A new bill introduced in Connecticut changes state law so that guns are confiscated from the subject of a protective order the moment the request for the order is filed rather than waiting until the accused has an opportunity to have his or her case heard by a judge.
The measure is supported by state senator Mae Flexer (D-Killingly), who says, “The minute a woman comes forward and asks for a temporary restraining order is the most dangerous moment of her life.”
Opponents of the measure point out that the request for a protective order on the accusation of criminal behavior and the issuance of said order in light of a judge’s decision are two different things. They argue that it completely flips the scales, forcing gun owners into a position of being guilty until proven innocent.
Moreover, according to the Hartford Courant, bill opponents want to know if Flexer has thought about how long confiscated guns would be held by the state in a situation where the judge refuses to issue an order? For example, in a case where an order is requested on the first day of the month and guns are confiscated, what happens to those guns if the judge refuses the order request two weeks later?
Representative Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott) observed, “You’re innocent until proven guilty, that’s how I was brought up. This bill before us takes that away.”
Micheal Lawlor is Governor Dannel P. Malloy’s (D) undersecretary for criminal justice policy and planning, and he contends that the request for a protective order can be the “precipitating event” that leads to violence in a relationship. For that reason, he believes seizing guns prior to a hearing is justified.
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at email@example.com.