HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill

Hard to believe there are Critters pushing the idea of people voluntarily opting to be locked up in a nut ward. So they can be watched and examined like a caged monkey. While the monkey tries to prove a negative.

If this weren't actually being discussed, I wouldn't think it could actually happen in this country. I'm not sure folks are really wrapping their heads around what's taking place. It's that sinister. Folks are standing around shaking their heads because that's all they can do.

The MGA is literally taking a blow torch to several different portions of The Bill of Rights. What the state of Maryland is doing to us now, the British did to us in the early 1770s. A boot on our necks. Because the MGA has the power and the will to do so.

We, as free citizens, are being reduced to utter insignificance.

iH8DemLibz said:

Hard to believe there are Critters pushing the idea of people voluntarily opting to be locked up in a nut ward. So they can be watched and examined like a caged monkey. While the monkey tries to prove a negative.

If this weren't actually being discussed, I wouldn't think it could actually happen in this country. I'm not sure folks are really wrapping their heads around what's taking place. It's that sinister. Folks are standing around shaking their heads because that's all they can do.

The MGA is literally taking a blow torch to several different portions of The Bill of Rights. What the state of Maryland is doing to us now, the British did to us in the early 1770s. A boot on our necks. Because the MGA has the power and the will to do so.

We, as free citizens, are being reduced to utter insignificance.

Click to expand...

Billy Bibbit weeps.

Mr. Harding is inconsolable.

iH8DemLibz said:

Hard to believe there are Critters pushing the idea of people voluntarily opting to be locked up in a nut ward. So they can be watched and examined like a caged monkey. While the monkey tries to prove a negative.

If this weren't actually being discussed, I wouldn't think it could actually happen in this country. I'm not sure folks are really wrapping their heads around what's taking place. It's that sinister. Folks are standing around shaking their heads because that's all they can do.

The MGA is literally taking a blow torch to several different portions of The Bill of Rights. What the state of Maryland is doing to us now, the British did to us in the early 1770s. A boot on our necks. Because the MGA has the power and the will to do so.

We, as free citizens, are being reduced to utter insignificance.

Click to expand...

We have 17 delegates that should stay in office. The rest of the republican turn coats need to go.

After all we have nothing to lose. The evidence points to "can't trust them"

SCV/SAR Patriot said:

Yep, and here is a FB post of hers from today that touts her 2A NRA rating. Heck if you click on the link it’ll take you to a page to send her a check if you feel so compelled.

https://m.facebook.com/delegatekathyafzali/

Click to expand...

I left a quick note asking about Due Process. Lets see what response I get.

Parttime said:

We have 17 delegates that should stay in office. The rest of the republican turn coats need to go.

After all we have nothing to lose. The evidence points to "can't trust them"

Click to expand...

that's kinda the way I see it but on the bumpstock trigger crank bill only 7 reps voted no so.........

Folks, please don't stop at your representatives. I'm leaving messages and writing emails to anyone and everyone regardless of their district. This is an All Hands On Deck situation. Don't stop with just your representatives.

j_h_smith said:

Folks, please don't stop at your representatives. I'm leaving messages and writing emails to anyone and everyone regardless of their district. This is an All Hands On Deck situation. Don't stop with just your representatives.

Click to expand...

Same here.

If enough Critters hear us voicing our displeasure and concerns, some of them may be swayed. They swore an oath to uphold The Constitution. They're failing. Miserably!

Time to contact the radio personalities too. Again.

response regarding "voluntary evaluation" option

East2West said:

So having to voluntarily enter yourself into the mental health system would be considered a win? I can only imagine the headaches that would come afterwards. How would doing that effect clearances and future gun purchases. No thanks I'd rather not have my name in the database.

Click to expand...

Since this is a comment on the idea "voluntary evaluation option" I've advanced above, I will respond. Keep in mind that under the bill as passed by the House, a petitioner could rather easily obtain, in a sort of star-chamber proceeding, an "interim" order, that the targeted gun owner / collector would find out about when the deputies show up at the door to serve the order. The revision I have proposed would provide the targeted gunowner or gun collector with an option at that point. If his particular situation or expectations made exercising the option more unpalatable than allowing immediate seizure of all of his firearms, he would not exercise the option, in which case he'd be subject to whatever procedures are provided in the rest of the bill.

The language that I've proposed would make it explicit that exercising the option would not trigger any firearms disability, and that no firearms would be touched until an adversarial hearing. You express concern that at some point in the future, the legislature might decide that a voluntary request for evaluation would itself trigger a firearms disability, and make that retroactive. We can conjure up any number of possible future possibilities, and if they appear then they must be responded to, but I would note that mental-health associations testified at the March 23 Senate hearing that seeking mental-health treatment ought not itself be stigmatized -- and my proposal involves only voluntary evaluation, not treatment. Anyway, anyone who believes your hypothetical future scenario poses more of a personal danger than immediate seizure of all firearms, right now, would not exercise the option.

Nobody is talking about a "win." This discussion is about reducing the downside. Keep in mind that the legislation in its most expansive, abuse-prone form (immediate seizure, hearing later), passed the House of Delegates 116-17, which is about 7-to-1; that it appears to be a priority of the Senate Democrat leadership; and that the governor has endorsed the broad concept and, so far as I can know, has not expressed reservations about even the House-passed language.

Given these realities, it seems likely that some form of the bill will soon be enacted. As I wrote above, giving the targeted gun owner an option would lessen the incentive for abusive applications of the law, not eliminate all such incentives. The option also would lessen the economic, emotional, and other harms done to some of the gun owners / collectors who are served with "interim" orders that were generated by petitioners who were malicious, mistaken, deluded, or deceived by others. Certainly, there would be other gun owners who would balance the harms differently -- but they would be no worse off because they had the option available to them, and declined it.

How does one know for sure, about the petitioner, who maybe in a mood disorder like PTSD or Bipolar?

The option also would lessen the economic, emotional, and other harms done to some of the gun owners / collectors who are served with "interim" orders that were generated by petitioners who were malicious, mistaken, deluded, or deceived by others.

Click to expand...

KevinK said:

Billy Bibbit weeps.

Mr. Harding is inconsolable.

Click to expand...

I wish I had the skills to photo-shop Afzali's and Szeliga's heads onto the above bodies.

Traitors, ALL.

pcfixer said:

How does one know for sure, about the petitioner, who may be in a mood disorder like PTSD or Bipolar?

Click to expand...

I am not sure who you refer to here, when you say "one," but I will take it to refer to the judge who receives the initial petition to issue an "interim extreme risk prevention order." Under the House-passed bill, the judge basically has nothing to go on, other than the allegations presented by the petitioner -- and as I understand it, the judge is likely to review that petition without ever directly seeing or questioning the petitioner, at least in many cases. The judge won't know what she doesn't know. If you are the targeted gun owner -- the "respondent," you can't give the judge important information about yourself and about the petitioner, because you have no knowledge that this proceeding is going on. So, you can't tell the judge that it was not you who sent the petitioner those threatening emails, but some adversary impersonating you (you've heard of "swatting," right?). You aren't there to explain to the judge that you are a retired police officer, or a permit holder, or a single mother with a stalker ex-husband, or a gun collector whose retirement fund is your gun collection. You aren't there to explain that you are a licensed dealer who has been targeted by activists trying to shut you down.

In some cases, predictably, the petitioner may indeed be subjective, or even seriously mentally ill. But how would the judge know? You won't be there to point it out. As I understand it, generally the judge will have nothing but the petition itself, which may have been prepared on the petitioner's behalf by some third party (i.e., the petitioner might be a patsy).

In other cases, the petitioner may be quite sane but simply mistaken. Even trained observers are sometimes mistaken. Perhaps the petitioner sincerely believes that she saw you in your back yard waving a gun around, but really it was only your cell phone -- you were just trying to get the display to flip sideways. Or maybe somebody was in your back yard waving a gun around, but it was not you -- a case of mistaken identity. Those petitioners would be in "good faith," but mistaken.

My proposal would merely give some gun owners, served with interim seizure orders that are based on information that is faulty (whether by malice or error), a way to get their day in court BEFORE incurring the costs of a seizure -- if and only if the gun owner finds that option less harmful than submitting to immediate seizure. There will still be the task of making a strong case, an an adversarial hearing, that the petitioner is mistaken or malicious. At that point, if a district court judge rules against the gun owner, I believe the gun owner should have a right to expedited appeal to the circuit court, if he is willing to remain confined and separated from guns in the interim.

ddeanjohnson said:

I am not sure who you refer to here, when you say "one," but I will take it to refer to the judge who receives the initial petition to issue an "interim extreme risk prevention order." Under the House-passed bill, the judge basically has nothing to go on, other than the allegations presented by the petitioner -- and as I understand it, the judge is likely to review that petition without ever directly seeing or questioning the petitioner, at least in many cases. The judge won't know what she doesn't know. If you are the targeted gun owner -- the "respondent," you can't give the judge important information about yourself and about the petitioner, because you have no knowledge that this proceeding is going on. So, you can't tell the judge that it was not you who sent the petitioner those threatening emails, but some adversary impersonating you (you've heard of "swatting," right?). You aren't there to explain to the judge that you are a retired police officer, or a permit holder, or a single mother with a stalker ex-husband, or a gun collector whose retirement fund is your gun collection. You aren't there to explain that you are a licensed dealer who has been targeted by activists trying to shut you down.

In some cases, predictably, the petitioner may indeed be subjective, or even seriously mentally ill. But how would the judge know? You won't be there to point it out. As I understand it, generally the judge will have nothing but the petition itself, which may have been prepared on the petitioner's behalf by some third party (i.e., the petitioner might be a patsy).

In other cases, the petitioner may be quite sane but simply mistaken. Even trained observers are sometimes mistaken. Perhaps the petitioner sincerely believes that she saw you in your back yard waving a gun around, but really it was only your cell phone -- you were just trying to get the display to flip sideways. Or maybe somebody was in your back yard waving a gun around, but it was not you -- a case of mistaken identity. Those petitioners would be in "good faith," but mistaken.

My proposal would merely give some gun owners, served with interim seizure orders that are based on information that is faulty (whether by malice or error), a way to get their day in court BEFORE incurring the costs of a seizure -- if and only if the gun owner finds that option less harmful than submitting to immediate seizure. There will still be the task of making a strong case, an an adversarial hearing, that the petitioner is mistaken or malicious. At that point, if a district court judge rules against the gun owner, I believe the gun owner should have a right to expedited appeal to the circuit court, if he is willing to remain confined and separated from guns in the interim.

Click to expand...

Yes. But also the petitioner should be evaluated. JMHO

Also, Mark Pennak, MSI president and attorney put forth that under the 4th Amendment, probable cause, and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation..." .... there must be evidence of a crime committed or going to be committed... His words not mine. But makes sense. Search and seizure can't be constitutional just because someone thinks or a judge thinks your an 'extreme risk to cause harm".

With the voluntary evaluation approach. When the swat team flasgbangs your family at 0400. You then politely tell them you'd like to have a voluntary eval done. 2 questions because I truly don't know, I'm not just trying to be argumentative:
1. Is that an immediate thing? Will they then take you to some mental facility for an eval?
2. By current law or by your proposed amendment would they be legally prevented from seizing your firearms at that time?

One liberal challenge I see to your proposal is the sea of leaving guns in the home of a person who has had this petition filed against them while they are under evaluation.

rambling_one said:

Yep...our money.

Click to expand...

"Income redistribution..."

One could easily create there own temporary gun free zone. Does the petitioner need to be a citizen? Quite a weapon in the wrong hands.

Rack&Roll said:

Our people are in contact with the Democrat and Republican members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

Please target Democrat and Republican Senators OUTSIDE this committee, please, and tell them that supporting a Red Flag Law that violates Due Process and trespasses on every Marylander's Civil Rights is a STAIN on the "Free State".

Urge them to seek enhanced and timely protections within the proven "Health General" regulations that won't criminalize firearm ownership.

Here are the Senators on the JPR Committee that DO NOT need our input because they are hearing from our inside people, so focus on ANY Senators other than these below, please:

Sen. Will Smith
Sen. Justin Ready
Sen. Anthony Muse
Sen. Michael Hough
Sen. Robert Zirkin
Sen. Dolores Kelly
Sen. James Brochin
Sen. Linda Norman
Sen. Robert Cassily

Click to expand...

I already sent a scathing email to Del. Geraldine, since she (in theory, anyway) represents me. Funny, but in years past I didn't recall seeing her crossing the street on Picket days. I guess she preferred the tunnel.

The email was two weeks ago, in response to an article in the Bowie Blade News and an email blast wherein she bragged about sponsoring the bill. Crickets since then...

pcfixer said:

Yes. But also the petitioner should be evaluated. JMHO

Click to expand...

If you mean, the petitioner routinely should be confined and evaluated, I don't think that's a practical proposal. But the respondent should have the right to an adversarial hearing, to offer evidence regarding the petitioner's motives or mental health, to cross examine, etc., before any seizure.

pcfixer said:

Also, Mark Pennak, MSI president and attorney put forth that under the 4th Amendment, probable cause, and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation..." .... there must be evidence of a crime committed or going to be committed... His words not mine. But makes sense. Search and seizure can't be constitutional just because someone thinks or a judge thinks your an 'extreme risk to cause harm".

Click to expand...

It is an important point. Certainly, any version of this legislation, including a version amended as I've proposed, might be subjected to litigation based on perceived 4th Amendment deficiencies such as Mr. Pennak vividly described. Moreover, under the House-passed bill, one effect of even an "interim" order, would be to absolutely deprive a respondent of the right to possess a handgun for self-defense, at least in the home -- which is a right that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Nevertheless, a number of other states have "red flag" laws (albeit none so sweeping, I think, as the House-passed HB 1302), and if any federal court has invalidated one, it has not come to my attention. Even if you think that will occur, it could take years.

Look, at the moment, we're not talking about the pros and cons of having a firearms-specific "red flag" law, as opposed to employing or tweaking the existing mechanisms of law such as Health-General-Title 10. A bill is highly likely to pass, so we're talking about what kind of "red flag" law we're going to be living under. It may be that someone else thinks that it should be left as bad as possible, so that the ensuing horror stories will somehow bite lawmakers who vote for it or groups that advocate it, but I disagree with this perspective -- I advocate lessening the downside.

East2West said:

With the voluntary evaluation approach. When the swat team flasgbangs your family at 0400. You then politely tell them you'd like to have a voluntary eval done. 2 questions because I truly don't know, I'm not just trying to be argumentative: 1. Is that an immediate thing? Will they then take you to some mental facility for an eval? 2. By current law or by your proposed amendment would they be legally prevented from seizing your firearms at that time?

Click to expand...

Under my proposal, the "interim extreme risk prevention order" itself would spell out the two options, and the deputies could be expected to explain the options verbally as well, when they serve the order. The law and the order would explicitly state that there would be no surrender-firearms component if the respondent choses confinement-evaluation.

Under the existing Health-General-Title 10 "emergency evaluation" procedure, and under the amendment I've proposed, a candidate for evaluation is taken into custody immediately, and driven by deputies to a designated facility in the area. In Prince George's County, it is the PG County Hospital Center, where they have a secure ward dedicated to this purpose. There are other such facilities in operation throughout the state. Under the amendment, that's where the respondent would stay until he gets his adversarial hearing, with counsel present if desired.

A legislator who supports the bill recently said that over 4,000 Title 10 emergency evaluation petitions were executed last year in Maryland, so this is machinery that is pretty well oiled. I once had occasion to witness the process (not as a respondent!), and I was favorably impressed with the sensitivity and efficiency with which it was carried out.

East2West said:

One liberal challenge I see to your proposal is the sea of leaving guns in the home of a person who has had this petition filed against them while they are under evaluation.

Click to expand...

Well, it depends. Do they just want to brag about how many guns they locked up, or is the priority really to separate guns from people who are thought to be in a dangerous state of mind? Under the House-passed bill, if the deputies go away with the respondent's guns, if he is truly mentally disturbed or bent on violence, he might secure another gun any number of ways (even though this would be a violation of the law) -- whereas if he chooses the "voluntary evaluation" option, he is physically kept away from all guns until he has had his day in court.

Of course, a respondent who is truly intending to commit some act of violence might be less likely to choose the evaluation option, compared to respondents who have been targeted by malicious or mistaken petitioners. But if a truly dangerous respondent refuses to exercise the option, then the situation is just the same as it would be under the current bill, in which guns are locked up but the purportedly dangerous respondent is not.

This is so similar to being Doxing! People have be killed over this type of action. If people will do it over a internet gaming argument people will do it for their "Political" view. There should be some penalty for those that use this to "further" their, like paying all courts costs, compensation to the accused, and a serious fine/jail time with the funds going to public school hardening program.

I understand what ddean is trying , BUT ...

Proving. You are not crazy ( prove a negative, DSM has overlapping codes for literally everything, certain % of headshrinkers are inherently progressive hopolophobes , you are shaken up and aggitated from having the SWAT team kick in your door, etc ) doesn't automatically protect you .

1302 is Intended to apply for the situation where you are Not Crazy , nor have committed any crime .