Maryland Red Flag confiscation leads to death

[Kung Wu]

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.

I would agree.

If someone makes an accusation of a crime, or potential crime, then that's one thing -- and there is a ton of precedent and plenty of laws on the books to handle that situation.

But this is a matter of Linda saying, "Larry got really mad and cussed at me, so you should takes his guns". That's a completely different animal.

Without the accusation of a crime or the reasonable suspicion of a soon to be committed crime, this is a clear violation of the 4th. You have to get to the point where you believe the person is going to commit a specific crime, or you are way overstepping.

Here's a slippery slope fallacy, that may not be so fallacious one day: Why stop at guns? If you really think Larry is going to do something bad because he yelled at Linda, impound his car. Since we're in the new business of seizing property without probable cause, why not?

[shockfan89_]

The entire issue here is due process (aside from the fact this is just a stupid law). Like Kung Wu said, why just guns, why not knives, why not cars, why not money? This is just like the me too / Kavanaugh debate when a woman must be believed. No, allegations must be taken seriously and facts must be treated as facts. Just because someone says something, it doesn't make it true, it never has. That is why we have due process, that is why we have innocent until proven guilty.

The Maryland law, as I understand it, allows 5 groups of people to file petitions for red flag. Law enforcement, health professionals, spouse or family member, someone the person is dating or has children with, current or former legal guardian. That encompasses a lot of people, and there are bad people in all those groups. What if my neighbor is a nurse and doesn't like me? Can he/she call and say I threatened her? This just gives entirely too much power to someone to carry out a personal grievance.

Question - So if there have been 114 warrants served, how many people have been found to be unstable, incarcerated, committed? Do the others have legal standing to sue the State for false imprisonment, illegal search and seizure, deformation, ..? If warrants are issued 50% of the time, who are the 114 people that filed false petitions and how many have been convicted of perjury or referred for prosecution? What if the state seizes someone's guns and the person use a knife to stab someone to death? Didn't the state admit they knew this person was a danger but only took their guns and still allowed them to commit a crime using other methods?

[jdshock]

I think the car analogy is similar enough. I imagine there are procedures by which you can already get physician assistance in terms of getting a license revoked involuntarily, in many states. If someone's children were to get a primary physician's recommendation to re-test the individual, I think many states would require the individual to re-test to get their license.

Cars and guns are a little different in the sense that not having a car license is seen as a pretty major deterrent to driving a vehicle, and it doesn't prevent you from owning a vehicle. Whereas, if you don't need a license to own a gun, the only thing they have to confiscate is the gun itself. Alternatively, even if you did need a license to own a gun, confiscating the license would necessitate confiscating the weapon since possession at that point would be a crime. On the other hand, owning a firearm is a protected constitutional right and owning a vehicle is not (for some reason, the founders missed that one).

I would imagine this is going to be litigated. I also imagine the knee jerk articles that have come out so far are not doing a great job dealing with the nuances here. They either are saying (1) this is a great law and it will save lives or (2) this is a terrible law meant to steal your guns. At some point, someone will need to read the full law. In my opinion, courts will likely look at the standard imposed by the law enforcement agency or commission to see if they had a reasonable basis to confiscate the guns and whether constitutional law means you only need a reasonable basis. They'll consider how temporary the confiscation really was, etc.

[jdshock]

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

Where did you see this? I'm not super up to speed on this law, but I believe the petition has to be signed under oath: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/ch...50_hb1302E.pdf

Theoretically, you could face perjury charges for lying and you could face a civil action for lying, I would think.

[shockfan89_]

I also read that people "could" face perjury charges for lying.

[ShockTalk]

We're kind of trying to guess the number of teeth a horse has left in his mouth without opening the mouth. Part of the problem here is that we have no way of knowing (to my knowledge) where lines are being drawn, or if they are even being consistent, in which petitions are granted and which ones are not. Sure, we'll probably know a lot more in a particular case where a person is shot, but probably nothing in all other cases. Are there public records that spell out why an individuals guns were not returned or if and when they may ever be?

Obviously, this law smells of "Big Brother" whether it is or not. Are there checks and balances that prevent the law from becoming more "loosely" used as time goes on? Gun holders look at this law as a way around their right to bear arms and that it can be abused. We generally live under the idea that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This law may go under the idea that one might possibly be guilty of something in the future. For discussion purposes, until we know where guidelines/standards are drawn, or if they are somewhat arbitrary, on what petitions are thrown out, what ones are not, who does and who does not get their property back after the dust clears, it's going to be looked at as a questionable infringement of rights.

[shockfan89_]

I see it as a huge concern that police can show up at someone's door and demand entry and the person likely has no idea why they are even there. I understand the "element of surprise", but that also adds an element of confrontation. It reminds me of the "swatting" event we had earlier this year.

This just can't end well IMHO. You see the political divide in this country and how people are confronted for their political beliefs. How much of a stretch is it to think someone will file a petition and claim someone is a neo-Nazi or nationalist or racist?

[wufan]

Where did you see this? I'm not super up to speed on this law, but I believe the petition has to be signed under oath: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/ch...50_hb1302E.pdf

Theoretically, you could face perjury charges for lying and you could face a civil action for lying, I would think.

A PETITIONER WHO, IN GOOD FAITH, FILES A PETITION UNDER THIS SUBTITLE IS NOT CIVILLY OR CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FILING THE PETITION.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/amds/bil_0002/hb1302_25877801.pdf

It also states that the petition is under oath and subject to perjury...so, I’m not a lawyer and would appreciate an explanation.

[shockfan89_]

In other words, I may not actually be a racist, but you know I support Trump, and you think he is a racist, so the fact that you petitioned to have my guns removed "in good faith", you cannot be held civilly or criminally liable.

I would think it means if you have sufficient evidence to convince a judge to issue a warrant, you probably don't have much liability. Now if you made up the story (which would be very hard to prove), then you probably do have liability. Basically it is one persons word against another which isn't enough to do anything in court, but could be enough to have the police show up at your door and confiscate your firearms. Again, what could go wrong with this...

[jdshock]

Yeah, I think the "good faith" component is the key there. If you have a good faith reason to believe what you're saying, you're probably in the clear. Otherwise, I'd imagine you're subject to the same perjury and libel laws as everyone else.

[shockfan89_]

Interestingly we have two of the Kavanaugh accusers that have either admitted they were lying or recanted all or part of their story after the fact. The Senate referred these two cases to the AG for prosecution. I would guess nothing will ever come of the referrals for prosecution, and your chances of prosecution if wrongly accused under the Red Flag Gun Law are likely similar. Either way, if you were innocent, the real damage has already been done by that time regardless of prosecuting the false accusers.

[Kung Wu]

I'm spread too thin to solve Maryland's problems. Does Kansas have a similar law on the books?

[wufan]

I'm spread too thin to solve Maryland's problems. Does Kansas have a similar law on the books?

No. There are 12 states with red flag laws. California is one.

Kansas is super “liberal” (classical definition) with gun rights. As a legal resident of Kansas you can buy a rifle or shotgun at any age and posses a handgun at 18. There is no licensing requirement to conceal carry a firearm in Kansas.

[Kung Wu]

No. There are 12 states with red flag laws. California is one.

Kansas is super “liberal” (classical definition) with gun rights. As a legal resident of Kansas you can buy a rifle or shotgun at any age and posses a handgun at 18. There is no licensing requirement to conceal carry a firearm in Kansas.

It's a great day to be a Kansan!

[C0|dB|00ded]

You plannin' on goin' a little nuts K-Wu? ;)

Better get your Molon Labe tattoo.


T


...:cool:

[Kung Wu]

I am not even going to Google that.