Connecticut Governor To Sign Gun Confiscation Bill

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Yes, yes I would consider it "just seven lives" if it was my family. I will never blame the method of choice for a killer, I'll put my blame on the killer!

Why aren't you speaking about the other half of homicides that were caused by other means?

And to reiterate, this law is about having your firearms confiscated for being accused of a crime, not committing one.

see my above post, there is a very quick judicial review and a restraining order has to be applied for

this is NOT a case where a whacko can just make stuff up about someone and have their guns taken away

a reply to: syrinx high priest

So it still looks like gun confiscation one way or another.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: syrinx high priest

So it still looks like gun confiscation one way or another.

no, you framed it that way on purpose. if the judges rule the restraining order is unwarranted, the guns are returned

the article you posted explains the reason for the law, to help women escape abusers

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: syrinx high priest

So it still looks like gun confiscation one way or another.

So you actually support the right of a women beater to own a gun, is that what your saying?

a reply to: xuenchen

So basically, they accuse you and you are now guilty? That's neat.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I seem to remember something about a person being innocent until proven guilty.

How many acrimonious splits are there where one party or the other or both make all kinds of false accusations in order to gain advantage?

So on the power of he said/she said, we are now confiscating private property?

a reply to: introvert

Why do u suggest that all of those convicted or subjecting people to abuse are men? Why paint the picture of the abusive husband and the terrified wife.

It works both ways. Hard for a man to admit but a woman can just as easily abuse her husband.



On the whole story this is just some small shuffling of feet towards full confiscation. Testing the water and using the image of a poor abused victim being saved by not having a gun in their house.

Lawmakers are either very stupid or just don't care in inventing up campaigns to take guns. An abusive partner does so through psychological and physical abuse.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
So... someone is mad at their significant other and makes an accusation just to get their guns confiscated.
I can see this turning into a vengeful tool.

I have seen this happen to someone I know in North Carolina: take out a protective order and say you "fear for your safety," and the judge's order includes not being able to possess firearms.

While those who are physically abusive against their spouse should not have firearms IMO, the authorities have no way to know. I'm NOT saying that means that anyone who is (falsely) accused should be forced to surrender his or her firearms, but that's why this is delicate and controversial issue.

So, it's either all get taken upon accusation, or none. And, I suppose, until one is convicted, why should one not be able to keep his or her firearms?

It reminds me of the scenario when someone threatens harm, the threatened goes to the cops, the cops say "well, we can't really do anything because no law has been broken" (threat aside), and the issue essentially becomes, "you mean you can't do anything about it until this person physically has a gun and tries to (or does) kill me???" I've seen THAT scenario play out too. It's ridiculous.

True, people can kill w/o guns, but guns sure make it a lot easier, lol.

a reply to: InMyShell

Why do u suggest that all of those convicted or subjecting people to abuse are men? Why paint the picture of the abusive husband and the terrified wife.

I did not say all.

I am a man and my initial response is to think of the women that are being abused.

It works both ways. Hard for a man to admit but a woman can just as easily abuse her husband.

Agreed.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I seem to remember something about a person being innocent until proven guilty.

How many acrimonious splits are there where one party or the other or both make all kinds of false accusations in order to gain advantage?

So on the power of he said/she said, we are now confiscating private property?

nope

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

There is a big different of being "accused" vs being found guilty. Due process should be followed before any rights are taken away from a person.

a reply to: InMyShell

I've seen first hand what kind of damage 90 pounds of crazy bitch can do. I'll be keeping my guns thank you.

from
syrinx high priest

no, you framed it that way on purpose. if the judges rule the restraining order is unwarranted, the guns are returned the article you posted explains the reason for the law, to help women escape abusers

To every poster who thinks this is attacking their constitutional rights....the above spells it out rather clearly.

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Yep.

My aunt got caught in it with her ex who made all kinds of accusations in an attempt to gain custody of my cousins and get her paying him child support.

That's the problem. You have people who are truly in danger and those who are going to get caught in it because their partner is making crap up. How do you divide the two and is it proper to confiscate property until you know?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

But if you did nothing, then they should not be taken in the first place. It violates your rights. Is the false accuser subject to some kind of penalty to make up for your loss of rights?

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: introvert
The other half used other methods. So we could "potentially" save 7 lives.

I'm left wondering if you would consider it as 'just 7 lives', if it was your daughter (or other family member) who was shot during a domestic argument?

Wouldn't happen to my family....down here in the South if your family member has an abusive significant other we take care of that in house......Believe me our system has been working for years without government intervention.

So solve domestic violence with more violence? You crack me up haha.

No wonder the South will never rise again with that kind of mentality.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
from
syrinx high priest

no, you framed it that way on purpose. if the judges rule the restraining order is unwarranted, the guns are returned the article you posted explains the reason for the law, to help women escape abusers

To every poster who thinks this is attacking their constitutional rights....the above spells it out rather clearly.

Up to 12 days later...

Wonder how many will get "lost" in the system.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: syrinx high priest

Yep.

My aunt got caught in it with her ex who made all kinds of accusations in an attempt to gain custody of my cousins and get her paying him child support.

That's the problem. You have people who are truly in danger and those who are going to get caught in it because their partner is making crap up. How do you divide the two and is it proper to confiscate property until you know?

silly argument

this law has 2 very specific requirements

1) there has to be an accusation domestic abuse
2) there has to be a restraining order filed

this is reviewed by a judge within 2 weeks, there is no loss of rights in any way shape or form

of course false accusations have consequences.

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
from
syrinx high priest

no, you framed it that way on purpose. if the judges rule the restraining order is unwarranted, the guns are returned the article you posted explains the reason for the law, to help women escape abusers

To every poster who thinks this is attacking their constitutional rights....the above spells it out rather clearly.

Up to 12 days later...

Wonder how many will get "lost" in the system.

lost ? they are sold to drug dealers to find money to pay off the crazy bitches who are making all the trumped up claims

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this is reviewed by a judge within 2 weeks, there is no loss of rights in any way shape or form

Right... two weeks of no rights does not count as a loss.