Domestic-violence gun-seizure bill returns

Milford State's Attorney Kevin Lawlor stands outside the Superior Courthouse with Merry Jackson, left, and her husband, Douglas Jackson, far left, moments after Scott Gellatly pleaded guilty to killing Lori Jackson, his estranged wife and attempting to murder Merry in Oxford on May 7, 2014. less Milford State's Attorney Kevin Lawlor stands outside the Superior Courthouse with Merry Jackson, left, and her husband, Douglas Jackson, far left, moments after Scott Gellatly pleaded guilty to killing Lori ... more Photo: Michael P. Mayko / Hearst Connecticut Media Photo: Michael P. Mayko / Hearst Connecticut Media Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close Domestic-violence gun-seizure bill returns 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

Round 1 went to gun owners.

Circled on the calendars of domestic-violence prevention groups for a year, Round 2 is here.

A revamped proposal to confiscate the firearms of people served with a temporary restraining order is set to rekindle an emotional debate Monday at the Capitol. It pits two immovable objects against each other. A hearing on the legislation is scheduled for 10:30 a.m.

Victims’ advocates — backed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and a number of police chiefs — say it should be a no-brainer to take weapons out of the hands of those deemed to be a potential threat.

Access to a firearm in a domestic-violence relationship “makes it five times more likely the victim will lose their life,” said Karen Jarmoc, CEO of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

But gun owners claim the measure, which would require the surrender of firearms within 24 hours of being served with a temporary restraining order, violates their due-process rights. They say that nearly half of all temporary restraining orders don’t reach permanent status.

“We still oppose it, based on that there’s no due process to step in front of (a) judge,” said Scott Wilson, president of the 22,000-member Connecticut Citizens Defense League. “It’s a one-sided order where someone may simply have some sort of ax to grind.”

Questions of necessity

The current law allows gun owners under temporary restraining orders to keep their weapons and ammunition until they appear before a judge, which can take up to 14 days. The bill's supporters, influenced by the 2014 death of Oxford mother of two Lori Jackson — whose estranged husband shot her to death after she got a temporary restraining order against him — say that's far too long.

“What we’re talking about is protecting women, children and families from violence in all forms, and this is one piece of that,” said Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Last spring, a similar measure stalled at the 11th hour in the state Senate, with lawmakers consumed by a budget showdown and Democrats tabling the legislation before Republicans could introduce a motion killing it.

State Rep. J.P. Sredzinski, R-Monroe, a Public Safety and Security Committee member, said police responding to domestic-violence incidents already have the authority to execute an ex parte warrant and seize weapons.

“Last year, I had some concerns with it, because the bill didn’t really do anything more than what we have now,” Sredzinski said.

Sredzinski said he would have to review this year’s version of the bill before taking a position on the proposal.

In contrast to last year’s bill, the current version includes a provision for pistol permits and firearms to be returned immediately to an individual if a temporary restraining order is vacated or withdrawn.

“So we want to make it very clear that if the restraining order is not entered, you get your gun back and your permit,” Tong said.

Another major change to the proposal affects law enforcement officers, who would be able to appear before a judge on an expedited basis if served with a temporary restraining order.

The governor’s support

Both this year’s and last year’s bills were introduced by the governor, who has championed gun control reform since the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“This is just common sense — we should be able to work across party lines on these issues,” Malloy said last month. “We should be able to agree that a person with a temporary restraining order should not have a deadly weapon. We are either for protecting victims of domestic violence, or against it.”

The bill’s opponents say that it does not make accommodations for assault weapons and high-capacity magazines — grandfathered-in under the state’s ban — to be returned. They also raised concerns about the waiting period to have weapons returned if a restraining order is lifted, as well as the discretion of state police to seize weapons of individuals that they determine to be a risk.

“So why would we suspend somebody’s rights for 14 days and basically assume they’re guilty?” said state Rep. Alfred Camillo, R-Greenwich. “I don’t see the purpose for this bill.”

Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury, said he wants to hear both sides, but that he has underlying concerns about the legislation.

“In the past, my point has been, we have a process in place currently to remove guns from anyone for that matter, but you’ve got to get a judge to order it,” McLachlan said. “If we can get a judge to issue an arrest warrant, then we can get a judge to take someone’s guns away. Due process is very important in my book, and that’s what I’m concerned about.”

neil.vigdor@scni.com; 203-625-4436; http://twitter.com/gettinviggy