Not just "no" but, oh, "HELL NO!!!"
"Suspicion" is a rather nebulous term. Just what constitutes “suspicion”?
This is something that can be taken advantage of by the state very easily.
Remember, it was only very recently that the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano labeled “those individuals that are proponents of ‘States Rights’ or those that oppose the growth of the Federal Government as ‘Right Wing Extremists’. Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
She also said that, “[t]he possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”
Apparently, not being a member of the proper, politically-correct group can have you labeled as “suspicious”.
Are you assuming there is a law?
It could have gone the other way, with the man doing nothing at all.
Seymour police used the law last year to take three guns away from a local man after his co-workers reported that he threatened to blow up his workplace. Police searched his computer and discovered he visited Web sites dealing with murders, violence and workplace shootings.
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.
Read the article linked in the OP. There is in fact a law. Reading saves asking stupid questions.
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.
It is STILL unconstitutional...
I never claimed otherwise.
So that's what you served in the military for? I'm glad you are out.
I know one of the places friggers served, he knows where I did my bit.So that's what you served in the military for? I'm glad you are out.
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.
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.
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?