In just over a month 118 Red Flag PO’s

Allen65 · Nov 12, 2018

Hawkeye said:
Except that with our law, they can't. The statute specifically grants immunity, both civil and criminal, to anyone who swears out an Order in "good faith." Good luck proving to anyone that the petitioner wasn't acting in "good faith."

And it seals the records so you can't even determine positively who requested the order, let alone evidence they lied to get one against you.

fabsroman · Nov 12, 2018

Hawkeye said:
Except that with our law, they can't. The statute specifically grants immunity, both civil and criminal, to anyone who swears out an Order in "good faith." Good luck proving to anyone that the petitioner wasn't acting in "good faith."

Except that with a search warrant, the standards for granting one are pretty clearly laid out (not saying that they never get abused) while there is literally no standard for granting or not granting an Order. I also can't go apply for a search warrant against you and ask the police to search your house for me because I don't like you. I *can* do that with an Order.

If you can prove that somebody lied, then they did not act in good faith. The devil is in the details.

How can you go and apply for an ERPO against gprim? There is a specific relationship that has to be in place. Then again, maybe that is present between the two of you and you are family or one of the other categories.

Not any Joe Blow can apply for an ERPO against me. At least that is how I read the statute.

fabsroman · Nov 12, 2018

Allen65 said:
And it seals the records so you can't even determine positively who requested the order, let alone evidence they lied to get one against you.

What? If you appear at the hearing for the temporary ERPO, the person that applied for the ERPO against you will be standing at the other table and you or your attorney will be able to question that person. That person needs to put on evidence at the hearing for the temporary ERPO in order to get the temporary ERPO in place. The records are sealed from public scrutiny so that a news reporter cannot obtain all of them and publish who in Maryland an ERPO was granted against.

Hawkeye · Nov 12, 2018

fabsroman said:
If you can prove that somebody lied, then they did not act in good faith. The devil is in the details.

Yeah, but the old "you can't prove a negative" applies here. If I'm your neighbor and I go to the cops and say "Fabs talked about shooting people with his guns last week while he and I were chatting over the fence" they can't prove that didn't happen, so I'm protected. Or if my wife goes to them and says "Hawekeye was threatening to shoot people last night" they can't prove that didn't happen either, so she's protected. See what I mean?

How can you go and apply for an ERPO against gprim? There is a specific relationship that has to be in place.

Not any Joe Blow can apply for an ERPO against me. At least that is how I read the statute.

That's how the statute is written, but we have already seen proof, both written and from LEOs in this thread, that departmental procedure is now to go get an ERPO if someone comes to them with this kind of complaint, just out of caution. If you and I have a domestic relationship, I can go swear one out myself. If we don't, I can go tell a cop that you were mean and scary, and he can swear one out for me.

Allen65 · Nov 12, 2018

fabsroman said:
What? If you appear at the hearing for the temporary ERPO, the person that applied for the ERPO against you will be standing at the other table and you or your attorney will be able to question that person. That person needs to put on evidence at the hearing for the temporary ERPO in order to get the temporary ERPO in place. The records are sealed from public scrutiny so that a news reporter cannot obtain all of them and publish who in Maryland an ERPO was granted against.

Okay, but the law says this:

5-602. (C) (1) ALL COURT RECORDS RELATING TO A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER MADE UNDER THIS SUBTITLE ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND THE CONTENTS MAY NOT BE DIVULGED, BY SUBPOENA OR OTHERWISE, EXCEPT BY ORDER OF THE COURT ON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN.

fabsroman · Nov 12, 2018

Hawkeye said:
Yeah, but the old "you can't prove a negative" applies here. If I'm your neighbor and I go to the cops and say "Fabs talked about shooting people with his guns last week while he and I were chatting over the fence" they can't prove that didn't happen, so I'm protected. Or if my wife goes to them and says "Hawekeye was threatening to shoot people last night" they can't prove that didn't happen either, so she's protected. See what I mean?

That's how the statute is written, but we have already seen proof, both written and from LEOs in this thread, that departmental procedure is now to go get an ERPO if someone comes to them with this kind of complaint, just out of caution. If you and I have a domestic relationship, I can go swear one out myself. If we don't, I can go tell a cop that you were mean and scary, and he can swear one out for me.

5–602.
(A) (1) A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER SHALL:
(I) BE SIGNED AND SWORN TO BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE
PENALTY OF PERJURY;
(II) INCLUDE ANY INFORMATION KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
THAT THE RESPONDENT POSES AN IMMEDIATE AND PRESENT DANGER OF CAUSING
PERSONAL INJURY TO THE RESPONDENT, THE PETITIONER, OR ANOTHER BY
POSSESSING A FIREARM;
(III) SET FORTH SPECIFIC FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE
INFORMATION DESCRIBED IN ITEM (II) OF THIS PARAGRAPH;

So, when an LEO swears out one of these petitions in "good faith", what are the specific facts that the LEO is relying on, other than a bunch of hearsay from somebody else? Are these hearings not subject to the rules on hearsay? I would think it would be pretty simple to get something like this thrown out IF the person that fed the info to the LEO is not in court. Now, if that person ends up being a witness, that might make things a little bit harder.

fabsroman · Nov 12, 2018

Found this article that says 114 warrants have been served. No idea how good this "investigative" reporting actually is.

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-red-flag-law

44man · Nov 12, 2018

fabsroman said:
Found this article that says 114 warrants have been served. No idea how good this "investigative" reporting actually is.

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-red-flag-law

According to dblas 114 were requested and less than 60 served

I take that to mean half of the 1302 are ******** and a judge throws them out

I also take that to mean there’s at least a 50% chance someone is lying so blatantly that a judge needs not see the person being accused, SO, why are the people requesting the ones turned down thrown straight in jail? Irreguardless of who they are? Relatives, cops or whomever??

fabsroman · Nov 12, 2018

44man said:
According to dblas 114 were requested and less than 60 served

I take that to mean half of the 1302 are ******** and a judge throws them out

I also take that to mean there’s at least a 50% chance someone is lying so blatantly that a judge needs not see the person being accused, SO, why are the people requesting the ones turned down thrown straight in jail? Irreguardless of who they are? Relatives, cops or whomever??

If the person is lying, then I agree with you that they should be thrown in prison. However, what if somebody really cannot read the law, or understand it very well, and swears out an ERPO when they are not one of the people that are allowed to do so? Pretty simple to deny that one, when the person swearing it out was doing so in good faith, but happens to be a moron.

daNattyFatty · Nov 12, 2018

fabsroman said:
Found this article that says 114 warrants have been served. No idea how good this "investigative" reporting actually is.

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-red-flag-law

Yeah, no way 114 search warrants or arrest warrants have been issued in reference to ERPOs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

44man · Nov 12, 2018

fabsroman said:
If the person is lying, then I agree with you that they should be thrown in prison. However, what if somebody really cannot read the law, or understand it very well, and swears out an ERPO when they are not one of the people that are allowed to do so? Pretty simple to deny that one, when the person swearing it out was doing so in good faith, but happens to be a moron.

Plenty of other morons in prison for the morons who didn’t obey the law on who could or could not file a 1302

44man · Nov 12, 2018

daNattyFatty said:
Yeah, no way 114 search warrants or arrest warrants have been issued in reference to ERPOs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Supposedly 114 files but less than 60 granted

There’s a link to it somewhere but I am on my phone so I can’t post it

daNattyFatty · Nov 12, 2018

44man said:
Supposedly 114 files but less than 60 granted

There’s a link to it somewhere but I am on my phone so I can’t post it

Then I guess we’re arguing semantics. Fabs was quoting a wjla article claiming that 114 warrants had been issued and he made a statement about probable shoddy reporting. I was merely concurring with him. ERPOs are not warrants.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

44man · Nov 12, 2018

daNattyFatty said:
Then I guess we’re arguing semantics. Fabs was quoting a wjla article claiming that 114 warrants had been issued and he made a statement about probable shoddy reporting. I was merely concurring with him. ERPOs are not warrants.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I am surely not arguing, just repeating what was written

I really want to know why if only half of the 1302’s filed were granted ,that the persons filing those that the judges didn’t grant are not in jail

This law is ******** all the way around

If people or cops can file them and half don’t pass muster then it would seem those who file them do so not in good faith and broke the law and should be arrested

And of the half served how many wound up being ******** and how were that persons guns handled and did they get them back right a way and did the persons filing them get locked up? And if not then why not?

Inspector1489 · Nov 12, 2018

Hawkeye said:
That shows how many have been SOUGHT, not how many have been GRANTED.

Unless I missed something, Dan never explained where the number of granted vs sought orders came from.

I understood that, just giving pcfixer what he requested.

I totaled all the counties and Baltimorgue City from the map = 114. Don't know where dblas got 60 either, although he mentioned a PIA. Perhaps he submitted one?

MDFF2008 · Nov 12, 2018

Just because it's not granted doesn't mean it was done maliciously though. It's entirely possible someone believed that someone was a threat, filed for an ERPO and the Judge determined the evidence wasn't there. Someone can act in good faith and be wrong. It's not the same as someone saying "I hate gun owners so I'm going to screw over every gun owner I know."

pcfixer · Nov 12, 2018

All of you have plenty of "food for fodder" on the subject of ERPO's AS we know a 1302'd. Sure would like to hear from "Mark". I'm sure the time will come
when He and MSI finds 'standing'. Sooner than one knows a member of MSI will have standing. I stand willingly to help in the pursuit of justice.
I'm am an Oath Keeper US Army Retired.

rbird7282 · Nov 13, 2018

bigdv said:
Thanks. I just did some research as well. It says whomever files the claim must list all guns that are owned and where they are kept in the house.

"The petition also must include things, such as, how many guns the person has and where the weapons are."

That’s not realistic. Hypothetical scenario, if my wife filed one against me, she has no idea how many I have and only knows where most of them are.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OLM-Medic · Nov 13, 2018

rbird7282 said:
That’s not realistic. Hypothetical scenario, if my wife filed one against me, she has no idea how many I have and only knows where most of them are.

Exactly why I think it's stupid.

I think liberals are just dumb enough that they don't realize must of us have guns hidden in case anyone decides to violate our rights.

If you keep all of your guns in your home, you are a fool.

RoadDawg · Nov 13, 2018

44man said:
Just remember, the more laws they pass the more lawyers, judges, cops, jail guards and support staff they need so it equals more government jobs, more rich lawyers and more bureaucracy.

It’s not really about safety or helping anyone.

It’s 100% about control

Making the same shyte more and more illegal and now passing and applying unconstitutional laws these folks ensure themselves more control and a seat on the money train that just goes around in a circle

Respectfully...

You’ve must not have seen the amount of damage that a pissed off abuser can mete out on their “loved one”. I assure you... it is NOT “100% about control”. Domestic Abuse is an EVIL thing.

In just over a month 118 Red Flag PO’s

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

The Leatherstocking

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Nos nostraque Deo

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics