Gun control supporters are attempting to use a 15-year-old Connecticut gun seizure law as a model for the nation.
The Connecticut law allows police officers to make a case before a judge that a person is a mental health risk to themselves or others, after which law enforcement may confiscate their firearms. A hearing must then be held within 14 days to determine whether the firearms will be returned, or if the state will retain possession of them for up to a year.
Indiana has a similar law, and both California and New Jersey are considering similar legislation.
As has been the trend in recent years, authorities have cited the attack on Sandy Hook as justification for the law.
Michael Lawlor, Connecticut’s undersecretary for criminal justice planning and policy, believes the state’s gun seizure law could have prevented the killings of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, if police had been made aware that gunman A___ L____* had mental health problems and access to his mother’s legally owned guns.
“That’s the kind of situation where you see the red flags and the warning signs are there, you do something about it,” Lawlor said. “In many shootings around the country, after the fact it’s clear that the warning signs were there.”
Lawlor is (infamously) one of those bureaucrats in Connecticut’s government that favored attempting gun confiscations after citizens refused to register their firearms and magazines and told the government to come and take them if they dared. Fortunately for the Connecticut State Police, saner heads prevailed and the state has avoided attempting the confiscation of these firearms.
You’ll note that Lawlor feels that the existing Connecticut law—as intrusive of a “pre-crime” law as it is—wasn’t intrusive enough to be effective.
He’s in favor of government intruding so deeply into your life so that it knows whether relatives might be considered a “threat” (by whatever arbitrary definition they choose), and use that as justification to raid your home and seize your legally owned and purchased firearms.
What might constitute making a person a threat?
Lawlor doesn’t say, and he is in fact lying when he says that there were warning signs that the Sandy Hook murderer posed a threat.
The killer had only been diagnosed with Aspberger’s Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum, which includes interpersonal communication difficulties and repetitive behavior), and obsessive compulsive disorder, neither of which are considered violent traits. He was not on any medications at all. In fact, research suggests that people with Aspberger’s/autism are more likely to be victims of violence, not perpetrators.
These citizen control cultists (there is a reason we use that term instead of “gun control,” folks) want to be able to use the most minor and tangentially related excuses to destroy your basic Constitutional rights.
Your adult child has a diagnosis of a minor condition (ADD, ADHD, Autism, cooties) not related to violence? According to Undersecretary Lawlor, that’s justification enough to take your firearms.
Your spouse has glaucoma, and has a prescription for medical marijuana? You’ve both lost your right to self-defense, according to the citizen control cult.
The ever-encroaching arms of Big Brother aren’t there to keep you safe from criminals, my fellow citizens. The purposes of citizen control is the same now as it has ever been: to keep those who imagine themselves to be your betters safe as they attempt to exert more control over your lives, so that you lack the capability to rebel and revolt.
It is about their desire to impose their will over you, with impunity.
Do you understand yet?
* Bearing Arms refuses to publish the names of mass killers/attempted mass killers as a matter of policy, believing that giving them fame for their actions may contribute to copycat attackers.