Maryland Red Flag confiscation leads to death

[wufan]

https://noqreport.com/2018/11/09/marylands-red-flag-gun-law-claims-first-victim-gary-j-willis/

The article is obviously from a gun rights advocacy site, but that’s where the majority of the coverage is coming from.

Basically, a relative filed a petition due to an incident earlier in the week (incident not described). The police came to confiscate the guns. The accused/defendant/guilty? party resisted and was justifiably shot and killed.

This is an interesting situation of unintended consequences. I’m curious if this is a one off or something that we will be seeing more of in the future.

[Kung Wu]

Isn't this trial-by-hearsay?

Shouldn't the process be: Accuser files red flag petition, both accuser and the accused are required to appear in court, jury decides whether confiscation is warranted, Sheriff confiscates firearms immediately after if jury and judge both agree? And, for the sake of employment, this should have the same status as "jury duty" for both the accuser and the accused, so that they are excused from work without penalty by law.

This way the person has had their constitutional right upheld until a jury of their peers finds that there is an imminent danger, and the person is not being blindsided by the Gestapo knocking on their door to confiscate their weapons without a single shred of warning.

Currently, aren't they stripping a person of their constitutional right without any form of due process, on the word of a single person?

[C0|dB|00ded]

I believe the point of the law is timely intervention. If you warn a shooter that you're coming for his guns all he'll do is speed up his timeline.

I do fully understand the implications of this and the 4th amendment. It's twisted that we even need to go down a path like this but something has to be done. The status quo won't work. Of course we need more good guys with guns, but if we can separate the sickos from theirs at the same time that would be good. The reality is I don't think this law would have stopped even a quarter of the mass shootings that have occurred over the last few years.

I don't think the general public wants the government to do nothing. They are seeking protection. The best we can hope for is that whatever laws are passed, are created with careful observance of the 2nd.


T


...:cool:

[wufan]

The red flag laws vary by state, but in MD’s recently passed version the state can temporarily confiscate guns and ammo for up to seven days prior to trial. At said trial, the judge can extend the confiscation for up to 6 months.

The other weird thing about MD (not sure if true in other states) is that any doctor, law enforcement, or family can file the petition; and that any threatening behavior (with or without the use or threat of use of a firearm) is grounds for immediate confiscation.

I imagine that a heated argument with an ex-wife is grounds for petition.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Very slippery slope. More people are going to die. There better be a felony consequence for reporting someone under false pretenses.

I do agree that we need to get guns out of the hands of insane people and/or people intent on injuring others.


T


...:cool:

[wufan]

Very slippery slope. More people are going to die. There better be a felony consequence for reporting someone under false pretenses.

I do agree that we need to get guns out of the hands of insane people and/or people intent on injuring others.


T


...:cool:

The MD bill specifically states that petitioners can’t be held tesponsible. I think it has more problems than most bills.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Quick question: How could lawmakers be that dumb?


T


...:cool:

[Kung Wu]

Are lawmakers and their bodyguards exempt?

[SHOCKvalue]

There’s some super shady ish that goes on in law enforcement in Maryland. Not sure why that is. Whenever someone on the right tells another person on the right (or libertarian) that LE are the good guys, the Maryland LE culture is example #1 of nope.

The overarching concept of smaller government and less government intervention go together with overbearing LE like a turd in a punchbowl. When government goes wrong, historically, oppressive LE is a pretty good leading indicator of bad ish coming down the pipeline.

[Kung Wu]

Is it heavily unionized or something?

[SHOCKvalue]

I assume any department of any real size is. Here too.

[Kung Wu]

Well ... there is unionized, and then there is "heavily" unionized. I guess I meant super aggressive.

[wufan]

Baltimore certainly has issues.

[ShockTalk]

The red flag laws vary by state, but in MD’s recently passed version the state can temporarily confiscate guns and ammo for up to seven days prior to trial. At said trial, the judge can extend the confiscation for up to 6 months.

The other weird thing about MD (not sure if true in other states) is that any doctor, law enforcement, or family can file the petition; and that any threatening behavior (with or without the use or threat of use of a firearm) is grounds for immediate confiscation.

I imagine that a heated argument with an ex-wife is grounds for petition.

While I don't particularly like the confiscation, I do think it is becoming more necessary. We continually read of the "warning signals" after the fact that shooters have had prior to flipping out. Perhaps some people need a cooling off period. Perhaps these laws would have lead to someone like the former Marine getting the help he really needs (this part has to be followed through with or the individual will simply think of something else to cause havoc).

If a person doesn't want the police knocking on his door to take his guns, maybe he should think twice about what he says or does. If he doesn't, then maybe he should have any weapons taken away, not that he wouldn't think of something else to do, but it's an attempt to defuse a possible bad ending.

I fully understand the implications of the slippery slope of "randomly" taking away guns. However, there seems to be way too many holes currently for those that end up having bad intent. Somehow balance needs to be found.

Question: Why would an individual answer the door with a gun in his hand? Why would he set it down, then feel the need to pick it back up? Such an action cannot have a good outcome for the individual. Somehow, I feel my life is more important than possibly temporarily losing my guns. If it isn't, then I probably do have a problem.

[wufan]

Fair take. Probably a strategy that would have more support from the right if there was an “immediate” trial prior to confiscation. It would certainly be disconcerting if the police showed up at my house to confiscate my firearms at 5:00 am. Once I was notified of the intent of the officers, I would likely close the door to my home until I could get in touch with an attorney. This would be an unpleasant situation.

[shockfan89_]

I guess I don't see the value in this law. Is the intent to allow a "cooling off"? I promise you that most gun owners will not take confiscation very well. Confiscation will probably inflame more gun owners than it will cool off and will likely escalate violence rather than prevent it.

So if I yell and scream at one of my ex-wives for something stupid when they were also yelling and screaming at me, they can make a phone call and have my guns confiscated? That would likely take an incident where no harm would have been done to anyone, and lead to the deaths of multiple people. Seems like a VERY slippery slope.

Personally speaking, the only time I would ever consider using my firearms (for a reason other than self-defense), is in defense of my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which by definition of the constitution, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I also wouldn't be excited to be a police officer executing these confiscations. Now that the word is out that the police are going to take your guns or kill you, there will probably be more people prepared to defend themselves.

[ShockTalk]

My understanding is that, so far, Maryland reports that around half of the petitions are granted. Just guessing, but with this being a new law, I would say that there is a "back log" of people who felt threatened or had concerns about a gun owner that could not have been addressed earlier. Therefore, with the back log gone and safe gun owners understanding the new law, that % should go down. In other words, if you act like a responsible person, you shouldn't have a problem. Can mistakes be made? Sure. However, if you have not given cause and the accuser has no proof, even a mistaken confiscation should be rectified. Acting like a hot-head doesn't give warm fuzzies about being a responsible gun owner.

"Personally speaking, the only time I would ever consider using my firearms (for a reason other than self-defense), is in defense of my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which by definition of the constitution, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I also wouldn't be excited to be a police officer executing these confiscations. Now that the word is out that the police are going to take your guns or kill you, there will probably be more people prepared to defend themselves."

Without proof that such a law is creating a "gun grab", that would be a foolish thing to do and, in fact, probably giving cause where there may have been none. How did the individual in the story even know what the police wanted? Do you think it is smart to answer the door with a gun in his hand, particularly if it is the police? And if he did, and set the gun down, how smart was it to pick that gun back up? The outcome was very predictable. And if he was not killed or shot, he'd have given reason to go to jail. Then where would his gun rights be?

I, myself, said this is a slippery slope. There needs to be just as much care taken to protect the gun owner as an accuser or the legitimate purpose of the law goes out the window.

[shockfan89_]

One possible scenario is people beating on the door at 5am, the homeowner answers the door with a gun. Upon identifying themselves as police officers the homeowner puts the gun down. Upon realizing this is likely a violation of the 4th amendment, a clear violation of the 2nd amendment, and with no prior notice, and no evidence of a crime being committed, and no probable cause, and no due process, the homeowner decides to defend himself against this illegal entry.

I agree it would be foolish, but it is also foolish to enter someone's house without notice and try to enforce a law that might be broken. Like we both stated, a slippery slope to say the least...

[wufan]

My understanding is that, so far, Maryland reports that around half of the petitions are granted. Just guessing, but with this being a new law, I would say that there is a "back log" of people who felt threatened or had concerns about a gun owner that could not have been addressed earlier. Therefore, with the back log gone and safe gun owners understanding the new law, that % should go down. In other words, if you act like a responsible person, you shouldn't have a problem. Can mistakes be made? Sure. However, if you have not given cause and the accuser has no proof, even a mistaken confiscation should be rectified. Acting like a hot-head doesn't give warm fuzzies about being a responsible gun owner.

"Personally speaking, the only time I would ever consider using my firearms (for a reason other than self-defense), is in defense of my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which by definition of the constitution, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I also wouldn't be excited to be a police officer executing these confiscations. Now that the word is out that the police are going to take your guns or kill you, there will probably be more people prepared to defend themselves."

Without proof that such a law is creating a "gun grab", that would be a foolish thing to do and, in fact, probably giving cause where there may have been none. How did the individual in the story even know what the police wanted? Do you think it is smart to answer the door with a gun in his hand, particularly if it is the police? And if he did, and set the gun down, how smart was it to pick that gun back up? The outcome was very predictable. And if he was not killed or shot, he'd have given reason to go to jail. Then where would his gun rights be?

I, myself, said this is a slippery slope. There needs to be just as much care taken to protect the gun owner as an accuser or the legitimate purpose of the law goes out the window.

Half of the 18 petitions were granted leading up to this incident, so not a lot of petitions and not a lot of seizures. I’m curious where this is going.

[ShockTalk]

Me, too. Given this "article" was more of an editorial, I would have liked to have had more insight into the particulars of the law, especially the gun holder's protection of rights (if any).

[shockfan89_]

This article (ABC News, dated 11/8) states there have been 114 warrants served since 10/1/18. If the 50% grant level is holding up, that means 228 complaints have been filed, so right at 6 complaints per day. That is getting to the area of concern...

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-red-flag-law

EDIT: Maryland has had 3 mass shootings in 2018 resulting in 13 deaths (including the shooters). At the rate they are going, even if the red flag law prevents 100% of mass shootings, they will have about the same number of deaths annually.

[jdshock]

A lot of doomsday scenarios in here. It's just a basic foundation of our criminal system that we allow a relatively small, temporary limitation on constitutional rights while waiting to investigate or make a final determination on whether a more severe limitation should be put in place. For example, it's a relatively low standard that allows an officer to stop and frisk someone on the street. It's a higher standard to take someone into custody, and then obviously an even higher standard to actually convict someone. Each involves a violation of general freedoms allowed by our constitution, but each involves a different level in terms of the actual limitation put in place and therefore a different standard that must be met to allow the limitation.

shockfan89_ - You said that you would use firearms to defend your constitutional right to bear arms which "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." But certainly, I would hope, you aren't taking weaponry to schools that ban weapons to protest the infringement on your constitutional right? Or what about to the local court house? You would, again hopefully, never think to use firearms in those settings simply to protest their banning of weaponry. Or should a convicted felon illegally obtain a firearm in order to protest laws preventing his ownership of weapons? Citing the "shall not be infringed" language certainly seems like it's a helpful argument, but the Supreme Court and most reasonable people have come to the agreement that yes, it is okay to infringe Second Amendment rights in certain scenarios.

[shockfan89_]

A lot of doomsday scenarios in here. It's just a basic foundation of our criminal system that we allow a relatively small, temporary limitation on constitutional rights while waiting to investigate or make a final determination on whether a more severe limitation should be put in place. For example, it's a relatively low standard that allows an officer to stop and frisk someone on the street. It's a higher standard to take someone into custody, and then obviously an even higher standard to actually convict someone. Each involves a violation of general freedoms allowed by our constitution, but each involves a different level in terms of the actual limitation put in place and therefore a different standard that must be met to allow the limitation.

shockfan89_ - You said that you would use firearms to defend your constitutional right to bear arms which "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." But certainly, I would hope, you aren't taking weaponry to schools that ban weapons to protest the infringement on your constitutional right? Or what about to the local court house? You would, again hopefully, never think to use firearms in those settings simply to protest their banning of weaponry. Or should a convicted felon illegally obtain a firearm in order to protest laws preventing his ownership of weapons? Citing the "shall not be infringed" language certainly seems like it's a helpful argument, but the Supreme Court and most reasonable people have come to the agreement that yes, it is okay to infringe Second Amendment rights in certain scenarios.

Banning weapons at a location like a courthouse or school does not infringe upon my constitutional rights, I can simply choose whether or not I want to go to those locations. That is a HUGE difference from someone forcing their way into your home, based on hearsay, and confiscating your personal property without due process. In fact, the constitution literally says that can't happen. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, .."

My point is, if you beat on my door at 5am, where my wife and children are sleeping, and try to force your way in, unannounced, I don't care if you have a badge or a warrant, especially if I have committed no crime, haven't been charge with a crime, someone is likely to die in that scenario.

Based on all the fake news, I would be willing to remove the 1st amendment right to freedom of the press until someone can prove that their reporting is accurate to an impartial panel (or maybe a federal judge appointed by Trump). Until then, their constitutional right should just be temporarily limited until a final determination can be made on the validity of their claim. Isn't that what we are saying here? Guilty until proven innocent?

[jdshock]

Of course it's a huge difference. I'm just saying it's not an absolute right. Your analysis is backwards about the public school and courthouse locations. Typically, government locations would be the specific places where the government CANNOT infringe on your rights. They are specifically placing a limitation on your right.

I'm just helping your argument. Citing the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is not persuasive. It absolutely can be infringed. We have agreed about that over and over again.

[shockfan89_]

I understand what you're saying, so basically this is just the next small step towards taking away our constitutional rights so it shouldn't alarm us. The first step (banning at courthouses and schools is already in place), this next small step is coming into your home and taking your personal property?

My point of emphasis on SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is that it was intended as an absolute right. I guess I feel the exact opposite of you. We have already infringed too much, we shouldn't allow more, when you seem to be of the opinion that we have already infringed, what's a little more infringement.

[jdshock]

Not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that citing the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is a bad argument. There are good arguments to be made.

Now, alternatively, you could tell me public schools and government buildings should not be allowed to ban firearms. That would certainly be consistent. I'd know that your beliefs are not in line with the vast majority of people in this country or a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent, but it would be consistent.

[wufan]

I agree that resisting this is a bad idea. The question is, should someone be forced to make that decision? Certainly jdshock is correct that we place limitations on our freedom for public safety, but the above cited examples are irrelevant to this scenerio. For the convict, due process has determined that firearm ownership is off limits. For schools and courts, those are government properties, and preclusion of carrying in such areas is ascribed to the populous and not the individual. It is quite a different matter to infringe on the rights of an individual without due process, and further to do so by entering his/her home.

The only thing that that makes this potentially tennable is the temporary nature of the ruling.

[jdshock]

What does the phrase "those are government properties, and preclusion of carrying in such areas is ascribed to the populous and not the individual" mean? That is absolutely a limitation on the individual's right to bear arms. The individual cannot do so in that specific government location.

It's a complicated topic, but the point isn't that "the only thing that makes this potentially tenable is the temporary nature of the ruling." They didn't just stumble into that and got lucky that it's a part of the law. That is the whole purpose of the law. Because it is temporary, there is a lower standard than if they were permanently seizing the weapons. If I call the police and say that I saw someone holding a person hostage, they are probably going to go check it out. If I say someone threatened me with a weapon, and the police arrive and the person has a weapon, the police will probably take the person into custody. All of this is just based on my statement to the police without any investigation into my credibility. The investigation will happen subsequently. That's how these things work.

Now, if I call the police and I say my neighbor shouldn't have weapons because he refuses to wear his tin foil hat and I'm worried aliens are going to use mind control to make him kill me... well, then I hope the Maryland police will not even temporarily confiscate the person's weapons.

[wufan]

So the preclusion of the populous is not an act against an individual, in that there is no violation of due process or illeagal search and seizure.

I didn’t mean anything specific about temporary nature, other than that it gives me pause to reflect on what are the best ways to maintain public safety. I don’t know the answer, but this seems reasonableish.

Beyond the rights of the individual thing, if the petition for this particular case was because of potential suicide, well they failed.

[Kung Wu]

For example, it's a relatively low standard that allows an officer to stop and frisk someone on the street.

When they truly believe that person has committed a crime.

It's a higher standard to take someone into custody, ...

When there is some high likelihood that the person has committed a crime.

and then obviously an even higher standard to actually convict someone.

Because, beyond a reasonable doubt, they have committed a crime.

shockfan89_ - You said that you would use firearms to defend your constitutional right to bear arms which "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." But certainly, I would hope, you aren't taking weaponry to schools that ban weapons to protest the infringement on your constitutional right? Or what about to the local court house? You would, again hopefully, never think to use firearms in those settings simply to protest their banning of weaponry. Or should a convicted felon illegally obtain a firearm in order to protest laws preventing his ownership of weapons? Citing the "shall not be infringed" language certainly seems like it's a helpful argument, but the Supreme Court and most reasonable people have come to the agreement that yes, it is okay to infringe Second Amendment rights in certain scenarios.

The context being discussed is clearly when someone comes to your private property, knocks on your door, and demands your guns -- and you have not been accused of committing any crime.

Forget the 2nd amendment, isn't this clearly a 4th amendment violation?

[jdshock]

I definitely think it's a fourth amendment question, not a second amendment one. That's why I gave the examples I did about taking people into custody. This is my point, I think it's closer to the first or second example, where someone called in and said "JDShock is committing X, Y, and Z crimes!" In my opinion, that probably justifies an investigation of some sort no matter the situation.