More in sorrow than in Anger?

States look to gun seizure law after mass killings | Fox News:

HARTFORD, Conn. – As state officials across the U.S. grapple with how to prevent mass killings like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and near the University of California, Santa Barbara, some are turning to a gun seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.
 Connecticut's law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that a person is a danger to themselves or others. A court hearing must be held within 14 days to determine whether to return the guns or authorize the state to hold them for up to a year.

This is happening in the "Shall Not Comply" state.

Okay, the "state officials" say ... if you "shall not comply", we'll simply come take your guns.

This, in the country whose Liar-In-Chief Commander-In-Chief made it a point to publically state:

"I will not take your [guns] away."

What is this?

Usually, we expect at least a Dinner-and-a-Movie first.

Disclaimer: no, Obama is not taking your guns away.
But he has established a climate where the individual states (which are obliged to support the Constitutional imperative to allow no confiscation of firearms "without due process" via the Emerson ruling) feel free to enact draconian anti-constitutional laws.

Why is this wrong?

Because the Second Amendment says so, and the courts have supported this interpretation since 1999!

The only acceptable reason for confiscating firearms, is if the owner has clearly demonstrated that he or she has DEMONSTRATED a tendency toward violence ... such as by committing a violent crime.

The mere allegation by another person that they believe the owner is capable of violence is insufficient, if it is not supported by tangible evidence that they have in fact committed "gun violence" in the past.

Is this a "loophole"?  Yes.  Consider the Santa Barbara shootings ... the police were warned by the shooter's parents that he was out of control, but their hands were legally tied.   The shooter's psychiatrist  psychologist  "therapist" was unable to assert that the shooter had made statements of intent to injure or kill other people.

Now consider the other side of the equation:   assume that an acquaintance or a family member was involved in a disagreement with the gun owner.    By this law, the police could be called into what may only be a 'squabble' and act as an agent of someone who has a hidden agenda.

Here, the state is a dupe.  The firearms owner is a victim.

And his Constitutional Rights have been violated. His private property has been confiscated.  His "guilt" or "innocence of the (informal) charges have not been adjudicated.

The courts are not generally allowed to accept 'hearsay" testimony during a trial, but here the firearms owner has not even been allowed to appear before a judge; he has been railroaded, and Connecticut gun owners are now being railroaded as well.