Lori Jackson, the Oxford mother of two who was murdered by a man who police identified as her estranged husband in May 2014, is seen in this screen grab from his Facebook page. Jackson’s mother, Merry Jackson, was also shot. The incident happened after Jackson took out a temporary restraining order against her spouse. File photo.
Gun owners gained the upper hand over domestic violence groups Wednesday in a highly-charged debate over the proposed seizure of firearms from individuals with temporary restraining orders against them.
With less than 24 hours to go until the scheduled adjournment of the Legislature, a bill seeking greater protections for victims of abuse stalled in the Senate, amid opposition from Second Amendment supporters.
“This is the lightning rod that brings these two compelling issues together,” said Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, a ranking member of the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee.
GOP critics of the measure, which requires the surrender of firearms within 24 hours of being served with a temporary restraining order, argued that it violates the due process rights of gun owners and provides a false sense of security to restraining order applicants.
“I do not belittle or deny that there is a need for protections for individuals that are fearful for their health and safety and perhaps for the health and safety of their children and loved ones,” Kissel said. “I don’t think we can deny that. On the other hand, I also want to acknowledge that the Second Amendment, especially for folks in my neck of the woods, is extraordinarily important and revered.”
The current law allows gun owners to hold onto 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 murder of Lori Jackson by her estranged husband after the Oxford mother of two had gotten a temporary restraining order, say that’s far too long.
“Many people have said the most precarious time for a person who is a victim of domestic abuse is the time subsequent to the service of a restraining order,” said Sen. Eric Coleman, D-Bloomfield, the Judiciary Committee’s co-chair.
The push for the bill comes two years after Connecticut lawmakers passed a sweeping gun control law in response to the killing of 20 first graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School by a heavily-armed gunman.
But early Wednesday morning, Senate Democrats decided to table the bill before Republicans could introduce a motion to try to kill the legislation. The current legislative session ends at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, which still gives the Senate time to resurrect the measure, though as each hour passes and the chamber’s attention shifts to the budget, its prospects grow dimmer.
“It’s not over until it’s over,” said Lenny Benedetto, a vice president and a founder of the 18,000-member Connecticut Citizens Defense League. “There will be no relief from anybody in CCDL until the session is over.”
Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, D-New Haven, said the bill addressed a number of flaws in the process of taking out a restraining order.
“There is often so much frustration on the part of petitioners who are trying to navigate the system at time that often involves turmoil in their lives and the anguish of a broken relationship,” Looney said.
Republicans contend that there is currently an option known as a risk warrant that allows victims of domestic violence to make a direct complaint to police, who would then apply for a warrant from the judge to immediately seize firearms from a suspected abuser.
“It’s immediate,” said Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury. “There’s no tap on the door and say, ‘Hi, how are you? You’re in trouble. I’m going to come back in 24 hours and get your firearm.’ ”
Sen. Joe Markley, R-Southington, one of the chamber’s most conservative members and a candidate for state GOP chairman, said gun owners are misunderstood.
“I have developed a deep concern and respect and allegiance and fellowship with people who are strong believers in the Second Amendment and who pursue this hobby with a passion and enjoyment, legally and fruitfully, I believe,” Markley said. “(This) would make it easy on the word of single person without the chance for rebuttal or explanation to take away a person’s firearm, something that is their protection and their pastime and something that is of great value to them.”