Sun Article on ERPO Served in Pasadena

Abulg1972 · Sep 6, 2019

inkd said:
Enlighten us then.

1. The petition for the ERPO was filed by the FBI. Under Maryland law, a law enforcement officer is a proper petitioner.

2. The respondent made a very serious threat, and stated who he would kill first - exactly the kind of behavior that ERPOs were meant to prevent. He had made at least two prior such threats at work. He showed up at work intoxicated. He previously made comments about his mental health. If there were ever a case for issuing an ERPO, this was it.

3. At the time the firearms were seized, the actual owner thereof could not be confirmed. An ERPO requires the respondent to surrender all firearms that are in his possession and prohibits the respondent from possessing any firearms while the ERPO is in effect. The son and father lived together. If an ERPO is issued and firearms located at the respondent's residence at the time of service cannot be attributed to someone other than the respondent and are not secured, or cannot be secured, in a way that prevents the respondent from gaining access to them, then the seizure of all firearms at the respondent's residence is appropriate and proper.

4. The father has every right to reclaim the seized firearms that belong to him, and the police are required by statute to return such firearms to the father, provided that he provides proof of ownership and he is not a prohibited person. Of course, he is obligated, under both federal and Maryland law, to ensure that the respondent does not have access to those reclaimed firearms. Upon a failure of the police to do so, the father could file suit and assert all sorts of claims against the police.

5. The police are required, upon request of the respondent, to return all firearms belonging to the respondent not later than: (i) 14 days after the expiration of an interim or temporary ERPO; (ii) 14 days after a court terminates a final EROP; or (iii) 48 hours after the expiration of a final ERPO. Upon a failure of the police to do so, the respondent could file suit and assert all sorts of claims against the police.

LeadSled1 · Sep 6, 2019

So if you legally build a firearm how do you provide proof of ownership?

pbharvey · Sep 6, 2019

I don’t have proof of ownership for most of the things I own: TV, couch, coffee pot, shotgun, etc.
Some things I own are gifts from people who are no longer alive.
How about the police prove he doesn’t own them?

willtill · Sep 6, 2019

pbharvey said:
I don’t have proof of ownership for most of the things I own: TV, couch, coffee pot, shotgun, etc.
Some things I own are gifts from people who are no longer alive.
How about the police prove he doesn’t own them?

I think that in the absence of bills of sale or other documents that portray that you own the firearms;

1. Take a picture of each one (serial number enhanced) with your driver's license next to it.

2. Get that notarized and dated.

What else do you do?

rbird7282 · Sep 6, 2019

Inigoes said:
If the father did not secure the firearms, and the firearms were just laying around. That would allow law enforcement to confiscate said firearms, because they probably had a warrant to seize all firearms found.

So they got an ERPO and a warrant? They are not the same thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Abulg1972 · Sep 6, 2019

rbird7282 said:
So they got an ERPO and a warrant? They are not the same thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don’t get a warrant to seize guns.

Abulg1972 · Sep 6, 2019

LeadSled1 said:
So if you legally build a firearm how do you provide proof of ownership?

Keep good records. Give your gun a personal serial number and record it.

lazarus · Sep 6, 2019

Abulg1972 said:
Keep good records. Give your gun a personal serial number and record it.

For actual serialized firearms keep the bill of sale if you can. I am pretty sure I have most of mine for new guns. In my case I have my firearms book for my FFL-03. I probably have a few that wouldn’t be recorded in that and weren’t FFL transfers.

I do need to get off my butt and at least record the serial numbers of all my guns.

An option is submitting an affidavit that you are the owner. It would of course be helpful if the son also submitted an affidavit disclaiming ownership.

One thing though, the law allows someone prohibited from possessing firearms to have police transfer the firearm to an individual who is not prohibited. I don’t know how that would be handled for regulated firearms. That very well might have to go through a 77r. Long guns could just be handed over. So even if they WERE the sons firearms, so long as the father pinky swore he was not going to give his son access he could take possession of even his son’s firearms if his son requested it.

Inigoes · Sep 6, 2019

willtill said:
I think that in the absence of bills of sale or other documents that portray that you own the firearms;

1. Take a picture of each one (serial number enhanced) with your driver's license next to it.

2. Get that notarized and dated.

What else do you do?

It's easier to get a receipt from the confiscators...

If they do not give you a receipt, it's theft!

inkd · Sep 6, 2019

Abulg1972 said:
1. The petition for the ERPO was filed by the FBI. Under Maryland law, a law enforcement officer is a proper petitioner.

2. The respondent made a very serious threat, and stated who he would kill first - exactly the kind of behavior that ERPOs were meant to prevent. He had made at least two prior such threats at work. He showed up at work intoxicated. He previously made comments about his mental health. If there were ever a case for issuing an ERPO, this was it.

3. At the time the firearms were seized, the actual owner thereof could not be confirmed. An ERPO requires the respondent to surrender all firearms that are in his possession and prohibits the respondent from possessing any firearms while the ERPO is in effect. The son and father lived together. If an ERPO is issued and firearms located at the respondent's residence at the time of service cannot be attributed to someone other than the respondent and are not secured, or cannot be secured, in a way that prevents the respondent from gaining access to them, then the seizure of all firearms at the respondent's residence is appropriate and proper.

4. The father has every right to reclaim the seized firearms that belong to him, and the police are required by statute to return such firearms to the father, provided that he provides proof of ownership and he is not a prohibited person. Of course, he is obligated, under both federal and Maryland law, to ensure that the respondent does not have access to those reclaimed firearms. Upon a failure of the police to do so, the father could file suit and assert all sorts of claims against the police.

5. The police are required, upon request of the respondent, to return all firearms belonging to the respondent not later than: (i) 14 days after the expiration of an interim or temporary ERPO; (ii) 14 days after a court terminates a final EROP; or (iii) 48 hours after the expiration of a final ERPO. Upon a failure of the police to do so, the respondent could file suit and assert all sorts of claims against the police.

Where did it state the FBI filed the ERPO? I didn't see that in the article. If you have another article saying that, I'd like to read it. I'm curios why the FBI would be involved at a state level. Unless some of the charges fell under a federal umbrella? Still, why would the FBI file it?

The firearms could be attributed to someone else at the residence, namely, the father. The police had records of the respondent owning one firearm. That should have been the only one taken.

If the respondent lived alone and there were multiple firearms present and they had a record of only one, I could see taking all of them.

Being that the respondent is incarcerated, with no bond, an opportunity should have been given to the father to find a place to secure the firearms in the event that the son was released.

What happens if he has no proof of ownership, does he forfeit his property? Do the 14 days count for the father? He is not the respondent. What steps does he have to take to reclaim his property?

Everything in the ERPO law is geared to the respondent. It makes no references to a situation like this.

As another poster put it, the firearms were arrested.

I don't care what you say, what happened to the father is straight up ******** and is exactly what people said would happen when this POS law was passed.

inkd · Sep 6, 2019

CrueChief said:
So IT IS about the guns.

It always was. No matter how they packaged it and sold it, it was always about the guns.

If it was truly about public safety, they would do something with the individual, not the tools.

Abulg1972 · Sep 7, 2019

inkd said:
Where did it state the FBI filed the ERPO? I didn't see that in the article. If you have another article saying that, I'd like to read it. I'm curios why the FBI would be involved at a state level. Unless some of the charges fell under a federal umbrella? Still, why would the FBI file it?

The firearms could be attributed to someone else at the residence, namely, the father. The police had records of the respondent owning one firearm. That should have been the only one taken.

If the respondent lived alone and there were multiple firearms present and they had a record of only one, I could see taking all of them.

Being that the respondent is incarcerated, with no bond, an opportunity should have been given to the father to find a place to secure the firearms in the event that the son was released.

What happens if he has no proof of ownership, does he forfeit his property? Do the 14 days count for the father? He is not the respondent. What steps does he have to take to reclaim his property?

Everything in the ERPO law is geared to the respondent. It makes no references to a situation like this.

As another poster put it, the firearms were arrested.

I don't care what you say, what happened to the father is straight up ******** and is exactly what people said would happen when this POS law was passed.

The fact that it was the FBI was in all of the live news stories on this issue. It’s not in the Baltimore Sun Article. This wasn’t a co-worker. A co-worker isn’t a proper petitioner.

The father should’ve kept good records.

inkd said:
It always was. No matter how they packaged it and sold it, it was always about the guns.

If it was truly about public safety, they would do something with the individual, not the tools.

What do you propose? That they leave the guns at home and arrest the respondent until a court determines that he’s not a threat? Then you’d be crying about how that violated his rights. Seems to me that securing the guns for a short period of time is the much better alternative. Take “over ma dead body” away from the equation for a minute. I don’t see how any rational member of a civilized society can say that separating a potentially crazy and dangerous person from guns until a court can figure out whether he’s a danger is a bad thing. I just don’t get it.

whistlersmother · Sep 7, 2019

Abulg1972 said:
The fact that it was the FBI was in all of the live news stories on this issue. It’s not in the Baltimore Sun Article. This wasn’t a co-worker. A co-worker isn’t a proper petitioner.

The father should’ve kept good records.

What do you propose? That they leave the guns at home and arrest the respondent until a court determines that he’s not a threat? Then you’d be crying about how that violated his rights. Seems to me that securing the guns for a short period of time is the much better alternative. Take “over ma dead body” away from the equation for a minute. I don’t see how any rational member of a civilized society can say that separating a potentially crazy and dangerous person from guns until a court can figure out whether he’s a danger is a bad thing. I just don’t get it.

A crazy person doesn't need guns.

Gasoline is very cheap mass weapon.

If someone's mental state is screwed up, a trip to Lowes, Ace, and Giant is enough.

ERPO is all about the guns, packaged by unimaginative, fearful of liberty people, in sugar wrapping.

Biggfoot44 · Sep 7, 2019

If he is actually suspected of being crazy , there already exists the 72hr eval , ERPO doesn't cause any mental evaluation or services . If he actually attacks / threatens people , that's : a Already illegal , arrest him . b Threaten family / squeeze , get a restraining order that already removes the guns .

ironpony · Sep 7, 2019

Abulg1972 said:
What do you propose? That they leave the guns at home and arrest the respondent until a court determines that he’s not a threat?

Oh, I thought the son is in jail, did they let him out already?

If the FBI got a MD ERPO given info from a co-worker then they need to add "co-worker" to the law.

Possession is 1/10th of the law when it comes to guns?

babalou · Sep 7, 2019

Gotcha

daggo66 said:
If you read the article you would have seen that the issue is that they are not sure who owns which guns. At least one is an AK and unfortunately no one is getting that one back. Hopefully someone cuts them a break on the transfer fees.

Soooo, just take everything a sort out later. Hate this effing state. Hey arrest everyone sort out later.

Mark75H · Sep 7, 2019

If it is true that the police forced or coerced the father into opening safes and locked containers, I believe they went too far. Its one thing to remove an actual immenent threat and another to confiscate for the sake of confiscation.

dblas · Sep 7, 2019

Abulg1972 said:
The fact that it was the FBI was in all of the live news stories on this issue. It’s not in the Baltimore Sun Article. This wasn’t a co-worker. A co-worker isn’t a proper petitioner.

You are confusing the story on the Marine in Oregon. The current thread we are in is about a gentleman from Pasadena, MD, so two completely different stories.

Abulg1972 said:
The father should’ve kept good records.

What do you propose? That they leave the guns at home and arrest the respondent until a court determines that he’s not a threat? Then you’d be crying about how that violated his rights. Seems to me that securing the guns for a short period of time is the much better alternative. Take “over ma dead body” away from the equation for a minute. I don’t see how any rational member of a civilized society can say that separating a potentially crazy and dangerous person from guns until a court can figure out whether he’s a danger is a bad thing. I just don’t get it.

The issue is that they took his father's property without due process or just cause, as there was no ERPO or arrest warrant for the father, only the son, that is the issue.

dblas · Sep 7, 2019

ironpony said:
Oh, I thought the son is in jail, did they let him out already?

Nope, still in jail, no bond.

ironpony said:
If the FBI got a MD ERPO given info from a co-worker then they need to add "co-worker" to the law.

Different story, FBI used Oregon law on a Marine, no FBI involved in this case. AACO PD got an ERPO for this individual, after they arrested him for the criminal threat. Under MD law, LE can obtain an ERPO if they deem the individual a threat to himself or others, to take the firearms out of his possession.

ironpony said:
Possession is 1/10th of the law when it comes to guns?

Abulg1972 · Sep 7, 2019

dblas said:
You are confusing the story on the Marine in Oregon. The current thread we are in is about a gentleman from Pasadena, MD, so two completely different stories.

The issue is that they took his father's property without due process or just cause, as there was no ERPO or arrest warrant for the father, only the son, that is the issue.

I’m not confusing anything. I am lucid at the moment and know exactly the situation to which this thread relates.

Sun Article on ERPO Served in Pasadena

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Habitual Testifier

The Dude Abides

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Peace through strength

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics