CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

Foley Says He Supports Closing Restraining Order Gun Loophole

by | Sep 17, 2014 5:30am () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Election 2014, Law Enforcement, Legal, Public Safety, Ansonia

The Republican candidate for governor said Tuesday he would support proposed legislation prohibiting people who have temporary restraining orders against them from possessing a firearm.

“I said I support it,” Foley said outside Ansonia City Hall before embarking on a tour of Main Street with Ansonia Mayor David Cassetti.

“Can you put that in a longer sentence?” Ken Dixon, a state political reporter with the Connecticut Post, asked the candidate.

“No. I support it. Is there anything unclear about that?” Foley replied.

Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy proposed the legislation last week during a campaign event in West Hartford.

Click here to continue reading the Valley Independent Sentinel’s report.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

Comments

(10) Archived Comments

posted by: Not that Michael Brown | September 17, 2014  7:35am

“Can you put that in a longer sentence?,” *is* kind of a rude question.  Not sure it required a rude answer though.  Maybe Foley hasn’t formulated an articulate opinion yet.  He’s only had a week since Malloy announced *his* proposal.

posted by: Abba | September 17, 2014  8:11am

What a daring first step!

posted by: MaryReilly | September 17, 2014  8:59am

Isn’t this last week’s news?  http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/malloy_would_remove_guns_early_in_restraining_order_cases/

My mistake.  That’s Dan Malloy taking the position a week earlier.  Foley and Malloy have such similar positions on a lot of things, it’s hard to keep track of who is saying what.

posted by: MGKW | September 17, 2014  10:05am

Atta boy Tom….just keep on dancing…your making Arthur Murray proud! That will certainly endear you to Newtown parents!

posted by: GBear423 | September 17, 2014  10:54am

GBear423

How many TRO’s were issued last year?  Did all of those result in someone being shot???  Is it so easy to seize someone’s property (that is protected by (2) Amendments to the Constitution)? 
On the face of it, this looks like a very bad idea. and something that Foley may regret “being clear” about.

posted by: GBear423 | September 17, 2014  1:31pm

GBear423

in 2013 there were 25,922 Family Violence Protective Orders. 1002 Standing Criminal Restraining Orders. and after Hearings, 2,636 Ex parte Restraining Orders.*

The Ex Parte Restraining Orders seem to be the set we are looking at.  So for 2013 there were over 2600 issued.

The figures on shootings related to Restraining Orders seems more elusive to my limited search.

The thing that bothers me is that number one, its an election year and this Bill seems to be another Malloy/Democrat Party gimmick playing on the embers of the Gun Confiscation Drive.

Number two, it is on its face ignoring what I understand to be due process. What threshold is met for a temporary order? Does this meet the bar in taking away a citizen’s Rights?  I am under the impression no Law was broken to get a TRO, otherwise they would just arrest the person.

Figures gathered from: www.jud.ct.gov/statistics/prot_restrain/

posted by: Joebigjoe | September 17, 2014  2:04pm

Similar to the issue the NFL is now facing. Do you punish someone before due process has occurred and if you do and find out later that they didnt commit a criminal act or in this case a restraining order was taken out under false accusations, who do you then go after?

In this situation I am for taking the guns away but there has to be a severe personal penalty for anyone on the other side of that equation if it’s later determined that the evidence was wrong or false. You take away rights, you’d better be right.

posted by: GBear423 | September 18, 2014  7:16am

GBear423

@Joebigjoe-
Temporary restraining orders are extraordinary measures because they are court orders issued against a party without notice to that party and without giving the party an opportunity to argue against the order.
On the federal level, rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a TRO should not last longer than ten days, and that a TRO may be renewed only for an additional ten days.

So with that definition, do you feel like coming home from work having the State Police on your porch telling you they are there to inspect your house for any/all fire arms and to seize if found, as some person you know or had a verbal altercation with filed a TRO?

The TRO will expire WAY before you receive any property back from the State Police.  I have read in some cases the seized property was dismantled and made unworkable.  Then good luck waiting for the claim on loss.

but sure, it will be okay so long as we can sue the petitioner?? Nobody is thinking about liberty, just knee jerk gun hysteria or being cowed by it.

posted by: Joebigjoe | September 18, 2014  7:52am

GBear thank you. As you know I am very pro 2nd amendment and all of the amendments.

However there are psychos out there that need to have a TRO taken out on them, even without their side of things.

That’s why I want as much focus on the false TRO’s and I dont mean sue someone. That requires an attorney. I would like the arrest and mandatory imprisonment of people that mislead to file TRO’s. Using the power of the government to falsely accuse should be more than a fine and a “dont do that again”. Loss of liberty would be enough of a deterrent to people that would do that to another. Having an officer tell you that you will go to jail would weed out those that are nuts from those that really need protection and have legimate fear that other people in the same situation would have.

Maybe with the gun removal you get to tell your side before that happens?

posted by: LongJohn47 | September 18, 2014  5:20pm

This may be the first sensible thing I’ve heard Foley say, and it’s certainly courageous.  Visconti has been ignored recently, but this gives him an opening.

Bear—with 26,000 family violence protective orders last year, and gun homicides running about 60% family-related, shouldn’t the most lethal tool be taken away from people who have been judged as potentially dangerous?

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network

Categories

Our Partners

Sponsored Messages