Maryland recently pass a law that allowed the gov't to confiscate guns from someone if that person allegedly has mental health issues. I'm not sure what to think about this yet. No idea if they prevented a future crisis or grossly infringed on this man's rights based on the hearsay from his aunt.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/police-in...e/24658392

Quote:Gary J. Willis, 61, who was the subject of the Extreme Risk Protective Order and protective order, answered the door holding a gun, police said. Willis then placed the gun next to the door, police said.

When officers began to serve Willis with the order, he became irate, opened the door to the house and grabbed the gun, police said. An officer tried to take the gun away from Willis when Willis fired the gun, police said.

A second officer fired their service weapon, striking Willis, who was pronounced dead at the scene, police said.

"Once they explained to him he was the respondent of an order and that they would be taking his guns, he became irate, went back in the house, grabbed the gun. The first officer in the door grabbed the gun, as well. They started a tug of war for the gun and the suspect fired one shot from the gun. Luckily, that didn't hit anybody, but once that shot went off, the second officer fired his service weapon, striking the suspect," Anne Arundel County police Sgt. Jacklyn Davis said.

A family member told 11 News that Willis lived at the house with his wife. The relative did not say why the request was made for the order.

Police don't know why the order was issued for Willis, but said that before the red flag law took effect Oct. 1, all officers had special training on how to handle these especially dangerous situations.

We are in desperate need of legal gun escrow arrangements where a person can securely put there weapons aside beyond the reach of the government.

I really don't have an answer for this. On one hand I believe in the 2nd amendment, but on the other side we always say why wasn't anything done about these nut cases that had obvious red flags. Based on a quick reading of the Maryland law it seems fair. Someone files a claim, you go to a hearing before a judge. The only thing I think could make it better is if it was a panel of judges. I don't know about giving a single person the right to strip someone of theirs.

https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO

If we started by tying it to the criminal justice system--you get convicted of a violent crime, you lose your guns--without worrying about anything as subjective as mental health, we would cut down the amount of gun violence significantly. That's the problem--we are worrying too much about trying to nail the guy at the margin, and not enough about taking care of the obvious ones first.

(11-12-2018 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we started by tying it to the criminal justice system--you get convicted of a violent crime, you lose your guns--without worrying about anything as subjective as mental health, we would cut down the amount of gun violence significantly. That's the problem--we are worrying too much about trying to nail the guy at the margin, and not enough about taking care of the obvious ones first.

I read in another article that in addition to the red flag law they also passed a law saying anyone convicted of domestic violence have to provide proof they no longer own a weapon. Most violent crimes generally fall under felonies don't they?

I think the problem is aside from the headline grabbing gun violence, most of it is committed by people that shouldn't have a gun in the first place. In an ideal world, all non-violent drug offenders would be released from prison immediately to make room and any felon caught with a weapon would be delivered harsh prison sentences. You make the prospect of a prison sentence carrying a gun as bad as committing a crime with one and maybe people will leave them at home.

was there an attempt to get him to voluntarily surrender his arms? like have a mandatory session with a psychologist prior or something

The wife should sue.

Maybe he was paranoid, or perhaps eccentric, but the real issue here is assumed guilt based on extraneous complaint. Anytime we can be searched on the accusation of someone else, rather than on probable cause, our rights have been abnegated. The Maryland law is the Camel Nose Under the Tent that will allow similar warrants and searches to be executed for other "rumored" activities. It is a police state law plain and simple.

If someone posts threats online I have no problem because to me that represents probable cause. But if it is a 61 year old guy living at home with his wife, especially if the neighborhood is a bit risky, and he has no priors, has made no threats, and only has a reactionary aunt who had to be pushing 80 making a complaint. Then the police should have notified him to come in and have a talk with them. You don't show up on the man's doorstep without notice and expect a favorable reaction.

That's an intentional confrontation with someone who may or may not be in control of his faculties. That's asking for trouble for the law officers and the man.

This guy was killed because of manipulated confrontation that didn't need to happen by surprise at his home. They knew he had the firearm if they checked his registration. They just needed to talk with him which should have been at the police station in a controlled environment. Then they could have asked for a psych evaluation if needed, or they may just have discovered that he had a buggy interfering old aunt.

Now the man is dead and his rights were never held to any scrutiny other than rumor.

Most will pass this off as a sad story. I say wake up! If these kinds of actions are permitted the same thing could happen to you. You might open your door and reach for your reading glasses and get shot. It's a stupid law, an even stupider action by the police, and ultimately tragic not only for the man but for his wife and family.

(11-12-2018 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Maybe he was paranoid, or perhaps eccentric, but the real issue here is assumed guilt based on extraneous complaint. Anytime we can be searched on the accusation of someone else, rather than on probable cause, our rights have been abnegated. The Maryland law is the Camel Nose Under the Tent that will allow similar warrants and searches to be executed for other "rumored" activities. It is a police state law plain and simple.

If someone posts threats online I have no problem because to me that represents probable cause. But if it is a 61 year old guy living at home with his wife, especially if the neighborhood is a bit risky, and he has no priors, has made no threats, and only has a reactionary aunt who had to be pushing 80 making a complaint. Then the police should have notified him to come in and have a talk with them. You don't show up on the man's doorstep without notice and expect a favorable reaction.

That's an intentional confrontation with someone who may or may not be in control of his faculties. That's asking for trouble for the law officers and the man.

This guy was killed because of manipulated confrontation that didn't need to happen by surprise at his home. They knew he had the firearm if they checked his registration. They just needed to talk with him which should have been at the police station in a controlled environment. Then they could have asked for a psych evaluation if needed, or they may just have discovered that he had a buggy interfering old aunt.

Now the man is dead and his rights were never held to any scrutiny other than rumor.

Most will pass this off as a sad story. I say wake up! If these kinds of actions are permitted the same thing could happen to you. You might open your door and reach for your reading glasses and get shot. It's a stupid law, an even stupider action by the police, and ultimately tragic not only for the man but for his wife and family.

I agree with everything, BUT, “stupid action by the police”. They are just doing what some a-hole judge or administrator told them to. I certainly wouldn’t want to be carrying out that warrant. Might as well sign up to clear out Falusia again.

(11-12-2018 04:26 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Maybe he was paranoid, or perhaps eccentric, but the real issue here is assumed guilt based on extraneous complaint. Anytime we can be searched on the accusation of someone else, rather than on probable cause, our rights have been abnegated. The Maryland law is the Camel Nose Under the Tent that will allow similar warrants and searches to be executed for other "rumored" activities. It is a police state law plain and simple.

If someone posts threats online I have no problem because to me that represents probable cause. But if it is a 61 year old guy living at home with his wife, especially if the neighborhood is a bit risky, and he has no priors, has made no threats, and only has a reactionary aunt who had to be pushing 80 making a complaint. Then the police should have notified him to come in and have a talk with them. You don't show up on the man's doorstep without notice and expect a favorable reaction.

That's an intentional confrontation with someone who may or may not be in control of his faculties. That's asking for trouble for the law officers and the man.

This guy was killed because of manipulated confrontation that didn't need to happen by surprise at his home. They knew he had the firearm if they checked his registration. They just needed to talk with him which should have been at the police station in a controlled environment. Then they could have asked for a psych evaluation if needed, or they may just have discovered that he had a buggy interfering old aunt.

Now the man is dead and his rights were never held to any scrutiny other than rumor.

Most will pass this off as a sad story. I say wake up! If these kinds of actions are permitted the same thing could happen to you. You might open your door and reach for your reading glasses and get shot. It's a stupid law, an even stupider action by the police, and ultimately tragic not only for the man but for his wife and family.

I agree with everything, BUT, “stupid action by the police”. They are just doing what some a-hole judge or administrator told them to. I certainly wouldn’t want to be carrying out that warrant. Might as well sign up to clear out Falusia again.

Still, it was stupid action by the police even if it wasn't their call. However, it brings up an interesting point though because there were some major historical and international trials where the soldiers/guards/police were not allowed to use the "I was just following orders" defense when taking action. When we're talking about poking a potentially rabid dog with a stick...seems like the "just following orders" routine is a stretch...

(11-12-2018 04:44 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 04:26 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Maybe he was paranoid, or perhaps eccentric, but the real issue here is assumed guilt based on extraneous complaint. Anytime we can be searched on the accusation of someone else, rather than on probable cause, our rights have been abnegated. The Maryland law is the Camel Nose Under the Tent that will allow similar warrants and searches to be executed for other "rumored" activities. It is a police state law plain and simple.

If someone posts threats online I have no problem because to me that represents probable cause. But if it is a 61 year old guy living at home with his wife, especially if the neighborhood is a bit risky, and he has no priors, has made no threats, and only has a reactionary aunt who had to be pushing 80 making a complaint. Then the police should have notified him to come in and have a talk with them. You don't show up on the man's doorstep without notice and expect a favorable reaction.

That's an intentional confrontation with someone who may or may not be in control of his faculties. That's asking for trouble for the law officers and the man.

This guy was killed because of manipulated confrontation that didn't need to happen by surprise at his home. They knew he had the firearm if they checked his registration. They just needed to talk with him which should have been at the police station in a controlled environment. Then they could have asked for a psych evaluation if needed, or they may just have discovered that he had a buggy interfering old aunt.

Now the man is dead and his rights were never held to any scrutiny other than rumor.

Most will pass this off as a sad story. I say wake up! If these kinds of actions are permitted the same thing could happen to you. You might open your door and reach for your reading glasses and get shot. It's a stupid law, an even stupider action by the police, and ultimately tragic not only for the man but for his wife and family.

I agree with everything, BUT, “stupid action by the police”. They are just doing what some a-hole judge or administrator told them to. I certainly wouldn’t want to be carrying out that warrant. Might as well sign up to clear out Falusia again.

Still, it was stupid action by the police even if it wasn't their call. However, it brings up an interesting point though because there were some major historical and international trials where the soldiers/guards/police were not allowed to use the "I was just following orders" defense when taking action. When we're talking about poking a potentially rabid dog with a stick...seems like the "just following orders" routine is a stretch...

Well they poked a 61 year old man who even if he was rabid hadn't bitten anyone, hadn't been checked out by a veterinarian, and who was apparently living peacefully with his wife and was killed in his own home by a knock on the door and a bull**** warrant issued by a lousy law.

Again I say he should have been asked to come in to the station and respond to the complaint before the officers are put in harms way, and before the alleged is killed in his own home. That's why I called it a stupid police action. I was referring to the whole process, I sympathize with the officers carrying it out. They should never have been put in that situation.

By the way, I'm glad nobody is judging my nephews by rumors from the aunts. I know all of my nephews well and the one most disliked by his busy body aunts is the most sane and upright among them. The one they adore has had 2 wives and is working on getting his third, has two children he is only obliquely involved with, but he charms to my sisters in law. The one they think is nuts doesn't even own a gun. The aforementioned does, but just because he's a schmuck doesn't mean he is going to do anyone bodily harm. It just means he's never going to honor a marital relationship. Any tattle tale form of legal action that isn't based on hard evidence or provable actions is a threat to us all.

When you go to bed tonight I want everyone on this board to think of the people in your life that misjudge you, attribute nefarious motives to your actions, or just dislike you and would revel in your problems, and then ask yourself, "Is this the kind of law I want those people to be able to use against me?" Make this nonsense personal and you'll wake up to its potential hazard to not only your life, but everyone's lives. You don't want any government having "rumors" and "hearsay" as the basis of an excuse to invade your home and possibly do you and your family bodily damage.

I hate those no notice warrants. We've had more than a few families in this country have law enforcement armed and ready to fire kick in the wrong door when looking to search the residence of a known drug dealer. On multiple occasions it has resulted in fatalities for the innocent family who never had the opportunity to answer the door and say "We aren't the family you have on your warrant. You're at the wrong home!"

(11-12-2018 04:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 04:44 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 04:26 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Maybe he was paranoid, or perhaps eccentric, but the real issue here is assumed guilt based on extraneous complaint. Anytime we can be searched on the accusation of someone else, rather than on probable cause, our rights have been abnegated. The Maryland law is the Camel Nose Under the Tent that will allow similar warrants and searches to be executed for other "rumored" activities. It is a police state law plain and simple.

If someone posts threats online I have no problem because to me that represents probable cause. But if it is a 61 year old guy living at home with his wife, especially if the neighborhood is a bit risky, and he has no priors, has made no threats, and only has a reactionary aunt who had to be pushing 80 making a complaint. Then the police should have notified him to come in and have a talk with them. You don't show up on the man's doorstep without notice and expect a favorable reaction.

That's an intentional confrontation with someone who may or may not be in control of his faculties. That's asking for trouble for the law officers and the man.

This guy was killed because of manipulated confrontation that didn't need to happen by surprise at his home. They knew he had the firearm if they checked his registration. They just needed to talk with him which should have been at the police station in a controlled environment. Then they could have asked for a psych evaluation if needed, or they may just have discovered that he had a buggy interfering old aunt.

Now the man is dead and his rights were never held to any scrutiny other than rumor.

Most will pass this off as a sad story. I say wake up! If these kinds of actions are permitted the same thing could happen to you. You might open your door and reach for your reading glasses and get shot. It's a stupid law, an even stupider action by the police, and ultimately tragic not only for the man but for his wife and family.

I agree with everything, BUT, “stupid action by the police”. They are just doing what some a-hole judge or administrator told them to. I certainly wouldn’t want to be carrying out that warrant. Might as well sign up to clear out Falusia again.

Still, it was stupid action by the police even if it wasn't their call. However, it brings up an interesting point though because there were some major historical and international trials where the soldiers/guards/police were not allowed to use the "I was just following orders" defense when taking action. When we're talking about poking a potentially rabid dog with a stick...seems like the "just following orders" routine is a stretch...

Well they poked a 61 year old man who even if he was rabid hadn't bitten anyone, hadn't been checked out by a veterinarian, and who was apparently living peacefully with his wife and was killed in his own home by a knock on the door and a bull**** warrant issued by a lousy law.

Again I say he should have been asked to come in to the station and respond to the complaint before the officers are put in harms way, and before the alleged is killed in his own home. That's why I called it a stupid police action. I was referring to the whole process, I sympathize with the officers carrying it out. They should never have been put in that situation.

By the way, I'm glad nobody is judging my nephews by rumors from the aunts. I know all of my nephews well and the one most disliked by his busy body aunts is the most sane and upright among them. The one they adore has had 2 wives and is working on getting his third, has two children he is only obliquely involved with, but he charms to my sisters in law. The one they think is nuts doesn't even own a gun. The aforementioned does, but just because he's a schmuck doesn't mean he is going to do anyone bodily harm. It just means he's never going to honor a marital relationship. Any tattle tale form of legal action that isn't based on hard evidence or provable actions is a threat to us all.

When you go to bed tonight I want everyone on this board to think of the people in your life that misjudge you, attribute nefarious motives to your actions, or just dislike you and would revel in your problems, and then ask yourself, "Is this the kind of law I want those people to be able to use against me?" Make this nonsense personal and you'll wake up to its potential hazard to not only your life, but everyone's lives. You don't want any government having "rumors" and "hearsay" as the basis of an excuse to invade your home and possibly do you and your family bodily damage.

I hate those no notice warrants. We've had more than a few families in this country have law enforcement armed and ready to fire kick in the wrong door when looking to search the residence of a known drug dealer. On multiple occasions it has resulted in fatalities for the innocent family who never had the opportunity to answer the door and say "We aren't the family you have on your warrant. You're at the wrong home!"

I'd be really curious to see how the court process for this law works. Surely it takes more than just saying xyz is crazy and the judge ordering their guns taken. And in the law I posted above they have the option of sending a letter saying they have received a complaint and to report to a police station. So it seems they have a two-tier approach to this.

Unfortunately, those court orders are sealed and not open to the public so we may never know what really happened here.

Edit, I say surely it takes more than that, but this is Maryland one of the more gun-unfriendly states

(11-12-2018 05:16 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 04:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 04:44 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 04:26 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Maybe he was paranoid, or perhaps eccentric, but the real issue here is assumed guilt based on extraneous complaint. Anytime we can be searched on the accusation of someone else, rather than on probable cause, our rights have been abnegated. The Maryland law is the Camel Nose Under the Tent that will allow similar warrants and searches to be executed for other "rumored" activities. It is a police state law plain and simple.

If someone posts threats online I have no problem because to me that represents probable cause. But if it is a 61 year old guy living at home with his wife, especially if the neighborhood is a bit risky, and he has no priors, has made no threats, and only has a reactionary aunt who had to be pushing 80 making a complaint. Then the police should have notified him to come in and have a talk with them. You don't show up on the man's doorstep without notice and expect a favorable reaction.

That's an intentional confrontation with someone who may or may not be in control of his faculties. That's asking for trouble for the law officers and the man.

This guy was killed because of manipulated confrontation that didn't need to happen by surprise at his home. They knew he had the firearm if they checked his registration. They just needed to talk with him which should have been at the police station in a controlled environment. Then they could have asked for a psych evaluation if needed, or they may just have discovered that he had a buggy interfering old aunt.

Now the man is dead and his rights were never held to any scrutiny other than rumor.

Most will pass this off as a sad story. I say wake up! If these kinds of actions are permitted the same thing could happen to you. You might open your door and reach for your reading glasses and get shot. It's a stupid law, an even stupider action by the police, and ultimately tragic not only for the man but for his wife and family.

I agree with everything, BUT, “stupid action by the police”. They are just doing what some a-hole judge or administrator told them to. I certainly wouldn’t want to be carrying out that warrant. Might as well sign up to clear out Falusia again.

Still, it was stupid action by the police even if it wasn't their call. However, it brings up an interesting point though because there were some major historical and international trials where the soldiers/guards/police were not allowed to use the "I was just following orders" defense when taking action. When we're talking about poking a potentially rabid dog with a stick...seems like the "just following orders" routine is a stretch...

Well they poked a 61 year old man who even if he was rabid hadn't bitten anyone, hadn't been checked out by a veterinarian, and who was apparently living peacefully with his wife and was killed in his own home by a knock on the door and a bull**** warrant issued by a lousy law.

Again I say he should have been asked to come in to the station and respond to the complaint before the officers are put in harms way, and before the alleged is killed in his own home. That's why I called it a stupid police action. I was referring to the whole process, I sympathize with the officers carrying it out. They should never have been put in that situation.

By the way, I'm glad nobody is judging my nephews by rumors from the aunts. I know all of my nephews well and the one most disliked by his busy body aunts is the most sane and upright among them. The one they adore has had 2 wives and is working on getting his third, has two children he is only obliquely involved with, but he charms to my sisters in law. The one they think is nuts doesn't even own a gun. The aforementioned does, but just because he's a schmuck doesn't mean he is going to do anyone bodily harm. It just means he's never going to honor a marital relationship. Any tattle tale form of legal action that isn't based on hard evidence or provable actions is a threat to us all.

When you go to bed tonight I want everyone on this board to think of the people in your life that misjudge you, attribute nefarious motives to your actions, or just dislike you and would revel in your problems, and then ask yourself, "Is this the kind of law I want those people to be able to use against me?" Make this nonsense personal and you'll wake up to its potential hazard to not only your life, but everyone's lives. You don't want any government having "rumors" and "hearsay" as the basis of an excuse to invade your home and possibly do you and your family bodily damage.

I hate those no notice warrants. We've had more than a few families in this country have law enforcement armed and ready to fire kick in the wrong door when looking to search the residence of a known drug dealer. On multiple occasions it has resulted in fatalities for the innocent family who never had the opportunity to answer the door and say "We aren't the family you have on your warrant. You're at the wrong home!"

I'd be really curious to see how the court process for this law works. Surely it takes more than just saying xyz is crazy and the judge ordering their guns taken. And in the law I posted above they have the option of sending a letter saying they have received a complaint and to report to a police station. So it seems they have a two-tier approach to this.

Unfortunately, those court orders are sealed and not open to the public so we may never know what really happened here.

Edit, I say surely it takes more than that, but this is Maryland one of the more gun-unfriendly states

And when law enforcement and the courts are not held accountable for their actions this is where the abuse of power comes in in a variety of ways:
1. Phony complaints should be held liable, not protected.
2. You don't know what steps in the process were deliberately skipped.
3. The police and courts can cover their mistakes and not be accountable which creates an environment where abuses can happen.
4. All law enforcement is public and the records (unless minors are involved) should be open for all to see.
5. There may be constitutional issues that need to be reviewed here of which due process is not the least.

Because the bolded part exists all of it lends itself to egregious abuses! The bolded part is the smoking gun, pun intended!

I see it as a horrible infringement on the man’s rights.

Only a jury/judge should have any ability to affect one’s constitutional al rights, most certainly not a mere physician.

(11-12-2018 06:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I see it as a horrible infringement on the man’s rights.

Only a jury/judge should have any ability to affect one’s constitutional al rights, most certainly not a mere physician.

Welcome to the lefts NEW WORLD ORDER.