- May 5, 2010
- 6,588
Sure it is, but that doesn't mean we can violate someone's rights to due process just because domestic abuse exists.
In just over a month 118 Red Flag PO’s
- Thread starter Rob R.
- Start date
-
- Tags
- trigger warning
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!
Member Benefits:
Sure it is, but that doesn't mean we can violate someone's rights to due process just because domestic abuse exists.
RoadDawg
Nos nostraque Deo
- Dec 6, 2010
- 94,394
Getting a domestic abuser locked up... is not violating their rights.
Taking a person in for an emergency evaluation after they’ve shown signs of instability... is not violating the person’s rights.
Yes... there are folks who do despicable things and file false reports to police and courts. And they may abuse this law. That is why I hate the law. However, the average LEO is very concerned about what they do with respect to civil rights. And they are NOT interested in violating yours.
RepublicOfFranklin
Ultimate Member
There are many good LEO’s that post here and they do deserve respect. I wasn’t insulting them and no offense to them intended. That said, I will always feel the no-knock raids and pre-dawn raids lead to far too many friendly’s getting killed and shouldn’t be done. It happens multiple times a year that some poor resident hears his front door get busted in and determines its a home invasion, only to be shot by the officers at the wrong address/right address but failed to identify as police.
I was being flippant, and don’t believe cops do it out of malice, but it’s hard to justify (to me) these type of raids outside gang territory.
You’re right that they’re not the enemies of ALL law enforcement. Again there are many good police, especially those posting here. However, with the FOP and Police Chiefs out there backing democrats and Everytown, they are definitely the enemy of some police. If not, they have an odd way of showing their support, like giving money to PETA while saying you support the meat packing industry.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have seen plenty of domestic abuse, but I have seen more where a pissed off wife or girlfriend calls and says there’s abuse and then pinches bruises all over herself as her “ evidence “
There have been ways to separate domestic abusers on the books for a very long time, this 1302 ******** is about control and confiscating guns from gun owners and when hogan signs the “ any interested party “ language back into the law it’s really gonna get messy
Getting a domestic abuser locked up once i
There’s real evidence he is a domestic abuser is not violating his rights
According to what dan posted so far about 50% of the 1302’s weren’t served so it appears that about half are blatantly ******** in the first month and the 50% that were served there will Be a number that are ********
In America a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and a 1302 does the opposite, your guilty till proven innocent, you lose your 2 a rights and your firearms, at the very least temporarily but no one knows for sure yet if you ever get your guns back and if returned in what condition, and it is in my eyes an unreasonable search and seizure and steps all over a mans due process
It’s a shit law about control, confiscating guns and removal of legal gun ownership in md and that’s all it’s about
TexDefender
Ultimate Member
- Feb 28, 2017
- 1,572
So, 114 ERPOs were requested in October and less than 60 were granted. So 60 individuals had their gun temporary siege. So the question should be how many of them, were found to be unstable and met the requirement to permanently forfeit their gun rights?
"See something, Say something"
Officer takes info to judge, judge acts accordingly, is this a new process given this new law? sounds like just a marketing scheme to promote turning in people who have firearms.
Officer takes info to judge, judge acts accordingly, is this a new process given this new law? sounds like just a marketing scheme to promote turning in people who have firearms.
TexDefender
Ultimate Member
- Feb 28, 2017
- 1,572
So of course someone will try to use it that way. But the requirement is more than mere marketing scheme.
- May 5, 2010
- 6,588
Or when a man gets domestically assaulted and everybody laughs because he's a man, except he can't hit her back because then they'll take the domestic assault seriously at that point.
rockstarr
Major Deplorable
Now that's ******** IMO.
All this fair is fair talk these days., Well its funny how fair only applies when its convenient for 1 side of the party.
An idle thought:
I wonder if The Demanding Moms or Jumping Jenny and her Annapolis Cowgirls are going to 1302 any of us when the law is "strengthened" to include reports from anyone, including your cat?
rockstarr
Major Deplorable
RoadDawg
Nos nostraque Deo
- Dec 6, 2010
- 94,394
If the actual numbers are correct... or if they’re not... the first part of that section, in no way causes the second part to be a correct assumption.
Sorry but there is far more information left out than is known. And that which is assumed to be known as correct information at this time... may not be correct.
One can not take a statistic from a barrel of statistics... and base a conclusion on it. It doesn’t work that way.
The denial of the ERPOs could have been for a multitude of legitimate reasons. The same goes for those granted. And without the particulars of each and every case here for us to study... ANY conclusions are going to have a 3% chance of even being close to the truth. Maybe that 3% is enough for some. But... I want the 97% of the information before I will be reasonably sure of what, why, when, where, and how.
Not directed to you TD but,
I may be way off base here but before this red flag law, there was no way for a spouse, close partner, family member, etc to report someone as a danger? What more does this new law do other than ... Firearms!?
I'm curious now, if a person tells authorities they believe their loved one is going to OD on opioids does the .gov do anything? Do they step in and take their drugs to save their life or do they need a new law to save lives in this fashion? My thought is, if they can then this same idea could have been used for weapons?? and before 1302 passed!
Why not an opioids red flag law? because ... firearms! and therefore my "marketing scheme" comment.
ICBW
Hawkeye
The Leatherstocking
- Jan 29, 2009
- 3,971
There absolutely was.
Nothing. It just makes it easier to take guns away, and specifically guns only. It doesn't cover knives, swords, bows, or any other kind of weapon.
yeah, I knew this and was just trying to back up my point. ugh, lovely MD.
So as soon as someone’s guns are arrested and they stab their family members to death or run them over with their car or lawnmower or hang them or drown them do you think the mga will expand this law to arrest people’s knives or cars or ropes or ponds and rivers?
Or is this just about confiscating guns?
That's the million dollar question.
LOL, Jumping Jenny and her Annapolis Cowgirls.
You're killing me here.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
‘Why is nothing being done?’: Concerns grow about drug use, fighting in Montgomery Co. school bathrooms (4 Viewers)
- Started by RFBfromDE
- Replies: 10
-
-
