Nor will you.
Yes. No one is going to hold anyone responsible for “over cautious”. It’s an opinion.
No…I wouldn’t go that far but…there should be a number of mistakes or level of grievance that would remove this privilege. If they purposefully make a false claim, I agree and…I wouldn’t stop there. This action is criminal and should be prosecuted.
Determinations on one’s intent are made in court every day. Severe ramifications for false testimony must be written into such laws and it MUST be considered legal testimony to file a complaint.
They don’t even investigate these claims before a judge gets them.
One area of concern is the fact that there is no requirement that law enforcement conduct any type of investigation before relatives or medical personnel make a court complaint seeking gun seizures while prosecutors and police are required to do so
I think in CT there is, but not in all states with similar laws. Not a full investigation, but they are required to somehow substantiate the claim
Not in CT with these changes:
“There is no neutral arbiter in this process. There’s just somebody with a gripe going directly to a court. There’s no investigation. That’s a big problem,” said Dubitsky.
Just another way to grab guns without any repercussions.
Liberals love that.
1 Like
I disagree. If someone makes a false claim that denies me constitutional rights, their livelihood needs to be on the line.
Doesn’t this part of the law cover that?
[ Such ] No state’s attorney or police [ officers shall not ] officer may make such complaint unless such state’s attorney or police [ officers have ] officer has conducted an independent investigation and [ have ] determined that such probable cause exists and that there is no reasonable alternative available to prevent such person from causing imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others with [ such ] a firearm.
(b)Arisk protection order or warrant may issue only on affidavit sworn to by the complainant [ or complainants ] before the judge and establishing the grounds for issuing theorder or warrant. [ , which ] In the case of a warrant, the affidavit shall be part of the seizure file. In determining whether grounds for the application exist or whether there is probable cause to believe [ they ] such grounds exist, the judge shall consider: (1) Recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward other persons; (2)recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward himself or herself; and (3) recent acts of cruelty to animals as provided in subsection (b) of section 53-247 by such person. In evaluating whether such recent threats or acts of violence constitute probable cause to believe that such person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others, the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person, (B) a history of the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by such person against other persons, (C) prior involuntary confinement of such person in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, and (D) the illegal use of controlled substances or abuse of alcohol by such person. If the judge is satisfied that the grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that [ they ] such grounds exist, such judge shall issue arisk protection order or warrant naming or describing the person,and, in the case of the issuance of a warrant, the place or thing to be searched.
That’s only for the existing law, which requires police and attorneys to investigate the claims. There’s no requirement for family members or medical staff to contact law enforcement for an investigation prior to submitting a request to a judge. That’s the new part of the law they want to get passed. Greatly expanded powers to seize firearms because someone said so.
And they would be seized indefinitely.
1 Like
The “people” don’t get a vote on fundamental rights.
1 Like
And the false claim thing has no wheels, since what you are testifying to is that you personally feel they are a danger. How does anyone prove you don’t feel that way?
Doctors misdiagnose things all the time (false claim) but it isn’t an automatic loss of their license to practice. It’s taken into consideration when contemplating such things as it should be but I don’t believe it should be automatic if they’re wrong.
It seems like they’ve elected representation to do it for them.
The hard part is gonna be finding the balance. Otherwise, there might arise a situation where there is a legit reason for gun removal, but the doctor is too scared to say anything for fear of losing his livelihood.
Also not how it works. Lawmakers aren’t entitled to remove our rights either.
Well, they passed the law in 1999, someone better go tell the people in Connecticut they lost their fundamental rights 20 years ago.
You are of course free to claim it isn’t an infringement of their rights. But what you appeared to be saying was, that they were and it was ok because lawmakers did it.
No it can’t be, that text is from the NEW bill effective October 2020
.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2020/TOB/h/pdf/2020HB-05448-R00-HB.PDF
