Under the legislation, suspects would have 24 hours after being accused to surrender all firearms.
After nearly three hours of debate, the bill was approved with a 23-13 amid failed attempted by Republicans to amend the bill.
The Connecticut Post explains the intention behind the legislation:
The goal is to protect women from the increased lethality at a critical point in a relationship: when they are trying to leave their abusers. About 14 domestic homicides occur annually in Connecticut, half of which are caused by guns.
While 5,000 temporary restraining orders are issued annually, about half result in permanent orders. The bill, which was approved last week in the House, would require court hearings within seven days and if judges decide against extending the orders, weapons would be returned within five days later. Currently, court hearings are held 14 days later.
More
13 comments:
so, if there is no restraining order are the guns given back right away?
Im all for women being safe from their abuser, but this is absolutely no good. Now, just because someone says so, truthfully or not, that you have allegedly "abused" them your guns can and will be lost to the system. Trying to recover a firearm after its been seized, confiscated, or otherwise taken away by law enforcement??? Sh*t, you'd be in court forever and would likely give up due to the red tape.
I don't like taking guns from ACCUSED offenders. Our constitution guarantees us the right to due process. Now if the police just held the guns until the outcome of the case that would be OK, though still of questionable legality.
And so it begins.
3 words. Cold, dead hands.
Take away the accusers guns, too.
I charge you, so you're guilty. Here's your punishment. Sounds like an airheads dream that will create an embarrassing court challenge by folks less stupid.
The Liberal States Of America....
This is Maryland law and has been for years. Takes 30 days to get the guns back if the Order is squashed.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty. Isn't this still America.
3:44 PM:
Clearly you are stupid too... You are guilty until proven guilty... Besides, this is exactly what the heading says, confiscation... Which it is, and the govt has been trying to do... Why do you think the healthcare law wants all your records linked to everything?
I support the second amendment. That said, four women in the last 8 months are dead in communities near my friend, all by guns in the hands of their ex. A law like this could have saved them. One of them was shot dead while holding her toddler. The toddler had minor injuries from the fall when the mother went down dying.
According to the article, SEVEN people were killed by handguns in domestic
incidents last year in that state.
So NOW, if we just pass ONE MORE LAW, all those thousands, no wait...hundreds, no...sorry, we can save AT LEAST seven people. Now, to do that we'll have to restrict the rights of hundreds of thousands of OTHER people.
PERFECT liberal reasoning.
10:28 supports the Second Amendment. But only to the point HE thinks it should go....."shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear.
MADD convinced the whole country that if we would just start stopping INNOCENT people to LOOK for POSSIBLE criminals, we would stop drunk driving (all they asked was that "we, the people" surrender the 4th Amendment, too). Now the police stop HUNDREDS of drivers and MAYBE catch one criminal.
The Constitution is NOT some political flyer passed around for approval.
It is the document that made OUR COUNTRY the envy of the world and THE place to live.
But if we only "tweak it" a little, we can eliminate racism, drunk driving, hate speech (wtf??), God, whatever.....
Imbeciles.
Post a Comment