Antis Want to "Strengthen" Red Flag Law

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!
  • whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,933
    Fulton, MD
    So if the police serve a person a ERPO and they only have long guns,( no registry), and the respondent says " I have no guns ", then what's the police to do? Can a search warrant be issued on a " maybe" from someone who thinks he has guns. The police have no proof that he owns any.
    Someone posted HoCo's rules of combat when serving ERPO's. If the LEO thinks respondent isn't being fully cooperative, he is to arrest and get a search-n-seizure warrant.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
     

    BMiller

    Member
    Feb 24, 2018
    18
    ERPO is an unconstitutional law. Upon reading the new law(s) pertaining to the seizure of firearms. As written and passed; the laws violate the entire Bill Of Rights as well as possibly the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Someone will need to take this garbage through the leagl process up to the SCOTUS. That is if you do not get smoked by the POPO upon service of the order to seize your firearms.
    Incorporated in the law should be the responsibility of the politician representing the constituency of the location of the seizure should be present ( 1st in the door) upon service of each ERPO, Domestic related Protective order and Evaluation for Emergency Petition. All of those orders can be applied for by well just anybody anymore.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,933
    Fulton, MD
    How is that not a massive 4th Amendment violation?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Evidently, by not cooperating, the respondent is in violation of the ERPO and thus must be arrested. That gives probable cause for the warrant. Oh, and if firearms are somewhere else, respondent must accompany the officers to go get them. No way that could that go to sh*t quick...

    Damn, where is that thread. Oh yeah, it got locked. I'll try to find it.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,933
    Fulton, MD
    How is that not a massive 4th Amendment violation?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Evidently, by not cooperating, the respondent is in violation of the ERPO and thus must be arrested. That gives probable cause for the warrant. Oh, and if firearms are somewhere else, respondent must accompany the officers to go get them. No way that could that go to sh*t quick...

    Damn, where is that thread. Oh yeah, it got locked. I'll try to find it.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

    Here is the post from the locked thread. There is a PDF referenced with is HoCo's rules of combat.

    https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=5377768&postcount=702
     

    BMiller

    Member
    Feb 24, 2018
    18
    If the police believe you have more firearms than admited. The police will get a search warrant. Until the police get a search warrant they will hold your house. Meaning if you or family members are in your house, your movements will be confined to a room in your house with the police present until the warrant arrives. The room and you will be searched for officer safety. You may also be "detained" for officer safety.
    There are slight differeces for each type of order. For instance a domestic related order if founded by the judge. The respondent(order is against) will have 48 hours to turn in firearms or sell them to an FFL. If not they will be destroyed.
    ERPO- pretty much any person can apply for an ERPO. If the ERPO is not adjudicated within 90 days your firearms will be destroyed. The police have no other option according to the law. But states the seizing law enforcement agency is not liable for compensating the firearm owner. The State of MD is not liable either.
    But wait there are more goodies in the laws....You will automatically be taken to an emergency room and admitted for an evaluation of emergency committmnet for a mental health examination. Fact is these orders do not have an evidentiary standard. No probable cause , hell not even a level of reasonable suspicion and especially no due process protections.
    Anyway while you are being evaluated for mental health the police will have obtained a search warrant and thoroughly search your property.
    More goodies- You will loose your 2A rights FOR LIFE if convicted of any crime or upon receiving a probation before judment for certain crimes.
    There is a list of crimes in the law which basically only excludes minor traffic.
    There is also a listing of violent behaviors and the 1st violent behavior listed is.....wait for it...... the purchase of a firearm.
    This would be oddly histerical but this is reality.
     

    MigraineMan

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 9, 2011
    19,038
    Frederick County
    Hey, I've had a number of house-mates over the years. If I'm served with an ERPO, are the police going to seize all of the firearms on the property? include those owned by folks who are completely unrelated and not-married to me? (not sure how they could tell who the owners of the non-regualted arms are.)
     

    BMiller

    Member
    Feb 24, 2018
    18
    And the answer is .....Yes.
    Even if you are not the person involved. If the person involved has an order aginst them and is believed to have "access" to firearms yours can be seized.
     

    BMiller

    Member
    Feb 24, 2018
    18
    It also does not matter what type of firearms they are. If the person whom the order is against is on a property where firearms are located. All firearms are to be seized.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,933
    Fulton, MD
    Hey, I've had a number of house-mates over the years. If I'm served with an ERPO, are the police going to seize all of the firearms on the property? include those owned by folks who are completely unrelated and not-married to me? (not sure how they could tell who the owners of the non-regualted arms are.)

    In HoCo, maybe.

    Firearms and ammunition owned by other persons may be seized if the Respondent as reasonable access to them.

    I don't think it spells out "reasonable access". I assume if the roommates firearms are in a safe and you don't know the combination, then that would not be "reasonable access".
     

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,858
    Abingdon
    Just a couple of points:

    IMHO anyone with bad intentions already can get an ERPO on someone else. All they have to do is lie to the police instead of a judge.

    And I still don't know if it's been resolved if you get your pre-ban/now-banned firearms back if you're the victim of one of these abominations. Or if you lose your AK's/standard AR's/etc. because your crazy cat-lady sister-in-law is pissed at you for not lending her rent money.
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,474
    Columbia
    It also does not matter what type of firearms they are. If the person whom the order is against is on a property where firearms are located. All firearms are to be seized.



    Incorrect. Only if they belong to the respondent OR the respondent has access to them


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,060
    If the police believe you have more firearms than admited. The police will get a search warrant. Until the police get a search warrant they will hold your house. Meaning if you or family members are in your house, your movements will be confined to a room in your house with the police present until the warrant arrives. The room and you will be searched for officer safety. You may also be "detained" for officer safety.
    There are slight differeces for each type of order. For instance a domestic related order if founded by the judge. The respondent(order is against) will have 48 hours to turn in firearms or sell them to an FFL. If not they will be destroyed.
    ERPO- pretty much any person can apply for an ERPO. If the ERPO is not adjudicated within 90 days your firearms will be destroyed. The police have no other option according to the law. But states the seizing law enforcement agency is not liable for compensating the firearm owner. The State of MD is not liable either.
    But wait there are more goodies in the laws....You will automatically be taken to an emergency room and admitted for an evaluation of emergency committmnet for a mental health examination. Fact is these orders do not have an evidentiary standard. No probable cause , hell not even a level of reasonable suspicion and especially no due process protections.
    Anyway while you are being evaluated for mental health the police will have obtained a search warrant and thoroughly search your property.
    More goodies- You will loose your 2A rights FOR LIFE if convicted of any crime or upon receiving a probation before judment for certain crimes.
    There is a list of crimes in the law which basically only excludes minor traffic.
    There is also a listing of violent behaviors and the 1st violent behavior listed is.....wait for it...... the purchase of a firearm.
    This would be oddly histerical but this is reality.

    And the answer is .....Yes.
    Even if you are not the person involved. If the person involved has an order aginst them and is believed to have "access" to firearms yours can be seized.

    It also does not matter what type of firearms they are. If the person whom the order is against is on a property where firearms are located. All firearms are to be seized.

    So much misinformation in all of the above posts. It is clear that you are repeating hearsay instead of having actually read the law.
     

    RepublicOfFranklin

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 16, 2018
    1,137
    The ‘Dena - DPRM
    Here is the post from the locked thread. There is a PDF referenced with is HoCo's rules of combat.



    https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=5377768&postcount=702



    Good lord. It’s, at best, jackboot thuggery. To be honest, after endorsing democrats and this, they can find other folks to come crying to when they get protested.

    It’s just excuses to arrest people, when “no I won’t go for a ride to my family’s homes bc I don’t have guns there” allows them to arrest you and bust down your relatives doors for the crime of being related to a gun owner the system had gone full blown insane. I’m hoping there are lawsuits against this already going.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    I can see a lot more people who might die at the hands of the popo when they come knocking on your door. This law needs to be sent before SCOTUS by someone who does have standing and has been hurt by this law as well. IMHO those who crafted the law should be the first ones in the door to take the guns away. This could end badly for the person who the order is being served upon and or the those who help write the law to violate the person constitutional rights.
     

    EdHershon

    Active Member
    Oct 2, 2018
    127
    Annapolis
    ANYONE can be 1302'ed - not just firearm owners. The police and courts do not know if the person owns firearms, and thus will issue a 1302 regardless. As said upthread, will LEO really investigate the initial claim?

    Who are those Mom's in the picture. They should be the first served with 1302's, followed by Hogan's staff.

    I was in trial last week and the judge had an emergency 1302 petition that he had to hear. There was a detective that brought the petition and indicated that they had brought to the hospital an individual who was threatening to kill himself. They ran his name through the gun registry and it came up that he had no guns. The judge asked the detective why he was there then. The detective stated that they "wanted to be sure that he had no firearms."

    This is scary because in my opinion, the police did not have probable cause to obtain this. The individual was being held for a psych evaluation. He had no access to any firearms. If he were released, that would mean that he was not a danger to himself or others. Why search his home then for weapons that do not exist?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,702
    Messages
    7,248,986
    Members
    33,310
    Latest member
    Skarface

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom