Unconstitutional Law Took Effect in Connecticut October 1st

From Snopes.com

Yesterday's Middletown Press reported on a new law that went into effect on Oct. 1st requiring those subjected to an ex parte restraining order to surrender their firearms (but not knives, bows, arrows, harpoons, spear guns or other dangerous objects) within 24 hrs of the order being served.

Liberal Democrat and domestic violence victim State Rep. Robyn Porter of New Haven, who lead the charge to pass this bill said, “I feel that my right, and any other victim’s rights, supersede the right to carry a gun.” 

In the Press article, Rep. Porter says she unloaded her ex-husband’s gun out of fear. She had his gun in her hands, so why didn't she a) hide it from him so she could use it herself if need be, or b) remove it from the home? Why did she stay in the home with him, if she was so concerned for her safety?
Porter also says, “The ultimate constitutional right is the right to live”. Removing one person's right and means to protect him or herself without due process, leaves that person vulnerable and violates their rights.

Lastly, where are the men in the victims families. Don't these (mostly) women have fathers, brother, uncles, cousins? Where are they? Why don't they step up to the plate and protect their own family members?

Rest assured, no man will get away with abusing one of my daughters or nieces or granddaughters. In the first place, they would hear from me personally along with a few other male family members, (from both sides) and in the second; my home is open to them, they would not have to stay in an unhealthy environment.

It seems it is time for Men (if there are any) to take pro-active measures to protect their own family members, rather than create laws that will prove to be abused, as has been the previous law.

Post script:
In spite of its stated, lofty purpose, this law is still a violation of one's due process rights and is unconstitutional.  There no protection in this new law for the victim of a false statement. (Not that there was ever any protection for the victim of  false statement, in the first place.) 

Myself the victim of a frivolous restraining order; had this law been in effect, it would have required that I surrender my property, based on the false statement of the accuser, without the benefit of a hearing.  Neighbor Bernice Rosa was upset over a blog post (which had nothing to do with her), and filed for a restraining order, in retaliation, alleging all sorts of fantastic lies.

The state police investigated my complaint of a false statement against the accuser, and the prosecutor declined to pursue it. Because of budget cuts, the state's attorney doesn't have the staff or the money to pursue such "trivial" matters as people using the judicial system for revenge. Bernice Rosa committed perjury against me. There is no penalty for purgery.