States look to gun seizure law after mass killings
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — As state officials across the country grapple with how to prevent mass killings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, some are turning to a gun seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.
Connecticut’s law was the first of its kind nationwide and was passed after the killings of four managers at the state lottery headquarters. It allows judges to order guns temporarily seized from people after police show they are a danger to themselves or others.
Indiana approved a similar law in 2005. And now California and New Jersey officials are debating gun seizure laws, both in the aftermath of the killings of six people near the University of California, Santa Barbara in May.
Gun rights advocates say such laws can violate people’s constitutional rights.
###
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/07/06/states_look_to_gun_seizure_law_after_mass_killings/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onehandle
(51,122 posts)
RKP5637
(67,084 posts)with their dick in a holster, we're outta there asap.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)but this is funniest thing I've seen today. Too bad, but-
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
wordpix
(18,652 posts)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)RKP5637
(67,084 posts)readily get another if intent on that level of harm.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,031 posts)or a really dangerous proposition.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)If they choose the hard way then so be it.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,031 posts)sounds like a Death of Aiyana Jones marathon. If you change the channel, It will be The Ruby Ridge marathon.
I don't have the stomach for it. 
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Afterward, they are returned to use. And Due Process would be applied by the provision:
It allows judges to order guns temporarily seized from people after police show they are a danger to themselves or others.
Problem is, Adam Lanza was not thought to be a danger to anyone until just before his actions when his mother made the decision to get psychiatric help.
It was not wise to have a home with the kind of weaponry that was available to him. But it's all legal and guns are treated with the same carelessness as a cellphone by buyers and sellers. That is a a major problem, IMO.
Overall, this kind of seizure is a limited. reasonable response to someone who has been adjudicated in court as a danger to oneself and others.
Lanza's mother didn't get the chance to prove that in court. If she had, a lot of people would still be alive.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)is found to be unfounded or wrong, the owner loses his weapons forever?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Remember the Patriot Act was passed to protect us and make us safe.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 03:35 AM - Edit history (1)
How's that working for you? 30,000 gun deaths a year, is that your idea of safe? 75,000 non fatal gun injuries a year, is that your idea of safe?
hack89
(39,171 posts)I support temporarily removing guns due to safety. I support permently removing guns with due process. Surely we both agree?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I meant 30,000, not 9,000, because suicide comes under the general classification of homicide. And suicide is a huge one and usually very successful when attempted with a firearm.
Of course I agree with you on removing firearms in situations where it is known there is an unstable individual. Anything that may help reduce death and injury and prevent another Sandy Hook type event is good.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 7, 2014, 08:58 AM - Edit history (1)
You guys love blurring those lines, don' t you?
Suicide is a mental health problem. Different causes from criminal violence with different solutions. It is a an individual choice. I have no problem with temporarily taking guns away from suicidal people. However, most gun control measures you are pushing like UBCs, mag limits, AWB and registration are irrelevant to suicide. Hence your blurring of the line between suicide and murder.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)interesting concept, wrong but interesting
The deliberate taking of one's own life.
Homicide
The killing of one human being by another human being.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
Words have meaning
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Technically, therefore, it is the killing of a human being. Semantics aside, suicide is a real problem, especially by firearm, because of its high success rate.
I'm not trying to blur any lines. All unnecessary death and injury is a public health issue and often a mental health issue, whether it be suicide or murder. Not all suicides are committed by people with mental health issues and many murders are. Again I'm not trying to blur any lines, but stating facts.
I'm not pushing anything, btw. My commenting positively on something that sounds like a good idea, is a long way from pushing or even endorsing it. I honestly don't care if everyone owns a gun or nobody owns a gun. Same way I feel about owning a dog. The only thing I push for is common sense behavior, like keeping guns out of public places and I advocate for the development of weapons that are less lethal, yet effective in stopping an aggressor.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You know very well that to the layman homicide = murder. You are simply taking advantage of the common but mistaken believe that America is getting more violent to push your agenda. Many Americans would actually accept that there were 30K murders without question.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I mean, why would we want to prevent 20,000 people a yeay from killing themselves? Especially when so many are having family fun with their guns.
hack89
(39,171 posts)And adequate substance abuse treatment. There are many options when you move beyond single issue agendas.
I don't appreciate the swipe at my family. No need to get personal.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Got any ideas as to how that might be done without violating privacy? There was no swipe at your family btw. The reference was to another member who carries what he calls °personal safety devices° and frequently brags about giving his little kids and his wife new guns to have family fun with, when they are not riding around aimlessly on their fume spewing ATVs.
I am sure you are better than that Hack.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:29 AM - Edit history (2)
to limit suicides without violating the Constitutional rights of tens of millions? The demographics of gun suicide does not lend itself to focused gun bans - you would basically have to disarm most white middle aged men. Especially if privacy is your concern - you seem unwilling to allow doctors to report potentially suicidal patients to the police so they can be disarmed.
That is why suicide has no gun control solution short of an outright ban on all guns. New York understands this. Their response to Sandy Hook was to set up a system to allow mental health professionals to report patients that are a danger to themselves or others. While not specifically targeted at suicides, it will undoubtedly prevent some of them.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I have no problem with doctors reporting suicidal or homicidal patients to LE, but there is the issue of patient confidentiality to be considered and the obvious fact that patients are likely to be less forthcoming if they know their doctors/therapists are likely to share their files with LE.
Education, PSMs and strict enforcement of existing laws will probably help some. But the basic mentality has to change.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)1. The killing of one human being by another.
2. a person who kills another; murderer.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homicide
homicide
1: a person who kills another
2: a killing of one human being by another
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homicide
homicide
The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/homicide
Homicide
Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/homicide
typical of the anti-gun side to try and skew the numbers as they can not win on real numbers and have to lie to make a point.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)So let's just go with gun deaths, if that makes you more comfortable.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You might want to take a look at your trousers, as they appear to be combusting...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You think I'm anti-gun and not admitting it? What would be the point? I'm anti-stupid, not anti-gun. You shoud know that by now. I enjoy shooting guns as much as the next guy, but I also recognize that they have no place in the public arena, barring the most extreme of circumstances.
I hope we are clear on that, FI. It is not a complicated position. Please let me know if you would like further clarification.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)or are you suddenly finding other things to do now that you've been asked to back it up?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)This stance is functionally no different than the antigun posters so it
is a distinction without a difference. No different from the NSA defenders
who claim they are opposed to illegal surveillance.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)By the time a person is adjudicated a danger to oneself and others, there is more than adequate evidence to prove they are incompetent to be allowed possession of any firearm.
Lifetime prohibition of owning a gun was almost automatic in the cases I've seen, which were about the person, not the crime or guns. You don't get adjudicated a danger to oneself and others by gossip or a judge's whim. And such courts force the state to spend quite a bit of tax money caring for these individuals.
It's a serious thing to be in mental health court. By the time a person gets to that level, it's either do jail or prison times for an offense, be forced into involuntary treatment as a substitute for jail, and a a chance to get help. Note, there is a huge gap between voluntary and involuntary treatment, and it is strictly limited by milieau and time.
It is often used by family and attorneys to get badly needed treatment to those who otherwise would be considered offenders, not to punish them for that which a competent individual would simply end up being incarcerated. It is the humane thing to do.
Problem is the NRA and GOA whose followers could be loosely said to be incompetent to make decisions much less vote, won't allow their 'rights' to be taken away while they trample others, IMO.
I hope that makes my post clearer to you.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)If the government can meet their burden of proof then they have the power to remove a civil right. It is when "temporary" become a long time without a formal adjudication that we have problems.
toopers
(1,224 posts)Adam did not actually own any guns. All the guns were owned by his mother. This law would not have been available to use in the Lanza case.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)She HAD decided to get him INTO treatment, from what I've read. And not outpatient treatment, either. He didn't want to go.
If she'd made that determination and lived to follow through, the massacre would not have happened.
This law would have applied if she'd had the chance to see to his needs with the help of professionals and the legal system.
toopers
(1,224 posts)Adam did not own the guns -- his mother did. She was not incompetent -- Adam was. So the court would have needed to take guns away from someone who is competent.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)If he was allowed to come home, he would have been denied access still.
The NRA does want anyone, including convicted violent criminals, to lose their RK&BA - because they are abolutists.
That's not what I was discussing with the other poster. Nothing that is said is going to create a dialog with you.
So we are done.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)We need to disarm these nuts.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)as long as it temporary and there is due process to respect rights of all parties.
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #10)
Post removed
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I AGREE on the removal of weapons after a judge has signed an order.
point to one DU member that thinks that way
How nice of you
What is it with some of you with the fascination with the penis?
Hate is not very healthy
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)just as big SUVs and sports cars.
Nevertheless, I agree with the rest of your points and violence is never warranted except in self-defense.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Not on the RKBA side though
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)one doesn't become an RKBA fanatic without some subconscious phallic inadequacy.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)link to one RKBA post that equates a gun to a penis, just one. I could link to literately hundreds on the anti-gun side. They are just obsessed with the penis and penis jokes.
That is one of the main reasons nobody takes anything some say here serious at all, they just have to get the name calling and penis references and jokes in while the RKBA members actually would like a nice polite dialog.
Hell, the other day I was told to stop masturbating by one of those fine anti-gun DU members. I think it gets a little childish myself.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)that you subconsciously agree with it.
Sort of like how the worst homophobes have repressed gay feelings and they protest the loudest.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)whatever makes you happy, have a great day 
User_Friendly
(10 posts)... does seem to wildly skew towards the anti gun side.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)They aren't aware of it. While those who remark on it are conscious of the fact. Certainly doesn't apply to the average gun owner, but it applies to some.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)now if you could get the rest of the anti-gun people here to understand that part.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm not anti-gun any more than I'm anti-car, but the same syndrome applies to those who drive Hummers to the grocery store. Just ask Thelma or Louise.
Fact is, there are those who feel the need to compensate for certain inadequacies, height, stature, self esteem, wealth, virility and yes penis size or even lack of penis. These people are usually pretty benign but some become Napoleons or Hitlers.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I can't imagine you would just pull that "fact" out of your ass.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)I'll tell you what - come by my place and we'll compare sizes. Seriously, the phallic focus is so teenager it's scary to think some of you might actually be adults.
There have been studies to establish the normal lengths of human penises and there is a fairly straight forward bell curve that most men fall on. The one sigma interval was within 0.5 inches, meaning 68% of men fall within a 1/4 inch of the mean length. The two sigma was one inch, meaning that 95% of American men fall within 0.5 inches of the average length. It's a near certainty that gun owners would fall all across that spread, which once again is not very wide.
The small penis meme just shows how childish some people can be. Why you may ask do I know this? Because I'm a scientist, and I like to know things.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)you should know that it is not what you have, it is what you think you have. Most people who have the phallic inadequacy probably have normal size peni but think they don't measure up until they are accentuating their endowment with a steel/brass piece or two.
If all RKBA people were scientists, they would know that assault rifles in the hands of a nut would be far far deadlier than say a pencil sharpener -- but why such "scientists" are against common sense is beyond me.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Just like some of the most homophobic people are actually self hating gays unable to accept their sexuality. As for your comments, it's far more rational to say that most gun owners enjoy a hobby, like marksmanship or hunting or have a firearm as a tool for defense. And considering that 99.9% of all guns are not used in crimes, that is statistically valid.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)doesn't mean that drugs shouldn't be regulated and controlled.
99.9% of the people entering the US are doing so legally -- doesn't mean we give up all border controls.
99.999% of the planes don't crash. Doesn't mean we get rid of the FAA, preventive maintenance and inspections.
You, as a "scientist" should know that the 99.9% argument is not very scientific do you?
Lastly, the very fact that gun-nuts are so offended by the phallic inadequacy comments is because there is a truth to them. Most secure people would brush them off and ignore them.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Many people get offended over many things. We've had many discussion on word choices on DU and some words will get a post hidden; Which is rightfully so. The penis jokes don't offend me personally, I just think the use makes the anti-rkba folks look immature.
Oh, 99.9% in statistics is a very good scientific basis. If you were a scientist, you'd understand 3 sigma standard deviation. Obviously you do not. And you don't want to regulate, you want to eliminate. You want to regulate guns like the right wants to regulate abortion clinics. They claim they are doing it for women's safety, but it's obvious what the goal is.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)My wife and I saw a 55 year old (or so) man get out of a new Vette the other day. She asked why men like that buy cars like that. Thinking about it a minute- a lot of men grow up wanting something like a Vette. In your 50's the kids are out of the house, the house is paid off, and you are at the peak of your earnings. 50+ year old men can afford to buy the Vette. Personally, I will be building a killer library, but that's me.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)User_Friendly
(10 posts)Classy...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Explanation: One understands the anger. It is direct, pointed and brutally honest. And can't hurt you as much as your guns and bullets hurt others.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Valid post, invalid alert.
just shameful
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Personal Damon
(64 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)that he is practically incapable of any rational and reasonable thought. A seizure might help dislodge said head and allow it to wake up and smell coffee instead of excrement.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Ups to those trying to do something about it
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)With full transparency, probably cause, hard evidence, a court hearing and the chance for the person to refute evidence that they can't own guns.
I will never support wanton, on a whim police seizures of private property, including guns.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)There has to be a less time-consuming legal procedure that allows authorities to take away and hold that person's weapons temporarily - not on a whim, but with, say, a court order from a judge.
For something more than a temporary seizure, I completely agree with you.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)and return guns if courts find LEOs erred.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)were stabbed to death with a knife.
They should add knives also I would think.
billh58
(6,635 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)As it is about a national movement that's of interest to a broad range of people across the nation.
Local cop shootings, OTOH, have always been relegated to the gungeon or state forums.
I know this because I was a moderator over several years and nothing has changed.
Odd that some claim there's some new move to change the rules.
There isn't....
hack89
(39,171 posts)So it is hard to imagine this process being abused.
hack89
(39,171 posts)By mental health care professionals, we could possibly prevent some shootings.
mopinko
(69,984 posts)they cracked my local blog gun troll the other day.
he had been ragging about how ATF was screwing up his foid card return. he claims he was a qualified gun safety instructor. and was being denied work giving concealed carry classes. he infected the local blogs with the usual gun nut tomfoolery.
they nailed him with five automatic weapons, weapon modifications tools, tons of ammo, and the usual propaganda.
he got a $50,000 Ibond, and a order for psyche evaluation.
he also got banned from the blog. comments there and elsewhere show that his real life neighbors can't wait to speak to the judge.
bwahahahahaaha
but domestic abusers are in the crosshairs with sheriff tom dart. this is a perfect, perfect focus.
he is a smart fella.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Like shooting fish in a barrel!
mopinko
(69,984 posts)got a list longer than santa's, right off the bat.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)is shown? 
Arkana
(24,347 posts)You cannot get back the guns that are on the streets by means that are anything other than voluntary. I can get behind background checks, I can get behind purchase limits, I can get behind assault weapons bans--but this? This is everything the right has been screaming about. Doing it would make them right.
