Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence

Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 10:05:35 PM)
From TheBlaze: Under the legislation, suspects would have 24 hours after being accused to surrender all firearms. After nearly three hours of debate, the bill was approved with a 23-13 amid failed attempted by Republicans to amend the bill. The Connecticut Post explains the intention behind the legislation: 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. Though there was some opposition to the bill due to gun rights concerns, the Post reports “there was little evidence of gun-rights activists in the Capitol on Monday.” “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,” Republican Sen. Rob Kane said. ACCUSED?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 10:13:55 PM)
It actually makes a certain amount of sense.

LadyPact -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 10:28:41 PM)
Stop. Just stop.

ifmaz -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 10:33:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick It actually makes a certain amount of sense. Anyone accused of abuse should have their homes ransacked for evidence, have large bail and court fees, be forced to testify against themselves, and have their trials be delayed.

BamaD -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 10:38:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne From TheBlaze: Under the legislation, suspects would have 24 hours after being accused to surrender all firearms. After nearly three hours of debate, the bill was approved with a 23-13 amid failed attempted by Republicans to amend the bill. The Connecticut Post explains the intention behind the legislation: 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. Though there was some opposition to the bill due to gun rights concerns, the Post reports “there was little evidence of gun-rights activists in the Capitol on Monday.” “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,” Republican Sen. Rob Kane said. ACCUSED? Good thing nobody wants to take guns away. In Ca it has been very difficult to get them back. Ammunition and magazines routinely "disappear".

BamaD -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 10:39:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne From TheBlaze: Under the legislation, suspects would have 24 hours after being accused to surrender all firearms. After nearly three hours of debate, the bill was approved with a 23-13 amid failed attempted by Republicans to amend the bill. The Connecticut Post explains the intention behind the legislation: 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. Though there was some opposition to the bill due to gun rights concerns, the Post reports “there was little evidence of gun-rights activists in the Capitol on Monday.” “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,” Republican Sen. Rob Kane said. ACCUSED? Acussed of what?

BamaD -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 10:42:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick It actually makes a certain amount of sense. Anyone accused of abuse should have their homes ransacked for evidence, have large bail and court fees, be forced to testify against themselves, and have their trials be delayed. Why grant any bail. They own guns, they must be guilty of something terrible.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 10:46:57 PM)
As someone who's had a weapon shoved under his chin during a (marginally) domestic squabble, I don't appose this, entirely. I think that even if the protective order is made permanent (it still doesn't mean the "abuser" actually abused the other), there should be some kind of "wiggle room" for a case-by-case adjudication as to whether or not the legal gun owner gets their weapon back or not. Essentially, it's a "temporary measure" which can be made permanent, by nature of an actual conviction. Think of it as a "cooling off period" or a device to allow the alleged victim to get themselves and their things out of the house without threat of gun violence. Michael

Phydeaux -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 10:54:27 PM)
More people killed by cars than guns. Shouldn't they confiscate cars of people accused of domestic abuse?

LadyPact -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 11:03:19 PM)
<Fast Reply> The reason they call it "practicing" patience is because some of us have to keep working at it. Believe it or not, there is a HUGE loophole when it comes to perpetrators of DV. That's why people end up dead. (OH, and I don't for a SECOND believe it's only 14 per year in the state of CT.) I'm a gun rights proponent. I really am. I come from hunting country. However... If you have committed a felony, you have forfeited your right to own a firearm. If a person has logistical proof (go ahead, ask me what that is) of a person being in a category of a DV perpetrator, take the firearm out of their hand. Positions of power, (i.e., police, prison guards, members of the military, in other words, professions that we KNOW have the highest DV rates) suspend access until such time as settled by the court. Give them a desk job in the interim. Fourteen? Really? I could go to Stanford tomorrow and find that many people in a DV shelter. Knock it off.

LadyPact -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 11:10:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux More people killed by cars than guns. Shouldn't they confiscate cars of people accused of domestic abuse? Most people aren't trying to run their victim down with a car. Not on purpose.

ifmaz -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 11:14:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact ... If you have committed a felony, you have forfeited your right to own a firearm. Except one has not committed a felony because the justice system has not convicted them; these are merely the accused. Since when does merely accusing someone of a crime mean the accused must forfeit rights? quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact If a person has logistical proof (go ahead, ask me what that is) of a person being in a category of a DV perpetrator, take the firearm out of their hand. ... As long as we're violating people's rights based on accusations why stop with the 2nd amendment: impose harsh penalties in the form of excessive bail, allow the homes of the accused to be ransacked by police, etc. Lets get rid of the pesky presumption of innocence and just hang people by their toenails if someone accuses them of a horrific crime.

Lucylastic -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 11:15:32 PM)
You cant conceal and carry a car. You cant kill someone by picking up a car pointing it at someone and start the engine. More people use cars than guns You cant walk into a house with a car and chase them around the house with it. A car is regulated licenced, tested, taxed.so is the driver Latest figures show that all motor deaths at only 200 more instances of deaththan firearms. 33804 deaths by car 33636 by gun Figures from cdc

Real0ne -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 11:23:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr As someone who's had a weapon shoved under his chin during a (marginally) domestic squabble, I don't appose this, entirely. I think that even if the protective order is made permanent (it still doesn't mean the "abuser" actually abused the other), there should be some kind of "wiggle room" for a case-by-case adjudication as to whether or not the legal gun owner gets their weapon back or not. Essentially, it's a "temporary measure" which can be made permanent, by nature of an actual conviction. Think of it as a "cooling off period" or a device to allow the alleged victim to get themselves and their things out of the house without threat of gun violence. Michael so you feel that the state should be authorized to summarily violate everyone elses rights and take away their weapons based on the issuance or maintenance of a restraining order? Something some people obtain as a matter of habit on trumped up bullshit? [8\|]

Real0ne -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 11:31:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact However... If you have committed a felony, you have forfeited your right to own a firearm. In todays twisted just-us system you are correct as there is no, none what so ever caveat in the constitution that would allow them to legally do so.

ifmaz -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 11:36:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic ... A car is regulated licenced, tested, taxed.so is the driver Only if one wishes to drive on public roads. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Latest figures show that all motor deaths at only 200 more instances of deaththan firearms. 33804 deaths by car 33636 by gun Figures from cdc I assume you believe a person has a right to do whatever they want to their own body, including suicide. Your 'deaths by gun' figure includes suicides, which comprise roughly 2/3 of firearm related deaths. That number also includes justifiable homicides, which accounted for 742 deaths. The adjusted number is around 11,719 (or 11,511 if using the FBI's numbers on the link provided), nearly 300% less than the 'deaths by cars' figure.

itsSIRtou -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 11:41:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux More people killed by cars than guns. Shouldn't they confiscate cars of people accused of domestic abuse? Most people aren't trying to run their victim down with a car. Not on purpose. My dear L, u DO know that Phy-dough will side with the abusers because they're fellow gun owner$. and to answer his question, if the alleged abuser has shown use of their car as a weapon I would yank that away from them too. Maybe walking their ass to work might give them time to think about not being republicans....er,.....I mean abusive assholes. ( I know, I know....I just couldn't resist the sarcasm.)

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 11:48:24 PM)
Why, if one is going to attempt to run another person down, with murder in mind, would they use their own car ? There are more cars littering the streets, waiting to be stolen and used for a variety of nefarious purposes, than there are guns and it's not difficult to boost one. A car approaching a person on the street doesn't look suspicious and the victim is another statistic before he/she knows it. Some guy waving a firearm around would surely arouse at least a LITTLE suspicion that he/she proposes something not quite legal ?

Lucylastic -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 11:49:12 PM)
People commit suicide by car Sorry but suicide by guns figures do matter Because there are plenty of murder/suicides.very often in dv cases. Most often with a restraining order in the history. Most children are shot in murder/suicides. Altho the toddlers shooting people has gone up. Killing themselves and others. Seven just in april Wa post. Every one of them was 1-3 yrs old Toddlers 3 and under rarely touch the pedal, let alone kill

DaddySatyr -> RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill for Those “Accused” of Domestic Violence (5/4/2016 11:51:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne so you feel that the state should be authorized to summarily violate everyone elses rights and take away their weapons based on the issuance or maintenance of a restraining order? Something some people obtain as a matter of habit on trumped up bullshit? [8\|] Sir, I am long on record as being a staunch supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. So, I won't take this as one of your usual attempts at discrediting by ridicule. I will say this: I made my position quite clear, but let me take a different tack (hopefully not into the wind): Your "argument" which I quoted above seems (to me) to be that "everyone else's rights" are being "violated". Let me say I own two handguns and a rifle (There's bears in dese here hills). When some people are accused of homicide, murder, (I think even) some rapes, they're held without bail. It is (I feel) a legitimate (temporary) move to ensure the public safety. I also wish to remind you that my post included this: quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr ... I don't appose this, entirely. I think that even if the protective order is made permanent (it still doesn't mean the "abuser" actually abused the other), there should be some kind of "wiggle room" for a case-by-case adjudication as to whether or not the legal gun owner gets their weapon back or not. People who are living with weapon owners that may be violent are in proximity to danger. However, I believe that each situation is different and that they should be taken that way; not covered by a one-size-fits-all law. I know how easy it is to be accused of domestic violence with no foundation in fact. I surrendered my weapons for a total of five days. They were returned, outside the courtroom when the ignorant bitch was shown to be a liar. Please read *everything* I type before cherry picking the hay for your strawman bullshit. Michael

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875