Senate approves gun seizures in violent domestic breakups

Sen. Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield, was one of the Republicans who voted Monday for legislation that would force people to immediately turn over their fire arms after a domestic partner asks for a temporary restraining order. less Sen. Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield, was one of the Republicans who voted Monday for legislation that would force people to immediately turn over their fire arms after a domestic partner asks for a temporary ... more Photo: Brian A. Pounds / Hearst Connecticut Media Buy photo Photo: Brian A. Pounds / Hearst Connecticut Media Image 1 of / 14 Caption Close Senate approves gun seizures in violent domestic breakups 1 / 14 Back to Gallery

HARTFORD — Accused domestic abusers would have to surrender firearms within 24 hours under legislation that won final approval in the Senate on Monday afternoon and now heads to the governor for his expected signature.

The bill was approved 23-13 after a two-and-three-quarter hour debate, in which Republicans failed in three attempts to amend it. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who proposed the legislation, indicated right after the vote that he supports the bill, which would require alleged domestic abusers — in most cases, men — to immediately give up their guns and ammunition if their partners seek restraining orders.

The goal is to protect women from the increased lethality at a critical point in a relationship: when they are trying to leave their abusers. About 14 domestic homicides occur annually in Connecticut, half of which are caused by guns.

While 5,000 temporary restraining orders are issued annually, about half result in permanent orders. The bill, which was approved last week in the House, would require court hearings within seven days and if judges decide against extending the orders, weapons would be returned within five days later. Currently, court hearings are held 14 days later.

“This is a very important bill,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney, noting that the issue goes back to the summer and fall of 2014, when a task force found that compared to other states, Connecticut fell short in protected victims of domestic abuse.

Recalling Oxford killing

Looney said the current procedure which can drag on 14 days or more, can be demoralizing and stressful.

“To focus to a greater extent on the possible inconvenience of gun owners at the expense of the great danger to victims of domestic violence is not the balance that we should strike in looking at this issue of policy,” he said. “That’s why this bill is exactly what we should be doing in this area.”

Republican lawmakers including Sen. Tony Hwang, of Fairfield, Rep. Toni Boucher, of Wilton and Sen. L. Scott Frantz,, of Greenwich, voted with Democrats in favor of the bill. Sen. Catherine Osten, D-Sprague, voted against the bill.

“We have a moral obligation to work to prevent needless tragedy and to make this the law,” Malloy said in a statement just after the vote. “Women in abusive relationships are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a firearm. Between 2000 through 2012, Connecticut averaged 14 intimate partner homicides per year, and firearms were the most commonly used weapons. When an instance of domestic violence rises to the point that a temporary restraining order is needed, we must do everything we can to prevent tragedy.”

During the Senate debate and last week’s discussion of the bill on the House floor, lawmakers cited the 2014 murder of Lori Jackson in her parents’ Oxford home. Jackson had been unable to have her estranged husband, Scott Gellatly, served with a restraining order because he ventured out of state. He bought a handgun in Massachusetts and shot her mother, Merry Jackson, in the face, before killing the 32-year-old mother of twin toddlers, who were sleeping nearby. Gellatly was recently sentenced to 45 years in prison.

Gun-rights argument

Carolyn Treiss, executive director of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, said that the time of greatest threat for intimate-partner violence is right after a restraining order is served. Currently, targets of restraining orders don’t have to surrender weapons until a judge rules.

“This was never a ‘gun rights’ bill,” Treiss said. “Rather, it’s a common-sense prevention of tragedy and a real victory for women’s safety.”

Republican opponents of the bill said it would infringe on the constitutional rights of lawful gun owners who could have their weapons taken away without due process. One of the Republican amendments would have required the targets of temporary restraining order (TRO) to be served with the orders in person, rather than marshals having the option of leaving off the orders at the targets’ homes if they were not home.

While opposition against the legislation emerged during a daylong public hearing earlier this year, there was little evidence of gun-rights activists in the Capitol on Monday. Republican opponents kept the debate going for nearly three hours, though.

“I do believe we have to honor the Constitution, we have to honor the Second Amendment and we have to honor the rights of individuals,” said Sen. Rob Kane, R-Watertown, whose district includes Seymour and Oxford.

State Sen. Michael A. McLachlan, R-Danbury, said that “persistent” advocates in his district who favored the bill asked for his support got him thinking long and hard. The three GOP amendments, however, clarified his objections, particularly in cases where guns are taken away but judges decline to issue TROs.

McLachlan ultimately voted against the bill.

“I will say that the process of protecting the rights of an individual from a failed TRO is of big importance to be,” he said.

“The right to live is more important than any other right we have,” said Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Killingly, who has worked in recent years on domestic-violence issues.

kdixon@ctpost.com