This will be the new wave. NH already has one in the works.

Uhhh, MD CA NJ, I see this flying in these and other oppressed states.
Wait for the fun when they try it in a state that has more guns than people.
It’s pretty mind blowing to me that there aren’t large crowds at the MD capitol right now.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/201.../bil_0002/hb1302.pdf

This law is similar to many of the current domestic violence laws that include a prohibiting of the possession of any firearms until the case is determined.

Except in these cases, there doesn't have to be any incident involved to begin the process. Any relative, girl or boyfriend, spouses , etc. can start the process based on nothing more than their attitudes.

Having been involved in more than a few Domestic Violence incidents in my 30 years, MANY are nothing more than a pissed off party.

quote:

After a hearing on a petition, whether ex parte or otherwise, a judge may enter a temporary
extreme risk protective order to prohibit the respondent from possessing a firearm if the
judge finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent poses an
immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to the respondent, the petitioner,or another by possessing a firearm.

As in DV cases, I know for a fact that these Judges never take a chance and will grant them. there is no way they will take a chance.

Now I'd love to see the outcome of this case and what evidence was involved for the Judge to grant the order.

Want to bet that the parties requesting it will not be on the other side filing a suit against everyone involved in it.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:... Let me paraphrase it for you:...

What you said.

In spades!

Note to self, check to see if it is still OK to use that phrase.

quote:

Wait for the fun when they try it in a state that has more guns than people.

The chance of this type of law passing in Mississippi where the current Governor's wife owns an AR and vows to go after the scumbags that looted their farm is next to zero. I think Mississippi has more guns than people.

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
Except in these cases, there doesn't have to be any incident involved to begin the process.

This has been going on for the last three or four decades (last 23 that I know of) except that it is called a mental warrant. The same criteria right now to get a mental warrant by a friend or family member is used to get this "red flag" or whatever it is.

Mental warrants have stood up in courts for years, and I'm sure that this will too. Mental warrants are much harder to get than protective orders, because in most cases society is the "victim" not a specific person. The level to get a judge to sign off is pretty high, and then most of the time the examiner kicks the person back home.

Every state has a version of it, and to say it "wouldn't fly here" is pretty short sighted.

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
This will be the new wave. NH already has one in the works.

Hopefully will be stopped in the senate or vetoed by Sununu but in my experience you can not count on him unless PSNH/Eversource wishes it.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
Except in these cases, there doesn't have to be any incident involved to begin the process.

This has been going on for the last three or four decades (last 23 that I know of) except that it is called a mental warrant. The same criteria right now to get a mental warrant by a friend or family member is used to get this "red flag" or whatever it is.

Mental warrants have stood up in courts for years, and I'm sure that this will too. Mental warrants are much harder to get than protective orders, because in most cases society is the "victim" not a specific person. The level to get a judge to sign off is pretty high, and then most of the time the examiner kicks the person back home.

Every state has a version of it, and to say it "wouldn't fly here" is pretty short sighted.

I love/hate it when you drop experience-water on a good witch-burning.

He's good like that. After he posted I gave up.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/n...-20181114-story.html

Maryland's new 'red flag' gun safety law drew 114 requests to remove firearms during its first month

Catherine RentzContact Reporter
The Baltimore Sun
Nov 16, 2018 10:45AM

Maryland’s new “red flag” gun safety law drew 114 requests to remove firearms from individuals in October, the first month the law went into effect.

Of those, 36 were granted a final order — meaning guns could be taken away and the subjects may be prohibited from buying or possessing other firearms for up to one year.

Fewer than half of the requests — 44 — came from law enforcement. Most came from other sources such as family members and spouses, data show.

Maryland was among eight states to pass “red flag” legislation in the aftermath of the Parkland, Fla., shooting that killed 17 in February. Maryland’s law enables law enforcement officials, certain family members, intimate partners and mental health providers, among others, to request the temporary removal of guns through Extreme Risk Protective Orders from those who pose an immediate danger of causing personal injury.

“I’m sure at least one life was saved,” said Jen Pauliukonis, president of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, of the gun seizures.

Extreme Risk Protective Orders by county, October 2018

From Sigmund: Go to the link for this chart and another.

Of the 114 requests, there were 61 interim orders granted by court commissioners and 70 temporary orders granted by District Court judges in October, according to the Maryland Judiciary numbers obtained by The Sun through a public information request. An interim order is obtained from a commissioner when the district court isn’t opened, and both such orders require individuals to surrender firearms for several days until a final hearing.

“Sometimes that is enough,” Pauliukonis said. “We’re talking about people in a crisis. Sometimes even taking guns away for a week is enough.”

The counties that recorded the most red flag requests were also those that experienced deadly mass shootings in the past year, according to records collected by the Montgomery County Sheriff’s office, which has been reviewing the statewide data.

Anne Arundel, which saw the shooting at the Capital Gazette newspaper on June 28 that killed five, recorded 19 requests. Harford County, which had a mass shooting at a Rite-Aid warehouse on Sept. 20 that killed four, had 19 requests. Police reports and court documents detail how the accused perpetrators of both incidents had histories of mental illness.

Baltimore County recorded 14 red flag requests, Prince George’s County had nine, and Baltimore City had five.

Both Pauliukonis and Bruce Sherman, an assistant sheriff in Montgomery County who has been reviewing the data, say the lower number of final orders shows the judiciary isn’t rubber-stamping the red flag requests.

The orders are confidential, so Sherman said it’s unclear how many firearms were surrendered, for how long, for what reason or by whom.

Two Anne Arundel County police officers serving a red flag protective order to remove guns from a house killed Gary J. Willis, 61, of Ferndale after he refused to give up his gun and a struggle ensued last week, police said.

Arundel Police Chief Timothy Altomare said the shooting was a sign that the law is needed.


Baltimore Sun reporter Colin Campbell and Baltimore Sun Media Group reporter Phil Davis contributed to this article.

quote:

“I’m sure at least one life was saved,” said Jen Pauliukonis, president of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, of the gun seizures.

You're sure? No, you couldn't possibly be, you dishonest twat. However, I know a life was actually lost due to this law. And to echo you just a bit, I'm sure his life won't be the last.

quote:

“I’m sure at least one life was saved,” said Jen Pauliukonis, president of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, of the gun seizures.

Well, if she's sure, then that settles it. Who needs evidence to back up claims anyway. /sarcasm

quote:

Who needs evidence to back up claims anyway.

And this is the meat of the problem. Sure, judicial actions existed prior to "red flag" laws, but I'd be willing to bet a cup of coffee that the guidelines under the new law are a lot looser, and no penalties exacted (i.e.- civil suit for removing Constitutional rights when folks make false claims) because "it's for the safety of everyone" or some such horseshit.

Anyone making invalid claims need to be charged with providing false information in an investigation.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
Except in these cases, there doesn't have to be any incident involved to begin the process.

This has been going on for the last three or four decades (last 23 that I know of) except that it is called a mental warrant. The same criteria right now to get a mental warrant by a friend or family member is used to get this "red flag" or whatever it is.

Mental warrants have stood up in courts for years, and I'm sure that this will too. Mental warrants are much harder to get than protective orders, because in most cases society is the "victim" not a specific person. The level to get a judge to sign off is pretty high, and then most of the time the examiner kicks the person back home.

Every state has a version of it, and to say it "wouldn't fly here" is pretty short sighted.

Whether it holds up in court or not (and why shouldn't it given the current behavior of most courts), its still going to result in both citizens and officers getting shot. Its bad policy, but I believe its specifically designed to result in the aforementioned shootings which will move the ball forward toward the real desired outcome....draconian gun control laws on everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
Except in these cases, there doesn't have to be any incident involved to begin the process.

This has been going on for the last three or four decades (last 23 that I know of) except that it is called a mental warrant. The same criteria right now to get a mental warrant by a friend or family member is used to get this "red flag" or whatever it is.

Mental warrants have stood up in courts for years, and I'm sure that this will too. Mental warrants are much harder to get than protective orders, because in most cases society is the "victim" not a specific person. The level to get a judge to sign off is pretty high, and then most of the time the examiner kicks the person back home.

Every state has a version of it, and to say it "wouldn't fly here" is pretty short sighted.

Whether it holds up in court or not (and why shouldn't it given the current behavior of most courts), its still going to result in both citizens and officers getting shot. Its bad policy, but I believe its specifically designed to result in the aforementioned shootings which will move the ball forward toward the real desired outcome....draconian gun control laws on everyone.

The left hates guns, and they hate cops, that's why they love these laws so much. If a gun owner gets greased, bully. If a cop gets greased, even better. Either way they can parade out a bunch of corpses and crying widows and children, and the result is a win for statism. It's what they live for.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
Except in these cases, there doesn't have to be any incident involved to begin the process.

This has been going on for the last three or four decades (last 23 that I know of) except that it is called a mental warrant. The same criteria right now to get a mental warrant by a friend or family member is used to get this "red flag" or whatever it is.

Mental warrants have stood up in courts for years, and I'm sure that this will too. Mental warrants are much harder to get than protective orders, because in most cases society is the "victim" not a specific person. The level to get a judge to sign off is pretty high, and then most of the time the examiner kicks the person back home.

Every state has a version of it, and to say it "wouldn't fly here" is pretty short sighted.

Whether it holds up in court or not (and why shouldn't it given the current behavior of most courts), its still going to result in both citizens and officers getting shot. Its bad policy, but I believe its specifically designed to result in the aforementioned shootings which will move the ball forward toward the real desired outcome....draconian gun control laws on everyone.

Had nothing to do with the guy ACTUALLY being crazy? Got it. Cause reasonable people always go for a gun after putting it down and fight the police forcing them to shoot him. You can expect people to make pie in the sky defenses, emotionally link it to gun confiscation or control, make the assertions that he wasn’t crazy, but at the end of the day, without this law, he likely would have been shot on a mental warrant. Cops get killed on mental warrants. But, this “streets will run red with blood” emotional blaming of the tool and not the person is familiar.

Call it what you will, this is nothing new and the streets haven’t ran red with blood. The mere thread title claiming “murder” tells you all you need to know. It is to play on emotions. Grab a gun, fight the police, gets you shot more often than not. To call it murder shows the agenda.

If you try and remove weapons from someone who is considered a danger to themselvesand kill them in the process, you failed in the worst way possible.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Had nothing to do with the guy ACTUALLY being crazy? Got it. Cause reasonable people always go for a gun after putting it down and fight the police forcing them to shoot him. You can expect people to make pie in the sky defenses, emotionally link it to gun confiscation or control, make the assertions that he wasn’t crazy, but at the end of the day, without this law, he likely would have been shot on a mental warrant. Cops get killed on mental warrants. But, this “streets will run red with blood” emotional blaming of the tool and not the person is familiar.

Call it what you will, this is nothing new and the streets haven’t ran red with blood. The mere thread title claiming “murder” tells you all you need to know. It is to play on emotions. Grab a gun, fight the police, gets you shot more often than not. To call it murder shows the agenda.

So.....what? The "solution" is to "comply citizen", or be gunned down in their own homes? The onus here, imho, is on the police to stand up & do the right thing, which isn't always (and in many cases is NOT) the legal thing....to act as a last line of defense against tyranny, not help the State bring it to the people. Mindless automatons "just following orders" (i.e. - "it's the law so I have no choice but to enforce it"), regardless how you attempt to spin it, has been responsible for, literally, tens of millions of deaths during the last century alone. This area is where I believe we, the police, can & SHOULD do better. Peace officer vs law enforcement officer. As always, I deeply respect your opinion, and am curious what you think.

As I said, the predictable babble about gun confiscation aside, this has gone on for years. And it went unnoticed by everyone, apparently, until such time the pols and media made a big deal about it.

The tired “just following orders” crap is just that. It’s amusing that people scream “enforce the laws on the books” each time there is a mass shooting, and when it happens, the same people hypocritically scream about it as well.

This is nothing new, fellas.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
Except in these cases, there doesn't have to be any incident involved to begin the process.

This has been going on for the last three or four decades (last 23 that I know of) except that it is called a mental warrant. The same criteria right now to get a mental warrant by a friend or family member is used to get this "red flag" or whatever it is.

Mental warrants have stood up in courts for years, and I'm sure that this will too. Mental warrants are much harder to get than protective orders, because in most cases society is the "victim" not a specific person. The level to get a judge to sign off is pretty high, and then most of the time the examiner kicks the person back home.

Every state has a version of it, and to say it "wouldn't fly here" is pretty short sighted.

Whether it holds up in court or not (and why shouldn't it given the current behavior of most courts), its still going to result in both citizens and officers getting shot. Its bad policy, but I believe its specifically designed to result in the aforementioned shootings which will move the ball forward toward the real desired outcome....draconian gun control laws on everyone.

Had nothing to do with the guy ACTUALLY being crazy? Got it. Cause reasonable people always go for a gun after putting it down and fight the police forcing them to shoot him. You can expect people to make pie in the sky defenses, emotionally link it to gun confiscation or control, make the assertions that he wasn’t crazy, but at the end of the day, without this law, he likely would have been shot on a mental warrant. Cops get killed on mental warrants. But, this “streets will run red with blood” emotional blaming of the tool and not the person is familiar.

Call it what you will, this is nothing new and the streets haven’t ran red with blood. The mere thread title claiming “murder” tells you all you need to know. It is to play on emotions. Grab a gun, fight the police, gets you shot more often than not. To call it murder shows the agenda.

Is that what 'really' happened? All we have is the media's reporting on it and we know they have no agenda or bias on the topic. And how many times do the media just outright get it wrong?

Again, whether these retarded 'laws' hold up in court or not, they completely side step due process. And most gun owners I've met are enormous fans of due process. If a neighbor I might have pissed off after exchanging words because my dog shat in his yard can report me as a potential threat, and the cops show up in the wee hours of the morning to collect all my firearms, you can bet your ass I'm gonna be pissed, and being half asleep, I too may behave a bit differently than I would at 12 noon.

IMO there is no valid defense of these types of laws.