In just over a month 118 Red Flag PO’s

Bolts Rock · Nov 8, 2018

Not_an_outlaw said:
Great idea. How can we do that legally?

It's MD dude, just pay a bunch of illegals cash under the table, multi-time deported are best.

dblas · Nov 8, 2018

Name Taken said:
I won't be submitting anything. I think it's great to trust the media when it fits your thoughts but when they get articles wrong all the time the "false news" flag gets waved.

Until there is a real source which actually explains the disposition of each application I stand by my thought process. There is no way Commissioners are turning away HALF of the folks requesting them. The only way I could see this happening is if they aren't qualified to get an order and those are being counted.

Perhaps one day we will see a real article with the numbers and disposition of each one. Until then I'm not buying "half that were applied for" were denied at the Commissioners level. I could see an initial request being denied by a sitting Judge.

There is a lot of "fear" regarding getting these wrong at each and every level and there isn't a ton of training. I doubt HALF are being rejected.

What would you like that source to be?

Mark75H · Nov 9, 2018

Name Taken said:
I won't be submitting anything. I think it's great to trust the media when it fits your thoughts but when they get articles wrong all the time the "false news" flag gets waved.

Until there is a real source which actually explains the disposition of each application I stand by my thought process. There is no way Commissioners are turning away HALF of the folks requesting them. The only way I could see this happening is if they aren't qualified to get an order and those are being counted.

Perhaps one day we will see a real article with the numbers and disposition of each one. Until then I'm not buying "half that were applied for" were denied at the Commissioners level. I could see an initial request being denied by a sitting Judge.

There is a lot of "fear" regarding getting these wrong at each and every level and there isn't a ton of training. I doubt HALF are being rejected.

My money rides with you on that guess. I'll add that I bet this is unknowable - that info on this just is not kept.

dreadpirate · Nov 9, 2018

dblas said:
More than ever, people need to show up in Annapolis, but I fear that people really just don't care about their rights in Maryland.

Agreed.

rseymorejr · Nov 9, 2018

Not_an_outlaw said:
That is an excellent sign idea for the future. I'd buy one, but don't want to be on a list.

The list of Ben Jealous supporters?

My Toy · Nov 9, 2018

Where can you find a breakdown of Red Flag protective orders filed by county?

dblas · Nov 9, 2018

My Toy said:
Where can you find a breakdown of Red Flag protective orders filed by county?

Currently there is not an active one, as the information needs to be PIA'd on a monthly basis. As for the month of October, follow the link I posted, the Gazette has an interactive map that can be used (Not that many people here put much stock in anything on that page).

dblas · Nov 9, 2018

If people don't like the sources for information then send in your own damned PIAs and get the information your self. I'm ****ing done posting information for folks that continually questions it. Fend for your ****ing selves. And for those that don't like the lack of information shared by the State, then get off your dead asses and show up in Annapolis. I'm done for a while with all of the whiners that want be spoonfed the information.

CrazySanMan · Nov 9, 2018

That escalated quickly...

Not_an_outlaw · Nov 9, 2018

dblas said:
If people don't like the sources for information then send in your own damned PIAs and get the information your self. I'm ****ing done posting information for folks that continually questions it. Fend for your ****ing selves. And for those that don't like the lack of information shared by the State, then get off your dead asses and show up in Annapolis. I'm done for a while with all of the whiners that want be spoonfed the information.

A ****ing men!
(No longer permitted to shame)

Inspector1489 · Nov 9, 2018

dblas said:
Every ERPO that is granted, is public record, if you know the name, you can look it up in Maryland Judiciary Case Search.

Personal experience with this right now with my daughter.
https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=228712 (w/c, so not all will see it)
Here's the deal:
I enter the respondent's name. The P.O.'s (1-peace/1-protective) show on Case Search, but the ERPO issued doesn't.
However, one of the conditions listed on the protective order is "Surrender All Firearms". Is this referencing the ERPO or something else? Even though he carries at work, he doesn't have anything personal to surrender, or so I've been told. Information is near impossible to find out. My daughter, or someone else in a position to have access could I suppose, but whether they'd share is anyone's guess.

It doesn't seem the ERPO would be listed as noted in bold on the text below. Any thoughts?

Source:
https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO#confidential

Are court records relating to an Extreme Risk Protective Order confidential?
All court records relating to an Extreme Risk Protective Order are confidential and the contents may not be divulged, by subpoena or otherwise, except by order of the court on good cause. A reference to the court record will not be included on the Judiciary's Case Search.
However, the following parties do have access:
personnel of the court;
the respondent or counsel for the respondent;
authorized personnel of the Maryland Department of Health;
authorized personnel of a local core service agency or local behavioral health authority;
law enforcement agencies; or
a person authorized by a court order for good cause shown.

Virgil Co.C · Nov 9, 2018

I fear it will get worse. Guilty until proven innocent

Name Taken · Nov 9, 2018

Inspector1489 said:
Personal experience with this right now with my daughter.
https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=228712 (w/c, so not all will see it)
Here's the deal:
I enter the respondent's name. The P.O.'s (1-peace/1-protective) show on Case Search, but the ERPO issued doesn't.
However, one of the conditions listed on the protective order is "Surrender All Firearms". Is this referencing the ERPO or something else? Even though he carries at work, he doesn't have anything personal to surrender, or so I've been told. Information is near impossible to find out. My daughter, or someone else in a position to have access could I suppose, but whether they'd share is anyone's guess.

It doesn't seem the ERPO would be listed as noted in bold on the text below. Any thoughts?

Source:
https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO#confidential

Are court records relating to an Extreme Risk Protective Order confidential?
All court records relating to an Extreme Risk Protective Order are confidential and the contents may not be divulged, by subpoena or otherwise, except by order of the court on good cause. A reference to the court record will not be included on the Judiciary's Case Search.
However, the following parties do have access:
personnel of the court;
the respondent or counsel for the respondent;
authorized personnel of the Maryland Department of Health;
authorized personnel of a local core service agency or local behavioral health authority;
law enforcement agencies; or
a person authorized by a court order for good cause shown.

HAHA....but according to some member who just left this thread it's all in case search open to the public.

The surrender all firearms in the Protective Order is different than the ERPO. They've had that clause in the Protective Orders for years and recently it's became a box that was checked all the time even if there is no allegations of firearms.

Mark75H · Nov 9, 2018

Virgil Co.C said:
I fear it will get worse. Guilty until proven innocent

And thinking bad thoughts. Thought police.

fabsroman · Nov 9, 2018

Hawkeye said:
People have said nearly exactly that.

And I quote:

Sound familiar at all? You said that people who won't come to rallies are detrimental to the cause. I would argue that posts like that are detrimental to the cause, because crapping on other people on our side who don't do the kind of activism that you want them to do just creates division between us.

I think that the PP is a hugely valuable group for our cause in Maryland, and what you guys do is important, but you've got to stop crapping on people who don't come to your events. We are all in this together, and the PP way is NOT the only way to make things better here. It's an important one, but it's not the only one, and people who don't come to the rallies don't deserve to be crapped on.

Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fabsroman · Nov 9, 2018

gprimr1 said:
114 requests, 60 granted, do we know if any of the 60 granted turned out to be anything substantial? That's a rather telling statistic that seems to be missing.

Exactly. What happened with the 60 that were granted. Was somebody testifying with bruises all over their face, after getting out of the hospital, after being raped?

I have seen some pretty bad domestic violence stuff in real life and in court. No doubt in my mind that some people should lose their firearms after physically beating another person over a domestic dispute.

Then again, a normal protective order is supposed to relieve a person of their firearms. Is it possible that somebody used an ERPO instead of the normal protective order process? It would be interesting to see exactly what happened in those 60 cases where an ERPO was granted.

Sirex · Nov 9, 2018

I see this being a great tool of vindictive future ex-wives.

BeoBill · Nov 9, 2018

gprimr1 said:
114 requests, 60 granted, do we know if any of the 60 granted turned out to be anything substantial? That's a rather telling statistic that seems to be missing.

^^^^^ This is the key to the whole thing, IMO. There is a world of difference between an activist judge granting for "He said mean things about my cat" and an earnest commissioner granting for "He said he was going to shoot me, and stuck his gun up my nose."

BeoBill · Nov 9, 2018

CrazySanMan said:
The CA shooter was visited by police who determined he wasn't bad enough to 5150 (CA's 1302)

Police Met With "Irate, Irrational" SoCal Mass-Shooter In April, "Didn't Feel He Warranted Psych Hold"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-08/12-killed-mass-shooting-california-country-bar

The MGA will repeat this ad nauseum when they meet again.

You guys in MD need to counter with the fact that these laws kill the innocent while allowing those who need it to walk.

No, we need to counter with

REFORM THE MENTAL HEALTH LAWS

Instead of concentrating on proving a negative, promote a positive. The shooter needed help and was denied because the responding police played psychiatrist and deemed him competent. And people died because of that bad decision.

BeoBill · Nov 9, 2018

Bolts Rock said:
Every MD flag on Bladen St. should be replaced with that opening day of session.

Nobody will notice...

In just over a month 118 Red Flag PO’s

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Living in Free America!

Past President, MSI

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

2013'er

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Powered by natural gas

Crank in the Third Row

Crank in the Third Row

Crank in the Third Row

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics