Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: What statute?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265

    What statute?

    What statute is this in reference to? http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/colloq2.htm Its probably right there but I cant find it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member dmjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rocky Hill CT
    Posts
    47

    Here it is

    Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms of person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others. (a) Upon complaint on oath by any state's attorney or assistant state's attorney or by any two police officers, to any judge of the Superior Court, that such state's attorney or police officers have probable cause to believe that (1) a person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, (2) such person possesses one or more firearms, and (3) such firearm or firearms are within or upon any place, thing or person, such judge may issue a warrant commanding a proper officer to enter into or upon such place or thing, search the same or the person and take into such officer's custody any and all firearms. Such state's attorney or police officers shall not make such complaint unless such state's attorney or police officers have conducted an independent investigation and have determined that such probable cause exists and that there is no reasonable alternative available to prevent such person from causing imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others with such firearm.

    (b) A warrant may issue only on affidavit sworn to by the complainant or complainants before the judge and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant, which affidavit shall be part of the seizure file. In determining whether grounds for the application exist or whether there is probable cause to believe they exist, the judge shall consider: (1) Recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward other persons; (2) recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward himself or herself; and (3) recent acts of cruelty to animals as provided in subsection (b) of section 53-247 by such person. In evaluating whether such recent threats or acts of violence constitute probable cause to believe that such person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others, the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person, (B) a history of the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by such person against other persons, (C) prior involuntary confinement of such person in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, and (D) the illegal use of controlled substances or abuse of alcohol by such person. If the judge is satisfied that the grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, such judge shall issue a warrant naming or describing the person, place or thing to be searched. The warrant shall be directed to any police officer of a regularly organized police department or any state police officer. It shall state the grounds or probable cause for its issuance and it shall command the officer to search within a reasonable time the person, place or thing named for any and all firearms. A copy of the warrant shall be given to the person named therein together with a notice informing the person that such person has the right to a hearing under this section and the right to be represented by counsel at such hearing.

    (c) The applicant for the warrant shall file a copy of the application for the warrant and all affidavits upon which the warrant is based with the clerk of the court for the geographical area within which the search will be conducted no later than the next business day following the execution of the warrant. Prior to the execution and return of the warrant, the clerk of the court shall not disclose any information pertaining to the application for the warrant or any affidavits upon which the warrant is based. The warrant shall be executed and returned with reasonable promptness consistent with due process of law and shall be accompanied by a written inventory of all firearms seized.

    (d) Not later than fourteen days after the execution of a warrant under this section, the court for the geographical area where the person named in the warrant resides shall hold a hearing to determine whether the seized firearms should be returned to the person named in the warrant or should continue to be held by the state. At such hearing the state shall have the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence. If, after such hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, it may order that the firearm or firearms seized pursuant to the warrant issued under subsection (a) of this section continue to be held by the state for a period not to exceed one year, otherwise the court shall order the seized firearm or firearms to be returned to the person named in the warrant. If the court finds that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, it shall give notice to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services which may take such action pursuant to chapter 319i as it deems appropriate.

    (e) Any person whose firearm or firearms have been ordered seized pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, or such person's legal representative, may transfer such firearm or firearms in accordance with the provisions of section 29-33 or other applicable state or federal law, to any person eligible to possess such firearm or firearms. Upon notification in writing by such person, or such person's legal representative, and the transferee, the head of the state agency holding such seized firearm or firearms shall within ten days deliver such firearm or firearms to the transferee.



    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0330.htm
    Last edited by dmjs; 05-20-2012 at 07:00 AM.
    "It is nice to be important, but more important to be nice"
    Member: NRA - Life, CCDL,
    CT, MA, UT, FLA Pistol Permit Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor - Professional Safety Training

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Thanks DMJS,

    Reason I'm asking is a guy in Norwalk had his guns confiscated without a warrant and the charges against him aren't disqualifying even if convicted. I had thought this statute was what allowed it but apparently not, since this requires a judges signing off on it. Iv been going back and forth with a state Senator about it with very little headway. It seems that the courts have no issue with the arbitrary seizure of our guns if that what they decide to do. It's pretty disturbing. You can find more info on Rich B's site about it.
    Last edited by Leverdude; 05-20-2012 at 07:23 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    Thanks DMJS,

    Reason I'm asking is a guy in Norwalk had his guns confiscated without a warrant and the charges against him aren't disqualifying even if convicted. I had thought this statute was what allowed it but apparently not, since this requires a judges signing off on it. Iv been going back and forth with a state Senator about it with very little headway. It seems that the courts have no issue with the arbitrary seizure of our guns if that what they decide to do. It's pretty disturbing. You can find more info on Rich B's site about it.
    http://ctcarry.com/NorwalkvDoutel/NorwalkvDoutel

    Mr. Doutel lost his firearms because the charge of 2nd degree harassment allow for a court's protective order of 'no weapons'. This was not the original charge. The original charge was second degree threatening. The charge was reduced in part because they have no case and in part to try and keep Mr. Doutel penalized for as long as possible with no weapons.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    I know Rich, I'm trying to find if the original confiscation of his guns was legit, seeing as how the charges wont disqualify him if convicted. Senator Duff keeps telling me theres nothing he can do at this point since he cant influence the courts. Whether o not thats true is irrelevant. I'm trying to get him to care about unjust confiscation of private property (guns) and the states continued effort to not release his property. I dont know My Doutel and am not looking to effect the outcome of the case. I'm trying to get Bob interested in legislation that would make this illegal. That link was the only thing I can find suggesting it MIGHT have been ok, but if the statute referenced is indeed the one the link is talking about a judge still needs to be consulted & sign off on it. Its ironic the way many Democratic politicians will bend over bass ackwards to ensure that everyones civil rights are being respected... until it gets to guns. To me its very obvious that he is simply being persecuted and I find the acceptence of that by our legislature simply unacceptable.
    Last edited by Leverdude; 05-20-2012 at 09:33 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    I know Rich, I'm trying to find if the original confiscation of his guns was legit, seeing as how the charges wont disqualify him if convicted.
    No, of course not. This is what Doutel v Norwalk is about. They also confiscated Mrs. Doutel's firearms and she was not even involved.

    Senator Duff keeps telling me theres nothing he can do at this point since he cant influence the courts.
    I tend to agree, but that is not our problem, I have been putting pressure on anyone and everyone. People should see that we are not quiet when this kind of travesty occurs. It is scary how many people currently don't care about this case when it could be any of us.

    Whether o not thats true is irrelevant. I'm trying to get him to care about unjust confiscation of private property (guns) and the states continued effort to not release his property.
    It is important to make everyone, especially legislators, aware of our bad laws like our confiscation laws and show them how these things can be used for evil. You are doing a great job at that. You always do.

    I dont know My Doutel and am not looking to effect the outcome of the case.
    I do and I am. We should all be. The idea that exercising your first and second amendment rights can get both taken away indefinitely with no due process is extremely alarming.

    the link is talking about a judge still needs to be consulted & sign off on it.
    I can tell you that no judge signed off on the original confiscation. The firearms confiscated were supposedly 'taken as evidence' even though none of the firearms matched any description that has been made present in the case so far.

    Its ironic the way many Democratic politicians will bend over bass ackwards to ensure that everyones civil rights are being respected... until it gets to guns. To me its very obvious that he is simply being persecuted and I find the acceptence of that by our legislature simply unacceptable.
    There is a first amendment aspect to this case that cannot be overlooked. This might be a valid avenue.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    No, of course not. This is what Doutel v Norwalk is about. They also confiscated Mrs. Doutel's firearms and she was not even involved.
    I now understand that that statute does not justify the confiscation. Bob Duff will be hearing from me now that this is clear. I already told him about her guns but got no response directly related to that theft.



    I tend to agree, but that is not our problem, I have been putting pressure on anyone and everyone. People should see that we are not quiet when this kind of travesty occurs. It is scary how many people currently don't care about this case when it could be any of us.
    As I said, my goal with the senator is not influencing the case, just enlightening him as to the obvious wrongs as far as the confiscations. While he cant do much as far as the courts he can certainly do something about the behavior that got this rolling.



    It is important to make everyone, especially legislators, aware of our bad laws like our confiscation laws and show them how these things can be used for evil. You are doing a great job at that. You always do.
    Thanks, if thers one thing I'm good at its opening my mouth continuously until I'm sure I'm understood.



    I do and I am. We should all be. The idea that exercising your first and second amendment rights can get both taken away indefinitely with no due process is extremely alarming.
    Perhaps I worded that wrong, I'd be very happy if the courts could be influenced, but my main concern is not the case itself but the gun part. I believe at the end of the day he'll be vindicated & all charged dropped. Courts are there to settle these things. True he should never have been charged but he was. I know its not justification but I am used to seeing people charged as knee jerk reactions. I'm not used to them being treated as guilty until proven innocent though, or in this case as if h were guilty of something worse than what he was charged with. Hope that makes sense.



    I can tell you that no judge signed off on the original confiscation. The firearms confiscated were supposedly 'taken as evidence' even though none of the firearms matched any description that has been made present in the case so far.
    I hadnt thought of the evidence angle.



    There is a first amendment aspect to this case that cannot be overlooked. This might be a valid avenue.
    Correct again, I'll bring that up to Duff again.

    On another note theres a Republican Norwalk council woman, Joanne Romano, running for Perones spot. I know her pretty good & intend to grill her on gun rights to see if she will be a friend to us and worth endorsement.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    ...
    It might be advantageous to get us all either in a room or on a call together and discuss the full issues. Might want to run that up the flag pole...
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    I imagine your talking about Joanne? Let me run the idea by her. As we both know Republican doesnt necesarilly mean conservative or pro gun anymore, but if she wants our support and/or possible CCDL and other pro gun endorsements she should be interested.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    I imagine your talking about Joanne? Let me run the idea by her. As we both know Republican doesnt necesarilly mean conservative or pro gun anymore,
    I have no interest in anyone's political party. Connecticut Carry is non-partisan and will not endorse any candidate regardless of their party.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Ok thats fine, was it her you were talking about? Honestly I was thinking if she is on our side a CCDL endorsement might be possible, but if I'm wrong it wont be the first time. Never thught about CT carry in that capacity. Anyway I sent her an E-mail a few minutes ago & will let you know what she says.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    Ok thats fine, was it her you were talking about?
    I am talking about anyone who might need to be educated on any of our various issues, the Doutel case in particular.

    Honestly I was thinking if she is on our side a CCDL endorsement might be possible, but if I'm wrong it wont be the first time.
    I can't speak for CCDL.

    Never thught about CT carry in that capacity. Anyway I sent her an E-mail a few minutes ago & will let you know what she says.
    Connecticut Carry is a 501(c)(4) non profit and therefore is a 'social welfare' non profit organization. We cannot and will not endorse or support candidates or their campaigns and we are non partisan. We are willing to sit down with anyone on any side of any aisle to discuss the issues that affect our citizens in Connecticut.

    That said, we certainly can and will post any conversations, decisions and actions that we take together with any legislator (or when needed, against a legislator) and will allow the citizens of Connecticut make their own choices come election time.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    I am talking about anyone who might need to be educated on any of our various issues, the Doutel case in particular.



    I can't speak for CCDL.



    Connecticut Carry is a 501(c)(4) non profit and therefore is a 'social welfare' non profit organization. We cannot and will not endorse or support candidates or their campaigns and we are non partisan. We are willing to sit down with anyone on any side of any aisle to discuss the issues that affect our citizens in Connecticut.

    That said, we certainly can and will post any conversations, decisions and actions that we take together with any legislator (or when needed, against a legislator) and will allow the citizens of Connecticut make their own choices come election time.
    Ok I get it. When I reply to the Senator I'll ask him if he'd be interested in talking about it with you or us. In my experience he's very responsive but isnt on our side.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    Ok I get it. When I reply to the Senator I'll ask him if he'd be interested in talking about it with you or us. In my experience he's very responsive but isnt on our side.
    Well that is fine. Educating the 'other side' is just as important (if not more important) than educating our side, isn't it?
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Sure it is, but, as I'm sure you already know, it gets frustrating explaining what seems like common sense repeatedly to someone who should already understand. I have little patience for the irrational ignorance many of our elected officials hide behind. Though I'm much better at keeping my cool than I used to be. I'll keep in touch.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    Sure it is, but, as I'm sure you already know, it gets frustrating explaining what seems like common sense repeatedly to someone who should already understand. I have little patience for the irrational ignorance many of our elected officials hide behind. Though I'm much better at keeping my cool than I used to be. I'll keep in touch.
    Feel free to send them my way if you get frustrated. We have had good luck so far getting through to people one way or the other.


    Rich Burgess
    President
    Connecticut Carry, Inc
    Ph: 203.208.9577
    Email: rich@ctcarry.com
    http://ctcarry.com
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Got a reply from her & she seems interested as I thought she might. Waiting on Duff.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    Got a reply from her & she seems interested as I thought she might. Waiting on Duff.
    rich [at] ctcarry.com

    Lets set it up.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    I/we, will. The convention is tonight. She has my number & if I dont hear from her in a couple days she will here from me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •