Hasn't prior restraint been ruled unconstitutional or something?

I received this story in an email yesterday, but it included a link to one of my LEAST favorite sites, WorldNetDaily, that is a rag so biased, that what they print can barely be considered journalism. I generally take everything I read in the Weekly World News of the Internet, as I like to refer to them, with a grain of salt until I find a similar story in a more credible news source. The fact that I am actually linking to a CNN story in the title of this post should tell you how low my opinion of World(Fundamentalist)NutDaily is.

Nonetheless... this particular story appears to be accurate.

Some Connecticut gun enthusiasts are up in arms about a new law signed this week by Gov. John Rowland that gives police the right to seize firearms from the home of a person whom authorities believe may be considering a criminal act.

It's considered to be the first law in the nation that allows confiscation of a gun before the owner commits an act of violence.

I realize prior restraint has been ruled unconstitutional in Near v. Minnesota in 1931. The case itself pertained to prior restraint of the press, when the Supreme Court ruled that the state had no power or authority to prevent a publication from publishing a story, except in extreme cases when national security is at stake. Subsequent cases also dealt with First Amendment issues.

I would think, however, that a constitutionally enumerated and protected right, would also be protected under these decisions. I would think that allowing a government to violate the Second Amendment rights of an individual who has committed no crime would be illegal, much like it's illegal to violate the First Amendment rights of individuals and organizations, merely because they might abuse it.

Gun control nutbags have often quoted what they perceive to be limitations on the First Amendment as justification for limiting the Second. "You can't yell 'FIRE!'in a crowded theater," they claim. Well, actually, you can -- if there is a fire. And much like state legislators do not mandate theater managers to duct tape patrons' mouths shut, just in case they might incite panic and yell, "FIRE!" illegally, they also have no right to mandate the confiscation of a gun, just in case an individual may use it in a crime.

So why is it that Connecticut is allowing this clearly unconstitutional law to stand? Panic.

Connecticut passed the law after the shootings deaths of four people at the state's lottery headquarters last year by one employee whose behavior had worried co-workers.

"It gives police the authority when it's clear that someone's become dangerous -- and you know they have guns -- to go in and take the guns before a tragedy takes place," said Rep. Michael Lawler.

One batshiat crazy nutjob acted weird and went on a rampage, and ergo, they feel justified in treating everyone like a potential criminal.

When is it clear that someone has become dangerous? My idea of worrisome behavior may be quite different from the paranoid loon who sits in the cubicle next to me and soils his tidy-whities every time I snap my gum too loudly.

Are the police to act like psychologists now, without actually having the training?

Since when is it right or moral to allow the subjective views of others to affect people's rights?

What prevents vindictive ex spouses, paranoid neighbors, or former friends with whom one has gotten into what one thought was merely an argument from turning one in on the suspicion of "dangerous" behavior?

Look, I don't want dangerous, violent nutjobs walking around armed any more than anyone else does. However, this law makes the average citizen's rights subject to other people's arbitrary whims and irrational fears, potentially disarming the populace and rendering them vulnerable against the very nutbags from whom the state claims protection is needed. Fact of the matter is crazy is crazy (deep, I know), and a violent nutjob will just as soon kill you with a kitchen utensil as he would with a gun, and the former would probably hurt more!

For those "journalistic" types who want to use prior restraint on gun owners, I'd like to see how loudly you howl if your computer was confiscated, just in case you engage in libel.