Warning to citizens, law to disarm gun owners in Connecticut may become national law

press@gunsafe.org wrote:

A good decision, but this won't keep the law from being used again.
Thank goodness the judge had the backbone to issue this decision despite
the serious charges against Avery.

http://courant.ctnow.com/news/apwire/Dec6-APwire_25718.stm

> Judge says seizure of former deputy's
guns was illegal

> DANIELSON, Conn. (AP) A Superior Court judge has ruled
> that weapons seized from the home of a former Windham County deputy sheriff must be returned to him because police violated one
of the state's newest gun control laws.

Judge Francis J. Foley III on Friday ruled that state police did not
explore all alternatives last month before removing seven guns and
ammunition from the Canterbury home of special deputy sheriff David Avery, who later resigned from the sheriff's department.

Avery, 43, was arrested Oct. 31 in Foster, R.I., after allegedly terrorizing and shooting at a black Hartford school
> teacher and her passenger during a 28-mile chase through Windham County.
Heather Washington told police that Avery, who is white,
shouted racist slurs and repeatedly rammed her car during the chase.
Avery, who reportedly shot out Washington's back tire
during the chase, is being held at the Adult Correctional Facility in Rhode Island while awaiting trial.
>
The weapons were seized under legislation passed by the Connecticut General Assembly in June.
The new law permits police to seize firearms from the home of a person they believe could be mentally unstable and a threat to himself or others.

The measure, which was passed in response to the April 1998 Connecticut Lottery shootings in Newington, stipulates
> that police only execute the warrant when all other options have been exhausted.
In his decision, Foley ruled that police failed to explore possibilities such as a consensual search, in which Avery or his legal representative could have voluntarily surrendered the weapons.
''This aspect of the legislation was critical to its passage,'' Foley wrote. ''The police were duty bound to explore alternate measures.''

The seizure of Avery's weapons represented the first time state police had enforced the law, which had been used by eight local police forces as of Nov. 17, according to the state Office of Legislative Research.

''This may be a learning experience for us as to what other avenues we might take in the future,'' state police spokesman Lt.
Ralph Carpenter said. ''But by no means should that be interpreted as we don't think what we did was right thing at the time. The
warrant was signed, so somebody aside from us had to agree.''


[This message has been edited by ernest2 (edited December 07, 1999).]
 
press@gunsafe.org wrote:
> >From today's Courant
(http://www.ctnow.com/scripts/editorial.dll?fromspage=all/home.htm&categoryid=&bfromind=588&eeid=1156513&eetype=article&render=y&ck=&ver=hb1.2.20)

Weapon Seizures Draw Fire, Praise
By JOHN SPRINGER
The Hartford Courant
> December 05, 1999
>
> A new state law that empowers police to seize firearms
> from potentially dangerous people without arresting them is getting mixed
> reviews after its first two months, a busy period that saw the seizure of everything
from pistols to a submachine gun and assault rifles.
>
Since the law took effect Oct. 1, at least seven gun owners have been
forced to turn over their weapons - most of them legally owned - to police officers carrying court-approved search-and-seizure orders.
>
Proponents say the law may need technical revisions but so far seems
to be doing what it was intended to do: take weapons away from people
who( ONLY) MIGHT pose a threat to themselves or others.
Critics charge that the law gives police, for the first time, power to enter a private dwelling, vehicle or business to seize property when there is no
> probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. (And no probable cause to believe
that a crime might some day ever be committed.)ernest2 -- imho--

Greenwich police used the new law in October to take a submachine
gun and 10 other firearms from a man who allegedly held a gun at his
side when he opened his door to greet a neighbor who had a complaint.


Days later, in a seperate incident, Rocky Hill police obtained a court order to seize rifles, a shotgun and a handgun from a man who allegedly threatened
to kill his now ex-wife on three occasions if she divorced him.
>
> West Hartford police have used the law twice, seizing handguns and a
military rifle from a Korean War veteran suffering from combat flashbacks, and handguns from a man who was depressed
> because his elderly mother was hospitalized.
>
> Farmington, Newington and state police also have seized weapons
from citizens.
>
> ``I think that we are attempting to prevent another lottery-type tragedy,''
> West Hartford Police Chief James Strillacci said, referring to the 1998
shooting rampage at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters in Newington by a disgruntled employee who killed himself and four
co-workers.
>
> ``The Second Amendment provides for the right to bear
> arms, but the right for the rest of us to be safe from guns in the wrong hands is more
important,'' Strillacci said.
>
> Before police can seize weapons under the new law, officers first must convince a state judge that someone with access to guns may cause
``imminent personal injury'' to himself or others. Judges may consider
acts or threats of violence, cruelty to animals and whether the person
was ever committed to a psychiatric hospital. If prosecutors establish
at a court hearing within 14 days that a person whose guns were
seized poses a continuing threat, judges may order the weapons held by police for up to a year.
Of the seven known cases, three such orders were issued and one was denied on technical grounds.
>
Last week, a judge ruled that state police must return David Avery's
guns because troopers failed to ask him to voluntarily surrender the
weapons before seeking the warrant to seize guns from his
home. The judge noted that the law requires police to exhaust
> alternatives short of seizure first.
>
> Avery's lawyer, Raymond Parlato, said the guns will be sold so that
Avery's family can pay expenses while Avery awaits trial in Rhode Island on charges that the former Windham deputy sheriff
yelled racial epithets and tried to shoot out the tires of a black motorist in October.


Challenges to three other seizures have yet to be decided.

``I think you will see the law being used at the drop of the hat,'' said
Hartford attorney Peter Soulsby, a critic of the law.

Soulsby represents Bernard Kryznowek of Newington, who had to give
up 41 weapons, including a flamethrower and assault rifles fitted with
laser sights, after Kryznowek allegedly threatened to hurt a relative
during a disturbance in Farmington last month. Soulsby declined to
discuss Kryznowek's case, which will be the subject of a hearing under
the seizure law on Friday. But he said the number of weapons seizures
statewide so far should raise questions.

``Anytime you pass a law where you anticipate it being used two or
three times a year, but in reality it is going to be used 10 or 20 times or
more, someone should be reviewing it to see if it was such a great idea,'' Soulsby said.
>
> State Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, one of the architects of the
seizure law, said the number and types of cases so far suggest that threats of violence are a larger problem than even he thought.
>
``It does surprise me. I thought it would only come up two to three times
a year,'' said Lawlor, co-chairman of the legislature's judiciary
committee. ``I have read some of the affidavits. From reading them, it is
clear that police are confronted with these kinds of disturbing situations more frequently than I thought.''
>
Police can tally the number of guns they seize, but they may never know how many suicides and homicides they could prevent
by seizing guns from unstable people, Lawlor added. A recent computer analysis
of death certificate data showed that nearly half of Connecticut gun
deaths between 1990 and 1998 were suicides.
>
Opponents who fought unsuccessfully to have the seizure provision
killed say it sets a precedent for allowing government officials to enter
homes based on uncorroborated hearsay and to invade privacy.
>
``The box is now open. One thing will lead to another,'' said Rep.
Richard Tulisano, D-Rocky Hill. ``There is no such thing is a risk- free
society. The closer you try to get to that, you give up something. Are we
prepared to risk all of what our forefathers fought and died for for a
feeling of safety, which may not make you safe at all?''

Lynne Sobowicz of Rocky Hill feels better now that her ex-husband and
his guns are out of her home, but she agreed with Tulisano that people in her situation should not look to the new law as a
panacea for the problem of disturbed people with guns.
>
``He has threatened to kill me, kill himself or both,'' Sobowicz said of
her ex-husband. ``I don't feel safe just because the guns are gone. If he
really wants one, everyone knows he can get one.''

At a court hearing about his seized guns on Thursday, Joseph
Sobowicz Jr. denied that he threatened his ex-wife or that he poses a
threat to himself or anyone else. He asked the judge to explain what
gives society the right to deprive him of legally owned firearms.

``Your honor, I don't understand how any state or government action
can take something away from someone without a trial,''
Sobowicz said. ``These guns were my father's. He left them to me
when he died.''

Judge Carmen Espinosa ordered the weapons held by police
until an unrelated court dispute over their ownership is settled.

A domestic violence expert agreed that the seizure law is not a cure-all,
but provides another important tool for a public concerned about safety.

``The ability of the police to seize a gun so that it doesn't become
involved in yet another domestic violence case is very important. I think
Connecticut legislators have been really thoughtful in their approach to
gun legislation,'' said Linda Cimino, executive director
of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. ``They
> have to weigh
the rights of many, many people, but guns played a part in every domestic violence murder-suicide that Connecticut has
been witness to this year.''
>
> Lawlor said he will meet with state judicial department officials this
month to work on some administrative glitches in the seizure process
and to discuss ways to better train police departments in how to obtain
and execute warrants under the law.


---------------------------------------------
opinion by e2:

(Some how I fear this means that
Lawlor wants to make it easier yet for police to konfiscate even more guns for less that no reason whatsoever. )

The guy that posted before, who said
that he was old and tried from gun control,
I can simpthize with being feed up beyond belief...... but this law just shows that
when you stick your head in the sand instead
of trying to change what you can change...
when you do nothing ,things only get worst for you and your opposition wins through
lack of caring and deriliction of what you should choose to make your duty , the defense
of your second ammendment rights against
enimies domestic.


IT IS CLEAR TO ME NOW.......that this
law will be misused by police on a daily basis just as soon as they can fine tune the railroading machinery. False evidence,false alligations and false witness MIGHT EASILY be used to
lend these illegal konfiscations the color of law.
 
This is well-intended legislation, that is certainly bound to help destroy a critical civil right - it is absolutely inevitable. The road to Hell is most certainly paved with good intentions.

Consider very carefully some of these comments:

'I think that we are attempting to prevent another lottery-type tragedy,' West Hartford Police Chief James Strillacci said, referring to the 1998 shooting rampage at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters in Newington by a disgruntled employee who killed himself and four co-workers. `The Second Amendment provides for the right to bear arms, but the right for the rest of us to be safe from guns in the wrong hands is more important,' Strillacci said. - yes, that's what we need in this country. More police chief's that are willing to step right up and ignore the Constitution when the situation calls for that kind of decisiveness.


And then, there's this:

State Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, one of the architects of the seizure law, said the number and types of cases so far suggest that threats of violence are a larger problem than even he thought. `It does surprise me. I thought it would only come up two to three times a year,' said Lawlor, co-chairman of the legislature's judiciary committee. `I have read some of the affidavits. From reading them, it is clear that police are confronted with these kinds of disturbing situations more frequently than I thought.' - so he didn't think this law would be used much (or abused), but golly gee - you see, we have so many potentially bad people out there, we're simple forced to take all of their guns away, aren't we?


Seizure = government theft and abuse

Prosecute assaults severely - violence, threats of violence and the initiation of force cannot be tolerated, and they are already illegal. But, allow potential victims to protect themselves against the animals that would practice such behavior.

This law is another anti-self defense lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top