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

eruby · Mar 19, 2018

Boondock Saint said:
The entire Maryland House/Senate is up for election this year, and every four thereafter. I've informed my Delegates that they won't have my vote under any circumstances. They are dead to me.

This post is SO true, even Fredo Corleone approves.

Jefferson Smith weeps.

camobob · Mar 19, 2018

I sent emails last week. Came by this morning to check out the situation. I need some help here fellas because I must be reading it wrong.
The version I'm looking it is:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/bills/hb/hb1302t.pdf
It looks to me like the petitioner goes to a judge who then issues a notice to the respondent. The respondent then attends the hearing where the judge decides if the order is warranted or not. I'm not saying I like it but at least it seems as if there is a chance to defend against the order. Am I reading it wrong?

Has it passed the senate yet?

pcfixer · Mar 19, 2018

Called the Governor's office this morning. Talk to one of his aids. She made the statement The Governor has made no statement
of weather he would sign this bill or Not.!

zoostation · Mar 19, 2018

camobob said:
I sent emails last week. Came by this morning to check out the situation. I need some help here fellas because I must be reading it wrong.
The version I'm looking it is:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/bills/hb/hb1302t.pdf
It looks to me like the petitioner goes to a judge who then issues a notice to the respondent. The respondent then attends the hearing where the judge decides if the order is warranted or not. I'm not saying I like it but at least it seems as if there is a chance to defend against the order. Am I reading it wrong?

Has it passed the senate yet?

No, a person does not have a right to attend or even be notified of the hearing for the initial order where the guns are seized. That is one of the major issues. Only on the later orders which continue it do you have the ability to be heard.

It has not passed the Senate yet.

EL1227 · Mar 19, 2018

camobob said:
I sent emails last week. Came by this morning to check out the situation. I need some help here fellas because I must be reading it wrong.
The version I'm looking it is:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/bills/hb/hb1302t.pdf
It looks to me like the petitioner goes to a judge who then issues a notice to the respondent. The respondent then attends the hearing where the judge decides if the order is warranted or not. I'm not saying I like it but at least it seems as if there is a chance to defend against the order. Am I reading it wrong?

Has it passed the senate yet?

So ... I have to spend my hard earned bucks to hire a lawyer, then take time off work to defend myself against the unwarranted fears of my Gladys Kravitz neighbor who can't keep her nose out of everyone elses business ?

What's wrong with this picture ?

danb · Mar 19, 2018

pcfixer said:
Called the Governor's office this morning. Talk to one of his aids. She made the statement The Governor has made no statement
of weather he would sign this bill or Not.!

Untrue. He said hed sign it. Ill try to find the article from last week.

The fact that the house bill passed by a wide margin is an indication the fix is in.

Honestly I am not sure we are doing ourselves any favors with the wild paranoid conspiracy theories about neighbors getting neighbors guns confiscated. Due process concerns are valid. I know that divorces are messy and all kinds of shit flies to get custody. People are having other people SWATed. However the statistics from CT are not impressive. They did not stop Adam Lanza. Over a 20 period they have not had what I would consider a lot of these. The solution to the due process concerns in my mind is to get Justices to treat the 2nd amendment like a normal enumerated right. Without justices who treat the 2nd as a normal right, anything is possible. I am not even sure this law is necessary to confiscate guns when its not a normal right. In other words, antis dont need the facade of this law to get neighbors guns taken now. I dont think this law adds anything to the equation.

camobob · Mar 19, 2018

Okay - I went back and read it again. I must have been seeing what I wanted to see the first time. I can make calls to senators today. What's the feel for this - do we have any chance of correcting the wording?

Rack&Roll · Mar 19, 2018

This is why that it is crucial that so CRUCIAL TO ENGAGE the MD Senators—crossing the street as they do tonight between 6:15pm to 7:15pm, or reaching out to them by phone, or in writing.

Tell them the “Any Interested Person” threat-reporting clause in the language is an invitation for people with grudges to see your firearms stripped from you on bogus charges.

Tomcat · Mar 19, 2018

camobob said:
I sent emails last week. Came by this morning to check out the situation. I need some help here fellas because I must be reading it wrong.
The version I'm looking it is:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/bills/hb/hb1302t.pdf
It looks to me like the petitioner goes to a judge who then issues a notice to the respondent. The respondent then attends the hearing where the judge decides if the order is warranted or not. I'm not saying I like it but at least it seems as if there is a chance to defend against the order. Am I reading it wrong?

Has it passed the senate yet?

I've been reading and re-reading several times this morning. If I'm interpreting it correctly, Petitioner goes to Circuit, District Court Judge or Duty Judge (is a Duty Judge the same as Court Commissioner?) The Judge can issue an Interim order and a police officer can come and get your guns. That is only good for 2 business days as I read it. Then you show up for a court hearing for whether or not the Judge issues a Temporary order. Depending on the outcome of the temporary order it can become permanent for a set length of time which can be extended.

The petitioner must show :

(I) THE RESPONDENT POSES AN IMMEDIATE AND PRESENT DANGER OF CAUSING PERSONAL INJURY TO THE RESPONDENT, THE PETITIONER, OR ANOTHER BY POSSESSING A FIREARM; AND
(II) THE EXTREME RISK PREVENTION ORDER IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT PERSONAL INJURY TO THE RESPONDENT, THE PETITIONER, OR ANOTHER;
(3) SET FORTH SPECIFIC FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE INFORMATION DESCRIBED IN ITEM (2) OF THIS SUBSECTION;
(4) EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR THE PETITIONER’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE
SUPPORTING FACTS, INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF THE BEHAVIOR AND
STATEMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT OR ANY OTHER 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;
(5) DESCRIBE THE NUMBER, TYPES, AND LOCATION OF ANY KNOWN FIREARMS BELIEVED TO BE POSSESSED BY THE RESPONDENT;
[/B](6) INCLUDE, TO THE EXTENT DISCLOSURE IS NOT OTHERWISE
PROHIBITED, HEALTH RECORDS OR OTHER HEALTH INFORMATION CONCERNING THE RESPONDENT; AND
(7) INCLUDE ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION REGARDING:
(I) ANY UNLAWFUL, RECKLESS, OR NEGLIGENT USE, DISPLAY STORAGE, POSSESSION, OR BRANDISHING OF A FIREARM BY THE RESPONDENT;
(II) ANY ACT OR THREAT OF VIOLENCE THE RESPONDENT MADE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT OR AGAINST ANOTHER, WHETHER OR NOT THE THREAT
OF VIOLENCE INVOLVED A FIREARM;

The bolded parts would seem to me to not enable the neighborhood bag lady from pursuing this. If you read what was stricken from the original law, I think it was narrowed down more than just anybody.

“FAMILY MEMBER” INCLUDES:
(1) ANY PERSON RELATED TO THE RESPONDENT BY BLOOD, MARRIAGE, OR ADOPTION;
(2) A CURRENT DATING PARTNER OF THE RESPONDENT;
(3) A FORMER DATING PARTNER OF THE RESPONDENT SEPARATED BY 1 YEAR OR LESS;
(4) ANY PERSON WHO RESIDES WITH THE RESPONDENT;
(5) ANY PERSON WHO HAS RESIDED WITH THE RESPONDENT WITHIN 1 YEAR BEFORE THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER THIS SUBTITLE; OR A CURRENT OR FORMER LEGAL GUARDIAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

Again from reading and re-reading I see no mention of a time frame for your guns to be returned other than if the judge rules in your favor after the hearing in the 2 days, it seem you can get your guns back. Further down after all the temporary and final order talk it says :

IF A RESPONDENT SURRENDERS A FIREARM UNDER THIS SUBTITLE, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SHALL:
(1) PROVIDE TO THE RESPONDENT INFORMATION ON THE PROCESS FOR RETAKING POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM

Rack&Roll · Mar 19, 2018

danb said:
Untrue. He said hed sign it. Ill try to find the article from last week.

The fact that the house bill passed by a wide margin is an indication the fix is in.

Honestly I am not sure we are doing ourselves any favors with the wild paranoid conspiracy theories about neighbors getting neighbors guns confiscated. Due process concerns are valid. I know that divorces are messy and all kinds of shit flies to get custody. People are having other people SWATed. However the statistics from CT are not impressive. They did not stop Adam Lanza. Over a 20 period they have not had what I would consider a lot of these. The solution to the due process concerns in my mind is to get Justices to treat the 2nd amendment like a normal enumerated right. Without justices who treat the 2nd as a normal right, anything is possible. I am not even sure this law is necessary to confiscate guns when its not a normal right. In other words, antis dont need the facade of this law to get neighbors guns taken now. I dont think this law adds anything to the equation.

Why do you dive into every legislative thread to announce a bill is a “done deal” or “the fix is in”?

It makes me think of children's birthday parties where one one pathetic kid yells out what’s in the gift boxes while the unwrapping is underway...

Where is the dishonor in fighting suspicious informant tactics in a so-called Red Flag bill focused on firearms and their owners?

Don’t you understand that occasionally the Senate rejects bad policy/bad implementation the way the Campus Gun Bill was kicked out last year?

The Maryland Senate has some history is standing up for what’s right.

What your agenda to always announce “game over”? Seriously, would you explain this?

pcfixer · Mar 19, 2018

hitwtom said:
I've been reading and re-reading several times this morning. If I'm interpreting it correctly, Petitioner goes to Circuit, District Court Judge or Duty Judge (is a Duty Judge the same as Court Commissioner?) The Judge can issue an Interim order and a police officer can come and get your guns. That is only good for 2 business days as I read it. Then you show up for a court hearing for whether or not the Judge issues a Temporary order. Depending on the outcome of the temporary order it can become permanent for a set length of time which can be extended.

The petitioner must show :

The bolded parts would seem to me to not enable the neighborhood bag lady from pursuing this. If you read what was stricken from the original law, I think it was narrowed down more than just anybody.

Again from reading and re-reading I see no mention of a time frame for your guns to be returned other than if the judge rules in your favor after the hearing in the 2 days, it seem you can get your guns back. Further down after all the temporary and final order talk it says :

This is just wrong to ask a judge and a petitioner who don't have medical or psychological degrees to make judgment calls on "RESPONDENT POSES AN IMMEDIATE AND PRESENT DANGER OF CAUSING PERSONAL INJURY TO THE RESPONDENT, THE PETITIONER, OR ANOTHER BY POSSESSING A FIREARM'.

That is called a competency evaluation by any standard. I know some family members that have mental issues and take drugs. Do you honestly think I want anyone like that in the family in front of a judge to explain why I own firearms and have them under lock and key when children around?

Jim12 · Mar 19, 2018

zoostation said:
No, a person does not have a right to attend or even be notified of the hearing for the initial order where the guns are seized. That is one of the major issues. Only on the later orders which continue it do you have the ability to be heard.

It has not passed the Senate yet.

Sounds a bit like the FISA Court was intended to be, where because only one side is there, the judges and federal prosecutors are carefully selected for their honor and integrity, the prosecutors have an obligation to investigate and present a full and fair picture, and all allegations are carefully vetted and verified as true. :sarcasm:

What's not to like about that? :rolleyes:

Is this frightening departure from our traditional adversarial justice system becoming a new trend, since we already know just from the type of proceeding and before they ever begin, who is "bad" (lawful gun owners) and who is "good" (everybody else)?

danimalw · Mar 19, 2018

Rack&Roll said:
The Maryland Senate has some history is standing up for what’s right.

Just like they did with FSA2013..

Schipperke · Mar 19, 2018

Someone write the "fix" was in?

danimalw · Mar 19, 2018

https://youtu.be/bIcSLhGvaTE

Gskwared · Mar 19, 2018

What happens when you live in a county or have a sheriff that doesn’t think people should have guns and they drag their feet or make you jump through hoops to get them back like forcing you to register all of your guns?

I have read horror stories of people not accused of a crime trying to get back legally owned firearms from the police. Not police bashing but they can lose guns or they will force you to provide or off of ownership. Never mind the police that take your legal pre 2013 non hbar AR or AK then say they are illegal and you can’t have them back. Again, not police bashing but some cops have no clue about gun laws.

camobob · Mar 19, 2018

Trying to be realistic and constructive here. Looking at the house vote, There's zero chance my Dem rep in the senate will vote against it. When I contact them I'm thinking of asking that the wording be changed to require the respondent attend the initial hearing to ensure due process. Does that sound like a reasonable approach?

camobob · Mar 19, 2018

Gskwared said:
What happens when you live in a county or have a sheriff that doesn’t think people should have guns and they drag their feet or make you jump through hoops to get them back like forcing you to register all of your guns?

I have read horror stories of people not accused of a crime trying to get back legally owned firearms from the police. Not police bashing but they can lose guns or they will force you to provide or off of ownership. Never mind the police that take your legal pre 2013 non hbar AR or AK then say they are illegal and you can’t have them back. Again, not police bashing but some cops have no clue about gun laws.

If they don't kill you while confiscating the guns then they will have them. Most likely the story ends there.

Rack&Roll · Mar 19, 2018

danimalw said:
Just like they did with FSA2013..

Go back and read about the FSA2013 the Infringers really wanted. You joined in 2014 and may have missed the opposition from our side to cauterize the damage against a 2/3 Infringer Govt.

Repeat: against a 2/1 Infringer majority.

The FSA2013 was, and remains, an unconstitutional attack on us.

EL1227 · Mar 19, 2018

Gladys Kravitz approved ...

Rack&Roll said:
This is why that it is crucial that so CRUCIAL TO ENGAGE the MD Senators—crossing the street as they do tonight between 6:15pm to 7:15pm, or reaching out to them by phone, or in writing.

Tell them the “Any Interested Person” threat-reporting clause in the language is an invitation for people with grudges to see your firearms stripped from you on bogus charges.

Or people who want you disarmed because of their hoplophobia.

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Confederate Jew

Active Member

Ultimate Member

, ,

R.I.P.

Attachments

dont be a dumbass

Active Member

R.I.P

Formerly Known As HITWTOM

R.I.P

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Supreme Being

Active Member

Active Member

R.I.P

R.I.P.

Attachments

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics