Connecticut Senate Approves Gun Confiscation Bill for Accused Domestic Abusers

While no one is in favor of domestic violence of any sort, this law fails on many counts.

The bill was approved 23-13 after a two-and-three-quarter hour debate, in which Republicans failed in three attempts to amend it. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who proposed the legislation, indicated right after the vote that he supports the bill, which would require alleged domestic abusers — in most cases, men — to immediately give up their guns and ammunition if their partners seek restraining orders.

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.

“To focus to a greater extent on the possible inconvenience of gun owners at the expense of the great danger to victims of domestic violence is not the balance that we should strike in looking at this issue of policy,” [stated Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney]. “That’s why this bill is exactly what we should be doing in this area.”

Carolyn Treiss, executive director of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, said that the time of greatest threat for intimate-partner violence is right after a restraining order is served. Currently, targets of restraining orders don’t have to surrender weapons until a judge rules.

“This was never a ‘gun rights’ bill,” Treiss said. “Rather, it’s a common-sense prevention of tragedy and a real victory for women’s safety.”

Republican opponents of the bill said it would infringe on the constitutional rights of lawful gun owners who could have their weapons taken away without due process. One of the Republican amendments would have required the targets of temporary restraining order (TRO) to be served with the orders in person, rather than marshals having the option of leaving off the orders at the targets’ homes if they were not home.

“I do believe we have to honor the Constitution, we have to honor the Second Amendment and we have to honor the rights of individuals,” said Sen. Rob Kane, R-Watertown, whose district includes Seymour and Oxford.

State Sen. Michael A. McLachlan, R-Danbury, said that “persistent” advocates in his district who favored the bill asked for his support got him thinking long and hard. The three GOP amendments, however, clarified his objections, particularly in cases where guns are taken away but judges decline to issue TROs.

There are fundamental problems with the legislation, but they were quite naturally ignored. The firearms are taken away before a temporary restraining order is issued, and before a judge has a chance to evaluate the merits of the request.

It is not uncommon for aggrieved spouses or domestic partners to harass the other party through this type of legal maneuver, and it should be noted that if the judge agrees to extend the order indefinitely, the loss of property is also for an indefinite period. And while no life is without value, the vast majority (99.972%) of temporary restraining order recipients do not commit a homicide against their partner. Finally, it is just as clear that if someone is determined to harm their partner, they can simply go to an adjacent state and buy another weapon.

The bottom line is that liberals and Democrats do not like firearms, and they do not trust the American people to keep and bear arms. They will use any excuse whatsoever to confiscate weapons from as many law-abiding citizens as they can. Of course that rule does not apply to political elites on the Left who are surrounded by security details armed to the teeth. But for the common people, who the Democrats continually claim they are representing, this fundamental right clearly spelled out in the Constitution is something they are determined to eliminate by whatever dishonest means or scheme they can concoct.

Source: ctpost.com

Photo: Brian A. Pounds