Should police be allowed to confiscate firearms from people they suspect might harm themselves or others?
I say no.
2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure Law - wcbstv.com
2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure Law
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) ― Police in Connecticut say they've now seized more than 2,000 firearms under a 1999 law that allows authorities to confiscate guns from people they suspect might harm themselves or others.
A report prepared for the state legislature says state and local police seized 2,093 guns from October 1999 to May 2009.
If the law allows for it, that is fine. There is nothing wrong with police executing their duty under the law. Whether such a law is constitutional or not, I am less certain.
Should police be allowed to confiscate firearms from people they suspect might harm themselves or others?
I say no.
2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure Law - wcbstv.com
2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure Law
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) ― Police in Connecticut say they've now seized more than 2,000 firearms under a 1999 law that allows authorities to confiscate guns from people they suspect might harm themselves or others.
A report prepared for the state legislature says state and local police seized 2,093 guns from October 1999 to May 2009.
Where you point a gun says everything about whether you should have one.
That is an excellent quote. Did you come up with it?
Yup, I am the Clint Eastwood of quotes.
Guess it's better than being the Arnold Schwarzenegger. :mrgreen:
Are you assuming there is a law?If the law allows for it, that is fine. There is nothing wrong with police executing their duty under the law. Whether such a law is constitutional or not, I am less certain.
So that's what you served in the military for? I'm glad you are out.LOL.
On a serious note, and I wont do serious too often, having been in the US military I have had guns pointed at me and I have pointed guns at others.
Both conditions are disturbing.
Guns and idiots do not mix, the US needs gun control.
It could have gone the other way, with the man doing nothing at all.Absolutely, so long as they can honestly articulate the supposed threat. I failed to disarm a mentally disturbed person once many, many years ago. The judge said the family had the guy under control and probate court would decide his fate. I recommended we seize his firearms and was told not to.
That was my last day on duty before leaving for annual training with my reserve unit. On the bus trip to the airport I got a page. My boss was calling to tell me the bad guy had took his 12 gauge and went to a preachers home, knocked on the door, and shot him in the head when he answered. Right in front of the preachers daughter.
Absolutely. But it depends on the degree of suspicion. I would use the legal obligation that my profession requires me to use: intent/means. If someone tells me that they have intent and means to kill themselves or another, I am legally bound to report this. I would use the same determining factor for someone who owns a gun. If they state that they have intent to use the gun to harm themselves or another, the gun should be confiscated. No question about it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?