It's hard to imagine anyone objecting to taking a gun away from someone so unstable that a judge saw fit to issue a temporary order prohibiting him from contacting people who have come to fear him.

There is a history of people receiving or about to receive restraining orders using their guns to kill those who asked for protection. So why not require every precaution to avoid it happening again?

Yet the Second Amendment purists and National Rifle Association zealots who see something sinister in any gun legislation are fighting a bill that would do just that.

The bill in question would allow the removal of guns from anyone issued a temporary restraining order and awaiting a hearing to determine if the order should be permanent. At the present time, a gun can't be removed before a judicial hearing. If, of course, the permanent order is rejected, the gun would be returned to the owner.

In testimony before the General Assembly's Judiciary Committee, Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman put it well when she pointed out that, "If a judge believes that a victim faces an immediate and present physical danger, that judge should have tools necessary to protect that victim."

But to critics of the bill, it's just one more burden on lawful gun owners and another example of legislative overreaction to the killing of 26 children and adults in Newtown that has seen Connecticut adopt some of the nation's most stringent gun regulations.

How this bill aimed at someone who might hurt or kill another person is a burden for lawful gun owners is beyond our comprehension.

Its need is evident, despite assertions that a law allowing the removal of guns and ammunition from a person posing a threat to himself or others already covers the proposed bill. Michael Lawlor, the undersecretary for criminal justice management in the Office of Policy and Management, said the existing law, sponsored by Rep. Paul O'Neill after the 1998 killings at a state lottery office, "has been very effective" but it doesn't cover restraining orders. Despite the 1998 law, those receiving temporary restraining orders can now keep their firearms pending a hearing on a permanent order.

The NRA apparently agrees this bill is different in arguing that the restraining order legislation violates due process and allows the burglar coming to your home to be better protected than you are.

But the family of Lori Gellatly wasn't visited by a burglar at her mother's Oxford home last May. The intruder was Scott Gellatly, who had received three restraining orders filed against him by Lori, his wife, her mother and his former wife when he invaded the mother's home, killing his wife and wounding her mother, Merry Jackson, while the Gellatlys twin babies slept in an upstairs room.

Mr. Gellatly, now awaiting trial for murder and attempted murder, was due to appear the day after the shootings at a hearing on a permanent restraining order, which would have probably disarmed him.

The hearing had been delayed because of a difficulty in serving the temporary orders, which brings us to a second bill that would repair the way restraining orders are served.

Restraining orders are considered just like any other legal document, to be served by a state marshal, working as an independent contractor and paid $30 for each document he or she successfully serves. The current law ridiculously requires the victim to find the marshal to serve the restraining order.

Marshals are also said to be reluctant to serve a restraining order, which is more dangerous than serving other court papers for the same $30. In some jurisdictions, 30 to 40 percent of the orders are never served.

So legislation, sponsored by the Connecticut Coalition against Domestic Violence, would require restraining orders be served by armed police officers when the recipient is known to possess firearms.

These are sensible, necessary legislative proposals. It is mind-boggling they face opposition.