Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Democrats Pass Gun CONFISCATION Bill

In the United States of America, we have the right of due process; the right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. But, in Connecticut, new legislation is about to become law penalizing the accused prior to being found guilty, and it is infringing on a constitutional right.

“Accused domestic abusers would have to surrender firearms within 24 hours under legislation that won final approval in the Connecticut State Senate Monday,” reports Ken Dixon of the Connecticut Post. “[The bill] would require alleged domestic abusers – in most cases, men – to immediately give up their guns and ammunition if their partners seek restraining orders.”

Connecticut Governor Daniel P. Malloy indicated after the vote he supports the measure and intends to sign it into law. Proponents of the bill claim 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.”

5,000 temporary restraining orders for instances of spousal abuse are issued annually in Connecticut, but only approximately half result in permanent orders. The law will require court hearings within seven days. If the judge decides against extending the orders, any confiscated weapons would be returned.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of all citizens to bear arms. If you have not been adjudicated as being afoul of the law, there are no caveats to that constitutional right. Yet, at every turn, the gun control lobby and their toady advocates are whittling away at that constitutional right. The enacted of the spousal abuse law in Connecticut is but one more piece of that right being whittled away.

Domestic complaints to law enforcement come in many different forms and for many different reasons. Many times, what presents as something clear-cut is but a façade to what really happened or for a much more serious problem.

Of more concern, there is more than reason to believe liberals want to use this law as a way to set precedent for federal law, pushing this gun control on all Americans, not just the people of Connecticut.

To be clear, spousal abuse – violent or otherwise – is never something to be excused. But penalizing someone – male or female – by encroaching on their constitutional rights before affording due process is the action of a system ruled by dictators.

Our Founders and Framers bequeathed to us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to limit the amount of authority those in power could have over our lives. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights – the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution – are sacrosanct for the law-abiding. But ever since Progressives deemed the Constitution as a “living document,” they have tried to diminish our claim to those codified rights.

The spousal abuse legislation enacted in Connecticut usurps the due process guaranteed to us under the Constitution and places an undue influence of judgment in the hands of preliminary accusation and cursory investigation. It has the ability to penalize the innocent while placing the rights of the individual at the mercy of the bureaucracy.

Let me take this one step further. Liberals blast away at the right for wanting to keep all Muslim refugees and illegals out of this country for fear of terrorism and/or crime. They say cutting off ALL of these people is unfair to those who have no criminal intention.

I ask, how is this law any different? In fact, it is worse! Liberals are actually looking out for non-citizens over those that have earned the right to be called Americans without having let them have their day in court. Since when is it okay for our leaders to put the needs of non-citizens ahead of those actually protected by OUR constitution.

Didn't California pass something that would allow family or doctor or law enforcement to seek a gun restraining order without a hearing, simply a judge signing off on the request?

And Hillary is openly campaigning on implementing Australian style gun control (gun confiscation, in other words) as well as allowing every city and crime victim to sue the gun makers for medical expenses (plus pain/suffering/etc) in regards to criminals shooting them. It would be the end of gun manufacturing in America.

In that case it is better not to marry.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/

*) Closing the “Charleston Loophole.” Hillary will push Congress to close the loophole that allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check has not been completed within three days. This loophole allowed the alleged Charleston shooter to purchase a gun even though he had a criminal record.
-- This allows the feds to deny gun purchases by simply delaying a background check. Cut personnel and cut gun sales.

*) Repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection. Hillary believes the gun industry must be held accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns. Hillary will lead the charge to repeal the so-called “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” a dangerous law that prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.
-- Frivolous lawsuits by NYC, Chicago, and every liberal victim in a gun free zone will destroy gun companies by making them spend all their money on legal defense. No profits, no company.

*) Keep military-style weapons off our streets. Military-style assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. Hillary will work to keep assault weapons off our streets and supports reinstating the assault weapons ban.
-- Gun confiscation, plain and simple. Start with the scary black rifles.

Anybody can allege anything with zero repercussions.

we must do any and every thing possible to keep Hillary out of the White House

Not marrying won't do it. Anyone you have a relationship with is a spouse under law, girlfriend, mistress, boyfriend, hooker.

Very true. They keep broadening the definition of a "Domestic incident" to where it is just about anyone that wasn't a stranger before the incident occurred. The whole domestic thing has spun entirely out of control in the eyes the law and it hasn't done sh$t to reduce anything. More feel good laws.

A restraining order is "due process" in that testimony is taken and a judge makes a decision.

Ok, I guess the bitches will get strangled or stabbed instead of shot?

High risk men need to remain single.

Eff 'em all.....

And yet, Buckwheat wants to seal the criminal records of convicted felons, which would seem to effectively prevent them from being refused sale of a firearm?

Luckily there are still enough GOOD 'Fire members that will continue to pay their taxes to the government's in states such at CT and CA.

And this law would require that people who are simply accused forfeit their guns before that happens.

It appears the "Lautenberg Amendment" of '97 does require the surrender of firearms from individuals who are under a "restraining order. 18 USC 922s9 also bans to possession of firearms by those found guilty of domestic abuse.

The "r.o." provision hasn't been followed by LEO's because it presents a storage and liability problem, a window of surrendering firearms and the possibility of using a search warrant for noncompliance.

Restraining orders are the result of "due process" as a formal statement is made to the court as to the perceived or real threats.

While you are doing that, they will continue to push forward their agenda.

I don't know what you are trying to say. The creation of a "restraining order" is a court ordered document meant to keep the two parties apart with the intent of a permanent solution some weeks or months down the road.
A violation of the "ro" by either party is typically an event resulting in the immediate arrest.

Welcome to Massachusetts.

How many they have now? 20,000?