Turn in your neighbor.

[Episcopus]

A new report to the Connecticut state legislature shows police have used the state's unique gun seizure law to confiscate more than 1,700 firearms from citizens based on suspicion that the gun owners might harm themselves or others.

The state's law permits police to seek a warrant for seizing a citizen's guns based on suspicion of the gun owner's intentions, before any act of violence or lawbreaking is actually committed.

The law was first proposed in 1998, following a mass shooting at the Connecticut Lottery Corporation that left five dead, including the gunman. Since the law went into effect Oct. 1, 1999, according to new Office of Legislative Research report, police have made more than 200 documented requests for warrants to seize firearms from citizens, and only two of the requests have been denied.

The law has remained hotly debated since its passage, as some point to possible murders and suicides it may have prevented, and others worry that police would abuse the law.

"It certainly has not been abused. It may be underutilized," Ron Pinciaro, co-executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, told the Waterbury Republican American. "The bottom line from our perspective is, it may very well have saved lives."

Attorney Ralph D. Sherman, who has represented several of the gun owners whose firearms were confiscated under the law, disagrees.

"In every case I was involved in I thought it was an abuse," he told the newspaper. "The overriding concern is anybody can report anybody with or without substantiation, and I don't think that is the American way."

Joe Graborz, executive director of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, an affiliate of the ACLU, told WND the law "continues to invest unusual and far-reaching powers in police authority that does not belong there" by requiring "police to act as psychologists in trying to predict and interpret behavior."

"What is the standard of proof on this?" he asked. "The way this law is written, it can and will be easily abused by police."

Under the statute, dubbed the "turn in your neighbor" law by opponents, any two police officers or a state prosecutor may seek a warrant, following a specified process of investigation, to confiscate guns from people deemed a risk to harming themselves or others. The vast majority of cases, however, begin when a person – usually a spouse or live-in, according to the OLR report – file a complaint.

Shortly after the law was passed, Thompson Bosee of Greenwich, Conn., had his guns and ammunition seized by police. Bosee told WND in 1999 he suspects a neighbor, with whom he has had words regarding the neighbor's driving on Bosee's property, might have reported him.

"They had a warrant for my guns, they arrested my guns," said Bosee.

A member of both the NRA and the American Gunsmithing Association, Bosee said he works on his guns in his garage and is not ashamed of it.

Although Greenwich Police would not comment, they released a list of the guns and ammunition they seized from Bosee, including six handguns, three rifles, one shotgun, one submachine gun and 3,108 rounds of ammunition.

The new OLR report shows that in most cases, relatives or neighbors of the gun owner filed the complaint when they feared for their own safety or feared the owner was suicidal. In a case from Southington, however, a man had his gun taken for threatening to shoot a dog.

Attorney Ralph Sherman told WND the law's cruelty to animals justification for gun seizure worries him.

"If I throw a rock or a newspaper at a dog in my yard or in my garden, that doesn't mean I'm mentally unbalanced," he said. "What if a neighbor doesn't like me and sees that?"

In October 2006, according to the Republican American, police obtained a seizure warrant after a man made 28 unsubstantiated claims of vandalism to his property. The police application for seizure described the man as paranoid and delusional, citing extensive self-protection measures installed on the man's property, including alarms, cameras and spotlights.

Four months after the man's guns were taken, a judge ruled that police had failed to show the man posed any risk and ordered the guns returned. According to the ruling, the gun owner had no history of documented illness, criminal activity or misuse of firearms. "In fact, the firearms were found in a locked safe when the officers executed the warrant," the ruling said.

The law dictates that courts hold a hearing within 14 days of a seizure to determine the eventual fate of the guns. In most cases, according to the OLR report, the guns are held for a period of up to a year, destroyed or sold. The Republican American reports that in 22 of the more than 200 cases, the guns were ordered returned.

Connecticut State Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, House chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of the chief authors of the law, told the Republican American he wasn't aware of any pending challenges to the law's constitutionality.

"The whole point was to make sure it was limited and constitutional," he said.

Sherman however, said the law hasn't been challenged yet, simply because it is used sparingly and a test case would prove too costly for the average gun owner.

State: Just in case, we'll take your gun

Its not unConstitutional if you only do it to people too poor to fight you, right?

 

[Paul]

That is some ********

 

[flagtag]

That is some ********

Yeah, but it sounds like a "great" plot for a movie, huh!

 

[rhino]

I'm guessing that not everyone knows that we have a very similar law in Indiana since July of 2007 (or maybe it was 2006).

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm guessing that not everyone knows that we have a very similar law in Indiana since July of 2007 (or maybe it was 2006).

Citation, please?

 

[Episcopus]

Citation, please?

Yeah, I am interested. I want to start taking away everyone's guns for a few days at a time. It could liven up some otherwise boring work days.

 

[rhino]

The law below went into effect in 2006.

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The law below went into effect in 2006.

Helpful info and post. Oh, and you got rep'd.

Thanks, Rhino.

Blessings,
B

 

[rhino]

You're welcome, and thanks!

The troubling part of this law (beyond that it exists in the first place, which is wholly wrong) is that it is so vague. Who sets the standards for "documented evidence"? That's going to mean whatever a specific team of judge, prosecutor, and cops want it to mean.

This law was pushed through using the murder of IPD officer Jake Laird a couple of years ago and the empotions associated with it. The legislators and lobbyists who like such laws were waiting for an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon to have a "dangerous person/confiscate their guns" law like other states have. I objected to it then, and I remain adamant that it's a bad law.

I'm not sure why it didn't raise more of an uproar within the RKBA activist circles. I suspect it's because too many people think it will never be applied to them. In reality, it could be applied to any of us if we irritate the wrong person.

It's already been used too. Remember the old guy that had the "arsenal" in his house that was confiscated either earlier this year or late last year?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Having just read the law, I noted that the reason for seizure can be based on conversations with another person, "if the officer believes that person to be credible".

I also noted that the burden of proof on the state is to prove the material facts "by clear and convincing evidence" but the burden at the hearing to return the firearm(s) requires "a preponderance of evidence."

I don't know enough about the law to interpret this. Any legal eagles want to define which is the higher standard of proof? I'm guessing the latter.

Big -1 for our legislature for passing this crap.

Blessings,
B

 

[Episcopus]

Having just read the law, I noted that the reason for seizure can be based on conversations with another person, "if the officer believes that person to be credible".

I also noted that the burden of proof on the state is to prove the material facts "by clear and convincing evidence" but the burden at the hearing to return the firearm(s) requires "a preponderance of evidence."

I don't know enough about the law to interpret this. Any legal eagles want to define which is the higher standard of proof? I'm guessing the latter.

Big -1 for our legislature for passing this crap.

Blessings,
B

A preponderance of evidence is a tipping of a metaphorical scale, however slight, to your side. It is the burden in civil cases. Clear and convincing evidence is just that; clear and convincing. It is different for everone, but higher than preponderance of the evidence. Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rhino, thanks for the post. I haven't gone and read the law yet, and the part that you posted is just the definition of dangerous. What can be done to dangerous people?

 

[Bill of Rights]

A preponderance of evidence is a tipping of a metaphorical scale, however slight, to your side. It is the burden in civil cases. Clear and convincing evidence is just that; clear and convincing. It is different for everone, but higher than preponderance of the evidence. Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rhino, thanks for the post. I haven't gone and read the law yet, and the part that you posted is just the definition of dangerous. What can be done to dangerous people?

Thanks Episcopus!

So the burden is higher (in theory) on the gov't than it is on the probably wronged citizen? Good-at least they got that right.

Here's the link to the law, as written: Indiana Code 35-47-14

Also, for posting the differentiation, you got rep'd, too.

Have a nice night.

Blessings,
B