link

FERNDALE, Md. -- Two police officers ordered to remove firearms from a house on a "red flag" protective order fatally shot an armed man Monday morning in Ferndale, Maryland, police said. Anne Arundel County Police arrived at the house at 5:17 a.m. to remove guns from the home under a new law that temporarily allows for the seizure of firearms if a person shows "red flags" that they are a danger to themselves or others, CBS Baltimore reports.

A man, later identified by police as 61-year-old Gary Willis, answered his door with a gun in his hand, Anne Arundel County Police Sgt. Jacklyn Davis said.

Sgt. Davis said the man put the gun down. But then, according to a police press release, Willis "became irate" when officers attempted to serve the order. Willis picked the weapon up again, "a fight ensued over the gun," and a shot was fired, Davis said. The first shot didn't strike anyone, but the officers then fatally shot the man, Sgt. Davis said.

Neither of the officers were injured. Their names weren't released.

It wasn't clear why the "red flag" order was issued. A spokeswoman for the Maryland Judiciary denied a request from the Baltimore Sun to release protection order requests associated with the home, citing the law which states the orders are confidential unless a court rules otherwise.

Michele Willis, the man's niece, told The Baltimore Sun that one of her aunts requested the protective order against Willis, but she declined to say why.

She said police stopped by the home to speak with her uncle Sunday night. He lived above the garage and several other family members also lived in the home. Those who were there during the shooting were being questioned by police Monday morning, The Sun reported.

Willis said her uncle "likes to speak his mind," but "wouldn't hurt anybody."

"I'm just dumbfounded right now," she said. "They didn't need to do what they did."

Maryland is one of several states that passed "red flag" laws since the high school mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, earlier this year. Maryland's law, which went into effect Oct. 1, is more broad in that it allows certain health care providers to seek an order, in addition to family members and law enforcement.

---

That's CBS's take on it. Elsewhere I read that they pounded on his door at 5:15 in the morning. I am sure I would answer the door armed with a weapon if suddenly that early in the morning someone was pounding on my door! Also, in the article I read, he refused to turn over his weapons, a scuffle broke out, his gun went off, and the rest of the officers opened up on him because "they feared for their own safety."

Bottom Line: If someone who knows you and knows you own guns decides to screw with you, all they have to do is call the authorities and say they're worried you might hurt someone with your guns because they doubt your fitness to own firearms. If you're divorced, I recommend you lie to your ex-spouse and tell them you decided to get rid of all your guns! Sheesh - is this the beginning of gun confiscation?

quote:

Bottom Line: If someone who knows you and knows you own guns decides to screw with you, all they have to do is call the authorities and say they're worried you might hurt someone with your guns because they doubt your fitness to own firearms. If you're divorced, I recommend you lie to your ex-spouse and tell them you decided to get rid of all your guns! Sheesh - is this the beginning of gun confiscation?

Yup. More folks will die.

Lives saved from this, -1.

I rather doubt the so called red flag law provided for addtional training for law enforcement in dealing with individuals who may be mentally ill.

Allowing family and friends to call is a mistake as well. Most states require some evaluation by a psycholgist or psychiatrist before an individual can be held against their will.

All part of the leftist game plan imo. I can hear it now...

“Gun confiscation is necessary! See? A man was killed when the police came to confiscate his guns! If he didn’t own any guns, he wouldn’t have been killed because they wouldn’t have had to confiscate them!”

Hey guys! We gotta remember that this happened in Maryland! The best they seem to be able to do is "half-assed"

So if a family member or an ex-girlfriend decides that a person should not have a firearm, that they feel that said person is a risk to society, with no hard evidence whatsoever, that due process is thrown out the window and violation of their rights is a proper response.

Didn't we just go through this a few weeks ago in Washington DC?

Why would you show up at the guy's house at 0517 and expect him to a.) Not answer the door with a gun in his hand, and b.) be clear-headed and rational to deal with?

Might have well just done a no-knock at 0300.

Wait, they issued the confiscation on a concerned call?

No due process or investigation first? I thought these laws had some serious hoops to jump through first?

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
Wait, they issued the confiscation on a concerned call?

No due process or investigation first? I thought these laws had some serious hoops to jump through first?

Nope...in the People's Republic of Kalifornia and Maryland, "due process" for "Red Flag Laws" means a family member (or friend), can contact LE and make a claim you are a threat to others, without any corroborating evidence. LE can then petition a judge for a warrant to seize your firearms.

The first time you know your firearms are being seized is when the police are at your door.

Provided you aren't killed during the exchange, after a few days you get to go before a judge and justify to him why you think the order is bullshit and why you need your property back.

Talk about backwards.

This, coupled with the insane proposal to review social media before authorizing a gun purchase, represents perfectly how our enemies plan to single us out instead of dealing with us a concerted block of people.

It is frightening in its scope. We can only hope that our slightly more conservative Supreme Court will put an end this dramatic overreach.

There is no substitute for protecting ones rights, and the law may be woefully short of due process. While it is reasonable to begin a lawful search to determine the truth when there may be a threat, the article above does not give any of the details for us.

Was the aunt out of line? Was the guy smart to tussle with cops over a loaded gun? Would like to hate this law, but this isn't the whole story.

How can you possibly NOT hate that law!? Confiscate and due process later. You are ok with that?

quote:

Originally posted by preten2b:
Would like to hate this law, but this isn't the whole story.

In similar stories I find myself frequently wanting additional information on the encounter. But in this case, no additional info is necessary. These 'Red Flag' laws are so unconstitutional its simple insane any state would put them in place. When a law requires zero due process and places all the proof of innocence on the accused based on zero evidence, nothing but bad outcomes should be expected. Hell, show up at my crib at night and demand my weapons and I might find myself a bit uncooperative (to put it mildly).

Some laws are so egregiously wrong that they should be ignored, wholesale, by all, and this is one of them. Honorable people didn't create them, and honorable people don't enforce them. This situation is rife with twelve kinds of fail, from all involved.

Charlie Foxtrot.

When "We the People..." think that 1700s British Rule looks better than the crap we are seeing shoved up our "colonial asses" by the leftest/GDCs, then maybe it's later and worse than some think.

and people think that cops will refuse to go door to door and confiscate weapons

a shining example of why this notion is false

someone needs to find out who the cops were and 'red flag' them as they've demonstrated their a threat to our way of life

maybe the best thing to do is for everyone to call and red flag every cop in MD if that all it takes

Could you imagin the logistical nightmare of many on this forum of just trying to get their property back after being put through this process? It would take a u-haul to carry away many of our firearms collections. And does this pertain to ammunition as well?

How long would will the accused be deprived of their second amendment rights? When I right a citation, a court date 2 months later is the norm.

I’ll just bet these leftist enclaves won’t be accommodating in squaring away the claim against gun owners. Hell, I’ll wager it won’t even be a situation where you’re entitled to coverage under the 6th amendment... because you won’t be charged with anything. I imagine that until you can prove your competence, it will become “illegal” to purchase any new firearms- doing so would constitute a “crime” and drive a nail in gun ownership in the future.

I completely agree that the leftists have come to the conclusion that they can’t get our guns through changing legislation; they’ve discovered the magic loophole and will be exploiting it more.

The NRA will likely step up to help, and get painted as “trying to get guns back into the hands of violent people”.

If this picks up steam, there will be a LOT of dead people as a result, both cops and accused “dangerous” people. Asking people to hand over their guns will never work, and taking them by force won’t either. This is akin to the tactics utilized by the Nazis to subdue the population for better control.

Due process rights apply to illegal aliens, not American citizens. Go back to clutching your bibles you silly gun huggers.

I don't understand how this is legal. I'm no lawyer, never played one on TV and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

What about?

*4th Amendment
*5th Amendment
*6th Amendment
*14th Amendment

Can someone please explain how this law doesn't violate the above four Amendments as well as the 2nd Amendment?