HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • newmuzzleloader

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 14, 2009
    4,765
    joppa
    Yes. On the “Neighbor complaint”, it likely is going to take more than just a neighbor complaining to the police.

    A pattern of behavior could also do it. “We’ve gotten 4 phone calls in the last month about the Neighbor.

    The law will be abused. No doubt about it.

    . They f@@@g passed it last night!!!! Soooo if someone knows u hunt on your own property and they don't like that, the police can raid your house... If someone in your son's school knows he hunts with you and they don't like it, police can raid your house

    This is what I'm facing. I have neighbors who have already called the police on me at least 3 times in the last few few years about my shooting on my own property.
    One time I was out in the back field with my 2 daughters, their boyfriends and my boy when my wife answered the door to find 2 police looking into a complaint about shooting going on.
    Another time I had to talk to the neighbor when my daughter was hunting, her shot spooked the woman's horses and she's yelling through the woods to 'stop shooting' Her reply to me was "you're not starving you don't need to hunt"

    Now I'm gonna be half afraid, as a law abiding citizen, to engage in a legal activity on my own property.
    The politicians in this state SUCK with their unconstitutional laws.
    I've emailed my legislators now I have to ask f@/&ing ASK the governor to veto this illegal bill.
     

    MrsRab1515

    Active Member
    Nov 27, 2017
    116
    All over the dang state
    There have been a number of discussions on this topic. Some don't like his position on the 2A others are saying wait and see. I was at one point a very staunch supporter of Governor Hogan, but in the last 3 months, I've realized (my point of view) that he has not and will not support any pro 2A stance.

    I would love to have to eat my words and see him veto this Bill. However, this is just one of many where he could have made a difference and he did not. So at least from my point of view, he's done.

    Yes, I know about what we would be getting if a Dem was in office. But one can only hope that he gets a real Republican to run against him in the primary.

    The filing deadline has already passed, so anyone who wants to run against him would have to do so as a write-in candidate.
     

    blipper

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 4, 2017
    380
    Dundalk (Baltimore County)
    Fairly standard. More of a “if we miss something, the order isn’t invalid”. Of course if they DO miss something you have extremely solid grounds to appeal the order.

    That’s pretty much the case with all laws. The order/judgement isn’t instantly invalidated, but it does mean there are grounds for appeal and/or having the case re-opened.

    Hmm ... I practice law in a different subject area but this type of clause is often put in my field to allow what appear to be protections for the respondent to be obviated. To be honest, I did it myself when I worked for the State of Maryland many years ago.
     

    NukeNick

    Active Member
    Jan 27, 2013
    136
    21227
    I have also emailed and called the governors office. The call was really simple. I told the gentlemen who i was and which part of the state i lived in. I then asked him to tell the governor to veto HB1302.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    Hmm ... I practice law in a different subject area but this type of clause is often put in my field to allow what appear to be protections for the respondent to be obviated. To be honest, I did it myself when I worked for the State of Maryland many years ago.
    Was quickly skimming the thread to catch up, but I think that I read earlier that no judge was involved in the initial siezure process, and a clerk of the court could sign off on the extreme risk prevention order. Is there precedence for this with other Constitutional rights? There seems to be more protections if a law enforcement officer is making an arrest or a search warrant is obtained to enter a home. Are you also suggesting that it provides perhaps a lower barrier to enter and search an individual's home vs a search warrant? Wonder if those participating in BLM and other movements concerned about LE are aware of what Democratic legislators and Bloomberg lobbyists just pushed through.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    There seems to be more protections if a law enforcement officer is making an arrest or a search warrant is obtained to enter a home. Are you also suggesting that it provides perhaps a lower barrier to enter and search an individual's home vs a search warrant? Wonder if those participating in BLM and other movements concerned about LE are aware of what Democratic legislators and Bloomberg lobbyists just pushed through.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

    Yes, it does. LEO is an eligible petitioner, and they merely need to document "reasonable grounds" (lower than probable cause) including threats, weapons, and a nexus to controlled substances. This will allow LEO to enter a home with mere reasonable grounds, take firearms, and anything in plain view is fair game. "Confidential informant heard fighting including threats, saw respondent brandish firearm, and LEO smelled pot...."

    I have 0.0% doubt as soon as LEO figures this out, they will start getting ERPO on the say so of informants to knock down a few doors, as a pretense for a search warrant they could not otherwise get.

    ACLU was appallingly silent on this.
     

    Rab1515

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 29, 2014
    2,081
    Calvert
    Can't find the passed version, lots of people talking about what's included and what's not. Can some one who has the final passed version post it up?
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Can't find the passed version, lots of people talking about what's included and what's not. Can some one who has the final passed version post it up?

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

    There was one amendment inserting "and respondent" in one place made after that. The final text is not up yet, but since the Senate deleted the House version and inserted their own, this has (for the most part) the final deets.
     

    KJackson

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 3, 2017
    8,614
    Carroll County
    Here is something that I just thought about. Maybe this is just my tin foil hat speaking, but what are they going to be doing with the firearms while they have them? I mean, are they just going to sit in a locker somewhere or will it be, "Gee, while we have these guns here, let's run ballistics on them and see if they match any unsolved shooting cases."? Like I said, it may be paranoia, but do you think that they would really pass up the chance to check out the guns of some "bad people"?
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    These are the boxes LEO needs to check to get an ERPO:

    * ANY UNLAWFUL,RECKLESS,OR NEGLIGENT USE, DISPLAY,STORAGE,POSSESSION,OR BRANDISHING OF A FIREARM BY THE RESPONDENT;

    * ANY ACT OR THREAT OF VIOLENCE THE RESPONDENT MADE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT OR AGAINST ANOTHER,WHETHER OR NOT THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE INVOLVED A FIREARM;

    * ANY VIOLATION BY THE RESPONDENT OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER TITLE 4,SUBTITLE 5OF THE FAMILY LAW ARTICLE;
    ANY VIOLATION BY THE RESPONDENT OF A PEACE ORDER UNDER TITLE 3,SUBTITLE 15OF THE COURTS

    * ANY ABUSE OF A CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE OR ALCOHOL BY THE RESPONDENT,INCLUDING ANY CONVICTION FOR A CRIMINAL OFFENSE INVOLVING A CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE OR ALCOHOL

    I do not think it will be too hard to check at least 3 of these boxes.

    corrupt Baltimore city officers getting ERPO against rivals in 3...2....1...
     

    Abacab

    Member
    Sep 10, 2009
    2,644
    MD
    These are the boxes LEO needs to check to get an ERPO:



    I do not think it will be too hard to check at least 3 of these boxes.

    corrupt Baltimore city officers getting ERPO against rivals in 3...2....1...

    So a DUI could do it. Lol.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,927
    Messages
    7,259,351
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom