Gun Confiscation: Should You Be Arrested Before You Break A Law

For all of us who have not believed the Liberal lie about not wanting to confiscate our guns, we can rest easy knowing that our judgement of the character of Liberals is absolutely accurate for being what it is.

They are a lying bunch of cowards who profess to have a corner on the truth yet are more deceitful than any snake.

Legal gun-owners like myself understand that after any and every mass shooting or killing the liberal media goes crazy with wild accusations and calls for reform.

Liberals salivate over the chance to call for restrictions on our 2nd Amendment Rights. And yes, they immediately jump at the chance to call for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Constitution and eliminate the 2nd Amendment, as well as the First Amendment's Freedom of Religion clause.

And of course, Liberals take any horrific tragedy and turn it into an opportunity to call for the confiscation of all firearms in the United States.

We know we have to fight the Liberal desire to deprive over 300,000,000 Americans of their Rights, and of their ability to assert personal protection if the occasion arises.

We know that Liberals use every tragedy to deprive Americans of our Constitutional Rights, even if it means using the act of a maniac who does something so terrible that it baffles most sane people as to how he could have accomplished such a horrible thing.

While the criminal who killed innocent people in Aurora Colorado demonstrates that mass killing are not restricted to school shootings, we should understand that school shootings are classified as school shootings when a firearm was discharged inside a school building or on school or campus grounds.

We should also understand that school shootings are classified as such when there were assaults, homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings -- as well as when there are incidents in which guns were brought to but were never actually on school property.

More so, we should all keep in mind that many anti-gun organizations inflate their data of school shootings by also listing those guns "thought" to been possessed on school property even when not -- and that in actuality were fired off school grounds.

Of course, anti-gun groups use media reports, accurate or not, to justify their information.

And yes, while these groups voice their concerns during the hysteria following shootings like the Aurora Colorado and Newtown Connecticut horrible acts of violence, they also assure the American people that our Constitutional Rights to self-protection will be protected.

Liberals are liars!

Right now states are getting ready to confiscate guns!

Right now states are looking to gun seizure laws on the books to justify the confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens.

From Hartford, Connecticut, the Associated Press is reporting that State officials from across the U.S. are turning to a gun seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.

Connecticut's law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that a person is a danger to themselves or others.

A court hearing must be held within 14 days to determine whether to return the guns or authorize the state to hold them for up to a year.

The 1999 law, the first of its kind in the U.S., was in response to the 1998 killings of four managers at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters by a disgruntled employee with a history of psychiatric problems.

Indiana is the only other state that has such a law, passed in 2005 after an Indianapolis police officer was shot to death by a mentally ill man.

California and New Jersey lawmakers are now considering similar statutes.

As unrealistic as it sounds, Michael Lawlor, Connecticut's undersecretary for criminal justice planning and policy, really believes that Connecticut's gun seizure law could have prevented the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012 -- if police had been made aware that gunman Adam Lanza 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."

But that in itself is a lie! He knows damn well that there is nothing that can be done to someone who has mental health issues has not broken the law.

California's Section 5150 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code (specifically, the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act or "LPS") which allows a qualified officer or clinician to involuntarily confine a person suspected to have a mental disorder that makes him or her a danger to self, a danger to others, and/or gravely disabled.

A qualified officer, which includes any California peace officer, as well as any specifically designated county clinician, can request the confinement after signing a written declaration.

If someone is placed on a 72-hour hold or a 14-day hold as a danger to themselves or others and admitted to a facility for treatment, they are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms for five years from the date of admission to the facility. (California Welfare and Institutions Code, sections 8100 - 8108)

But friend, even the California law can't lead to the arrest of someone if that person is not violating the law.

And as for obtaining a gun to do harm? It being illegal does not matter because criminals are called criminals because they do follow the law.

That's the point. The guy who shot up that grade school in Newtown Connecticut got his guns illegally.

Remember, he killed his mother before stealing her guns.

Laws, whether they number one or a thousand, did not stop him because he was preforming a "criminal act."

Frankly, besides an arrest, as in California under 5150 Code, what gives Lawlor or others like him the authority to arrest and detain those who "they believe" are dangerous when they in fact have not broken any laws?

What signs do they use to determine this?

Warning signs? And frankly, does that standard work for everyone, or only for gun-owners and people seeking mental health treatment?

If we apply Lawlor's standards that we should somehow restrict someone's Constitutional Rights to live free because of their actions?

Can we allow people to be arrested or their guns seized even if they have not committed a crime?

If we listen to Liberals like Lawlor, the answer is yes!

Look at who Michael Lawlor, Connecticut's undersecretary for criminal justice planning and policy, I can understand where he comes from -- it's called the extreme Left!

He is a Democrat, a Liberal, someone for Gay Marriage, for State Control, and is openly anti-Christian.

According to Wikipedia, and verified by me, in March of 2009, Mike Lawlor and Sen. Andrew J. McDonald proposed a new state law proposing to have the state regulate and manage all of the Catholic churches in Connecticut.

No kidding, just like the Communist Soviet Union tried doing for 70 years!

Free speech advocates, church leaders, and members of the Republican House opposition charged the bill violated the separation of church and state clause in the First Amendment.

Bill Donahue, President of the Catholic League, an organization which fights anti-Catholic prejudice, called it a "brutal act of revenge by Mile Lawlor and McDonald, two champions of gay marriage... designed to muzzle the voice of the Catholic Church".
  
Mike Lawlor is a 57 year old career politician.

In 2007, Mike Lawlor has come under fire for his early release program for criminals which has resulted in two violent criminals committing homicides.

Because of liberals like Lawlor, work to release criminals resulted in the July of 2007 home invasion murders of the Petit family in Cheshire, Connecticut, by two paroled convicts took place.

And just a few months later, on December 12th, 2007, Lawlor was quoted by the Associated Press as stating "Connecticut has a criminal justice system that already works pretty well."

A special session to enact tougher laws against home invasion and tighten the parole process was held January 22, 2008. From this, a new law making home invasion a class "A" felony was passed. It also reformed the parole board.

Mike Lawlor supported criminals by opposing efforts to pass a Three Strikes law in Connecticut, and it did not pass.

Governor Rell reiterated her call for a Three Strikes bill on March 31st, 2008, following the kidnapping murder of an elderly New Britain woman committed by a career criminal recently released from Connecticut prison.

It was reported that Mike Lawlor was still against it.

He has served on the national drafting team for the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision and the Interstate Compact for Juvenile Probation and Parole.

And yes, now he thinks he knows what every states should do.

Should You Be Stopped Before You Break A Law?

So yes, this is the same Liberal who really believes that Connecticut's gun seizure law could have prevented the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, because he believes that police could have somehow been made aware that gunman Adam Lanza had mental health problems and would somehow have access to his mother's legally owned guns.

I am reminded of a Criminal Justice professor in College who once said, "Law Enforcement cannot read minds, the somehow this or that, the somehow they should have known, the somehow they could have prevented it, the somehow the act could have been prevented is all fantasy by those who believe that police work is pro-active instead or reactive."

Yes, Mike Lawlor believes that police can somehow read minds and stop violence before it happens.

Because of the that, Democrats, like Mike Lawlor, want to confiscate our guns. They believe that your state should follow Connecticut in passing laws so that your police can also learn to read minds and decide whether you are so dangerous that you need to be stopped before you break a law.
Gun rights advocates oppose gun seizure laws, saying they allow police to take people's firearms based only on allegations and before the gun owners can present their side of the story to a judge.

They say they're concerned the laws violate constitutional rights.

"The government taking things away from people is never a good thing," said Rich Burgess, president of the gun rights group Connecticut Carry.

"They come take your stuff and give you 14 days for a hearing. Would anybody else be OK if they just came and took your car and gave you 14 days for a hearing?"

Rachel Baird, a Connecticut lawyer who has represented many gun owners, said one of the biggest problems with the state's law is that police are abusing it.

She said she has had eight clients whose guns were seized by police who obtained the required warrants after taking possession of the guns.

"It's stretched and abused, and since it's firearms, the courts go along with it," Baird said of the law.

While we have no way of knowing the results of these confiscations, or how many people have sued over this issue, Connecticut authorities report a large increase in the use of gun seizure warrants involving people now "deemed" dangerous by police over the past several years.

Police statewide filed an estimated 183 executed gun seizure warrants with court clerks last year, more than twice the number filed in 2010, according to Connecticut Judicial Branch data.

Connecticut police have seized more than 2,000 guns using the warrants, according to the most recent estimate by state officials, in 2009.

And no, there is no information if any of these guns were returned or not.

So now others are looking into how to adopt a Connecticut Gun Seizure Laws for your state.
As for those of us in California, many of us figure it will happen sooner or later since Democrats control this state.

And when it does take place here, I really believe that it might end up being a bad situation for everyone concerned -- except of course for the Democrat politicians who pass the laws and want to take away our Rights.

Like most politicians, their hands will stay clean as they have other carry out their policies -- even if they go against the Constitution.

As for other states, be vigilant and act swiftly to stop confiscation before it gets started where you live by getting Democrats out of office every chance there is.

And to answer some email on this subject:

Do I see most Democrats as a threat to the Constitution?

Yes. I absolutely do. But, I see Democrats as a threat in the same way that I feel Liberal Republicans are a threat to our freedoms and liberties.

Do I approve of violence against Democrats?

No, absolutely not. We do not need violence, or any sort of armed revolution, because I believe "We The People" have the power of the Vote.

That, my friends, is something politicians are more afraid of than bullets.

And because of that, I believe we have the ability to get the bad apples -- both Democrats and Liberal Republicans -- out of office.

It's happened before, and it can happen again if we united to get them out of policy making positions.

That's just how I see it.

Tom Correa