In just over a month 118 Red Flag PO’s

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!
  • dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,087
    Does anyone know if you can go to the courthouse and look at the file? Are other actions kept "closed" from public view?

    I'm curious if the secrecy can be challenged in court. It looks like a secret confiscation scheme without oversight.

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

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,087
    I don't think there is a reimbursement clause in the law if they choose not to return your property.

    There is not, but under the law as written, they are required to return you property in a timely manner.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,087
    The 118 number and the 60 number. Is the 60 number the ones that the Judges went fourth with after a hearing or did the Commissioners turn away nearly half of the people who came to them?

    I find it hard to believe that the Commissioners are turning away THAT many. I can see the temp. ones being issued and the 60 number being the ones the judges go with AFTER the guns have already been taken.

    Of 114 ERPOs requested, half were NOT Granted, which means that the judge, court commisioner, whomever, did not find enough information necessary to issue an ERPO, so they were turned away.
     

    CrazySanMan

    2013'er
    Mar 4, 2013
    11,390
    Colorful Colorado
    Of 114 ERPOs requested, half were NOT Granted, which means that the judge, court commisioner, whomever, did not find enough information necessary to issue an ERPO, so they were turned away.

    That's a high signal to noise ratio. Tells me the law is being abused by accusers.

    It would be interesting to see the political leanings of the judges who have made decisions on these. Are they even or do liberal judges approve them at a higher rate than conservative judges?
     

    Hawkeye

    The Leatherstocking
    Jan 29, 2009
    3,971
    If an ERPO wasn't granted, then no firearms were seized because there was nothing for the police to go tot the home for. I think what you are wanting to know, as well as I, is what was the outcome of the 60 or so that were granted, and for those that were cleared, have they gotten their firearms back yet, and if not, why not?

    I had my wires crossed. I meant to ask two questions:
    1. What was the outcome of the 60 or so that were granted (i.e. how many were extended and how many weren't)
    2. Of the ones that weren't extended, what was the disposition of the guns after they either expired or were not extended via hearing
     

    Hawkeye

    The Leatherstocking
    Jan 29, 2009
    3,971
    Just for clarity, the three order types and issuing authorities:
    1. Interim / District Court Commissioner
      1. Ex Parte.
      2. To be used ONLY when the District Court Clerk is not open for business.
      3. Expires when either a Temporary Order is issued or at the end of the second business day after Interim Order was issued.
    2. Temporary / District Court Judge.
      1. Ex Parte.
      2. Expires when either a Final Order is issued or 7 days after the Temporary Order was issued.
      3. May be extended for 6 months for service of the order or "other good cause".
    3. Final / District or Circuit Court Judge.
      1. Ex Parte.
      2. Expires 1 year after the Final Order was issued. May be extended for 6 months for "good cause".

    It is worth noting that the Temporary and Final orders are only Ex Parte if the respondent fails to appear. They are given notice of the hearing and a chance to appear on their own behalf.
     

    MJD438

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 28, 2012
    5,849
    Somewhere in MD
    It is worth noting that the Temporary and Final orders are only Ex Parte if the respondent fails to appear. They are given notice of the hearing and a chance to appear on their own behalf.

    Sorry - copy and paste error. Final is not Ex Parte. Temporary is Ex Parte and it is up to the judge if the respondent gets to testify.
     

    Hawkeye

    The Leatherstocking
    Jan 29, 2009
    3,971
    What if it's a permanent order? Where do they (firearms) go?

    There isn't a "permanent" order.

    The Final Order is valid for a year:

    MD PSC §5–605 (b) (2) (iii) said:
    that the final extreme risk protective order shall be effective for the period stated in the order, not to exceed 1 year, unless the judge extends the term of the order under § 5–606(a)(2) of this subtitle;

    But it can be extended for another six months via

    MD PSC § 5–606(a)(2) said:
    For good cause shown, a judge may extend the term of a final extreme risk protective order for 6 months beyond the period specified in § 5–605(f) of this subtitle after:

    (i) giving notice to all affected persons and the respondent; and

    (ii) a hearing.

    So unless I misunderstand or have missed something, just this subtitle can't be used to permanently take guns away from someone, just temporarily, up to 18 months if all of the extensions are filed for and granted. Of course, the supposition is that during that time, they'll find something else that would permanently disqualify the person.
     

    Name Taken

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 23, 2010
    11,891
    Central
    Just for clarity, the three order types and issuing authorities:
    1. Interim / District Court Commissioner
      1. Ex Parte.
      2. To be used ONLY when the District Court Clerk is not open for business.
      3. Expires when either a Temporary Order is issued or at the end of the second business day after Interim Order was issued.
    2. Temporary / District Court Judge.
      1. Ex Parte.
      2. Expires when either a Final Order is issued or 7 days after the Temporary Order was issued.
      3. May be extended for 6 months for service of the order or "other good cause".
    3. Final / District or Circuit Court Judge.
      1. Full Hearing.
      2. Expires 1 year after the Final Order was issued. May be extended for 6 months for "good cause".


    I find it hard to believe that HALF presented to Judges and Commissioners were turned away. I find it VERY believable that at the hearing in front of the Judge HALF were dismissed. If I am correct at that point the interim order would have been served and guns, if any, would have been seized. Then in front of the judge the next day it would be dismissed. Doesn't offer a resolution for those guns taken before the order was dismissed. Although that law does require for a quick release of the firearms when the order is dismissed.

    I glanced at Dblas's source article but I don't think they clarify nor do I find many news reports on complicated matters to be factual.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,178
    Sun City West, AZ
    I wonder how this would work if during the time of the term, the person left the state of Maryland.

    Should such a person try and purchase a firearm elsewhere and check the "no" box on the Form 4473 whether he or she is currently under indictment or under a protective order anywhere, he or she would be committing a crime under federal law. Even if not made an example of by a US Attorney they would likely never be able to legally possess a firearm again.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    I find it hard to believe that HALF presented to Judges and Commissioners were turned away. I find it VERY believable that at the hearing in front of the Judge HALF were dismissed. If I am correct at that point the interim order would have been served and guns, if any, would have been seized. Then in front of the judge the next day it would be dismissed. Doesn't offer a resolution for those guns taken before the order was dismissed. Although that law does require for a quick release of the firearms when the order is dismissed.

    I glanced at Dblas's source article but I don't think they clarify nor do I find many news reports on complicated matters to be factual.

    Good point.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,679
    Prince Frederick, MD
    Should such a person try and purchase a firearm elsewhere and check the "no" box on the Form 4473 whether he or she is currently under indictment or under a protective order anywhere, he or she would be committing a crime under federal law. Even if not made an example of by a US Attorney they would likely never be able to legally possess a firearm again.

    I was thinking about how to get your property back.

    Regarding your point, if you wait it out, are you still under a protective order?
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,087
    I had my wires crossed. I meant to ask two questions:
    1. What was the outcome of the 60 or so that were granted (i.e. how many were extended and how many weren't)
    2. Of the ones that weren't extended, what was the disposition of the guns after they either expired or were not extended via hearing

    Both are questions I have as well, but can't be answered unless the names of the respondents is known. I'm not sure if a PIA in each county would yeild what we need or not.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,087
    I find it hard to believe that HALF presented to Judges and Commissioners were turned away. I find it VERY believable that at the hearing in front of the Judge HALF were dismissed. If I am correct at that point the interim order would have been served and guns, if any, would have been seized. Then in front of the judge the next day it would be dismissed. Doesn't offer a resolution for those guns taken before the order was dismissed. Although that law does require for a quick release of the firearms when the order is dismissed.

    I glanced at Dblas's source article but I don't think they clarify nor do I find many news reports on complicated matters to be factual.

    If you look at the interactive map (instead of just glance at the article) that was a part of the article, you would have seen that indeed almost half of the orders were NOT granted, and thus, no firearms were retrieved. So whether you believe it or not, pretty much half of the requests were indeed turned down. If you don't like the source then may I suggest you submit a PIA for the numbers and then parse them out.
     

    Name Taken

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 23, 2010
    11,891
    Central
    If you look at the interactive map (instead of just glance at the article) that was a part of the article, you would have seen that indeed almost half of the orders were NOT granted, and thus, no firearms were retrieved. So whether you believe it or not, pretty much half of the requests were indeed turned down. If you don't like the source then may I suggest you submit a PIA for the numbers and then parse them out.

    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.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,927
    Messages
    7,259,365
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom