Stop Bad "Redflag" Legislation in the Senate

eodtim said:

As you all know HB1302 is in the Senate and we need to get after this. Contact the following senators immediately in AACO;

james.degrange@senate.state.md.us
edward.reilly@senate.state.md.us,
bryan.simonaire@senate.state.md.us
bobby.zirkin@senate.state.md.us,
john.astle@senate.state.md.us

Below is what I sent them and posted on social media.

I want to ask you to not follow your feelings like too many legislators have and stop the "redflag" bill.

Milton Friedman said these very powerful words, “Never judge government by its intentions but by its results.” This is particularly true of Maryland House Bill 1302.

In a time when violence is a common daily occurrence there is a propensity to reach for "feel good" actions. Maryland HB 1302, better known as the "Red Flag" law, is such a bill. At a time when we desperately need mental health initiatives this one bill will isolate citizens who need that help. The bill only requires a feeling of concern over someone possessing legally a firearm to have the firearms removed.


This bill was originally intended (first reading) to fight domestic violence and was tied to the Ex Parte (peace order or domestic violence) process. The Ex Parte process was completely removed and instead of a spouse, relative or individual making this charge as part of a domestic violence incident it has been broadened to allow essentially the entire mental health industry (private and government) to file this "concern". This impacts 20.7% (according to CBS News) of Marylanders who own a fire arm legally.

(1) In today's hyper sensitive environment it allows anyone who believes your possession of a firearm (not use or threat) is enough to have them removed.

(2) This turns our mental health professionals into police. At a time when someone needs help they may not seek it for fear of losing their fire arms.

(3) In a society where divorce is at 50% this will become another weapon for people to use in anger and pain against a former loved one.

(4) For our current anti-gun activists, they can turn on loved ones for possessing a legal firearm.

(5) This is anti-veteran bill as it will make veterans refrain from seeking mental health due to fear of losing their right to protect themselves.

(6) There is no penalty for filing this action falsely.

This process will always lead to confiscation as it is a "safety issue" and the judge will always err on the side of safety regardless of the issue. No one will want the liability IF this were to go bad.

This is a great opportunity to show leadership and stop a bill that does not solve a problem and risk's citizens' God given and constitutional right to self protection. This law leads to abuse and confiscation. Please vote no.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

zoostation said:

You make very good points eodtim but one thing I want to point out also is the bill as it currently reads allows not only mental health practitioners, but basically anyone who can show some kind of "interest" in the person to file and have someone's guns seized without a chance for them to appear or even be notified of the hearing first. In addition to the MH concerns the bill is a stalker's dream.

Please check out the lengthy HB1302 thread in the National 2A section.

Click to expand...

Screwtop.243 said:

Supposedly, this miscarriage of justice would come into effect on October 1, 2018. Anyone know if it would be retroactive?

Click to expand...

ddeanjohnson said:

It would be helpful if you could clarify, please, what you have in mind when you say "retroactive," in this context.

Under the House-passed HB 1302, "any other interested person" could present to a district (or circuit) court judge absolutely any information that "led the petitioner to believe that the respondent presents an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to the respondent or others." The bill contains a list of possible "supporting documents" that might be submitted to the court, but the list just provides examples; submissions are not limited with respect to currency or in other respects. So, a petitioner could say, "Five years ago, I heard this guy say that anybody ever broke into his house, he would do X, and lately there has been a series of burglaries in our neighborhood." Or maybe she'd just submit studies from some academic researchers purporting to show that simply having a gun in the home by itself creates "an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury." Many judges probably would find that insufficient -- but each judge would have enormous discretion as to whether the submissions constitute "reasonable grounds" to issue an interim order. Some of us believe that it is a fair assumption that more than a few Maryland district court judges don't think that anybody except law enforcement "needs" guns, anyway, and they will be happy to advance that point of view every chance they get, if the legislature wishes to so empower them.

As for the petitioner, under HB 1302 he or she would be immunized from liability if in "good faith," whatever that means. Even a sincere petitioner may be deluded, or subjective, or hyper-sensitive, or simply mistaken. Even a trained observer may sometimes be mistaken -- thinking he sees a gun, when in reality there is only a cell phone, for example.

Click to expand...