Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It reminds me of "Code Enforcement" that is complaint driven. If there are no complaints, the weed and trash codes will never be enforced. If there is a complaint, then and only then will anything be done.
I don't want my neighbor to have that kind of power over me!
Temporarily seizing guns, via a court order, from mentally unstable people. Makes sense if there are proper standards & safeguards to establishing a case.
Connecticut's law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that a person is 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.
Sounds vague and reliant upon government judgement. Golly gee, sign me up!
Extremely bad idea. As a police officer, I am telling you these laws will be abused. You will seize guns from persons who really don't meet the criteria, just because you are afraid if you don't, what the civil liability will be.
This country is headed down an extremely deadly path.
I can't tell you how many times I have read here on CD that the only ones talking about gun confiscation are the paranoid "Tea Baggers", certainly not Democrats. "Trust us", the liberals say to the skeptical among us.
The quote that's funny (but in reality quite a scary perspective) is by the police chief
Quote:
"With all that we see in the news day after day, particular after Newtown, I think departments are more aware of what authority they have ... and they're using the tool (gun seizure warrants) more frequently than in the past," said South Windsor Police Chief Matthew Reed. "We always look at it from the other side. What if we don't seize the guns?"
That thought process taken to it's logical conclusion, if they're honest, everyone should be arrested, because if you look at it from the other side, they're all potential perpetrators, what if they don't arrest granny with her walker, she might kill someone, she can be released later when she's cleared herself of any planned wrongdoing. The dog on the sidewalk on the leash, that could maul a small child, we'll restrain it (or kill it) what if we're right, and we do nothing. That motorist leaving the store with some bottles in his bag, he could be potentially DUI, we better check it out and make sure he's not drunk, and that the bottles are not liquor, if we don't he might kill some kids on the playground when he misses a turn.
Simple solution is not to seize the guns, take the person who the complaint is leveled at in for evaluation and full due process. If he's evaluated and not found to be a threat, he leaves, no need to confiscate any of his property (if he's in custody he has no access to it). If he's a threat, then either treat him, or retain him in custody until he's not a threat.
Let's be honest here, if a person is such a threat that it's necessary to temporarily relieve them of their property, then they're sufficient threat to take into custody.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
