many gun owners, said one of the biggest problems with the state’s law is that police are abusing it. She said she has had eight clients whose guns were seized by police before the required warrants were obtained.

Connecticut authorities report a large increase in the use of gun-seizure warrants involving people deemed dangerous by police over the past several years. Officials are not exactly sure what prompted the increase but believe it is related to numerous highly publicized mass shootings in recent years.

Police statewide filed an estimated 183 executed gun-seizure warrants with court clerks last year, more than twice the number filed in 2010, according to Connecticut Judicial Branch data. Last year’s total also was nearly nine times the annual average in the first five years of the gun-seizure law.

Connecticut police have seized more than 2,000 guns using the warrants, according to the most recent estimate by state officials, in 2009.....snip~
 
MMC said:
Already Attorneys say they are abusing this law. One would think people would be taking the State to Court and put that burden of proof on them.


Rachel Baird, a Connecticut lawyer who has represented many gun owners, said one of the biggest problems with the state’s law is that police are abusing it. She said she has had eight clients whose guns were seized by police before the required warrants were obtained.

Connecticut authorities report a large increase in the use of gun-seizure warrants involving people deemed dangerous by police over the past several years. Officials are not exactly sure what prompted the increase but believe it is related to numerous highly publicized mass shootings in recent years.

Police statewide filed an estimated 183 executed gun-seizure warrants with court clerks last year, more than twice the number filed in 2010, according to Connecticut Judicial Branch data. Last year’s total also was nearly nine times the annual average in the first five years of the gun-seizure law.

Connecticut police have seized more than 2,000 guns using the warrants, according to the most recent estimate by state officials, in 2009.....snip~
Click to expand...
Real simple fix, strip out all police protections during an illegal search and seizure, no warrant or probable cause = criminal activity, establish self defense and allow for people to shoot back. At that point you'll watch police follow the exact letter of the law.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Real simple fix, strip out all police protections during an illegal search and seizure, no warrant or probable cause = criminal activity, establish self defense and allow for people to shoot back. At that point you'll watch police follow the exact letter of the law.
Click to expand...

Well with the New Law Indiana Passed.....Cops best not think they can go to town on someone anymore. As they will find out doing what they did to that kid in California or that woman when a cop was beating her face in on the side of the road. Just wont be happening anymore.

Moreover you know how it is.....once they lose that badge.
 
MMC said:
I agree....but this was his excuse. Yet none are there questioning him as to how it could have been prevented. For him to explain all this out. So that he can be made to look like a fool.

Someone should just throw him a crystal Ball and ask him.....what does he see now.
Click to expand...

The sad part is nobody is challenging this lying propagandist oxygen thief and it is astounding how easily people believe rubbish like this and actually think it is possible.
 
Crimefree said:
The sad part is nobody is challenging this lying propagandist oxygen thief and it is astounding how easily people believe rubbish like this and actually think it is possible.
Click to expand...

Which truthfully, any reporter could have put him on the sport and had him stuttering.
 
MMC said:
Which truthfully, any reporter could have put him on the sport and had him stuttering.
Click to expand...

:lol: Let's just say in an ideal world where firearm owners looked after their image and ensure the correct information was at least available. While this is in truth a problem with firearm owners not caring that is entirely due to the attitude of firearm organisations who seem to think there is a fairy that looks after our image, or maybe it is the governments or media's job. Whatever they simply sit on their bum while gun control has an unopposed shot at controlling public opinion through fear.

I think it is the idiotic and abject ignorance view many have that an indoctrinated gun control supporter can be convinced with logic and reason and gun controls work will take a few minutes to undo.

Perhaps these clowns should try that theory right here to see how well it works.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom