Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 8th, 2018, 03:23 PM #51
Hawkeye's Avatar
Hawkeye Hawkeye is offline
The Leatherstocking
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,550
Hawkeye Hawkeye is offline
The Leatherstocking
Hawkeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_an_outlaw View Post
What if it's a permanent order? Where do they (firearms) go?
There isn't a "permanent" order.

The Final Order is valid for a year:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MD PSC 񘕼05 (b) (2) (iii)
that the final extreme risk protective order shall be effective for the period stated in the order, not to exceed 1 year, unless the judge extends the term of the order under 5606(a)(2) of this subtitle;
But it can be extended for another six months via

Quote:
Originally Posted by MD PSC 5606(a)(2)
For good cause shown, a judge may extend the term of a final extreme risk protective order for 6 months beyond the period specified in 5605(f) of this subtitle after:

(i) giving notice to all affected persons and the respondent; and

(ii) a hearing.
So unless I misunderstand or have missed something, just this subtitle can't be used to permanently take guns away from someone, just temporarily, up to 18 months if all of the extensions are filed for and granted. Of course, the supposition is that during that time, they'll find something else that would permanently disqualify the person.
Hawkeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2018, 03:44 PM #52
Not_an_outlaw Not_an_outlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Mechanicsville, MD
Posts: 3,271
Not_an_outlaw Not_an_outlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Mechanicsville, MD
Posts: 3,271
I wonder how this would work if during the time of the term, the person left the state of Maryland.
Not_an_outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2018, 03:52 PM #53
Name Taken Name Taken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Central
Posts: 10,316
Name Taken Name Taken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Central
Posts: 10,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJD438 View Post
Just for clarity, the three order types and issuing authorities:
  1. Interim / District Court Commissioner
    1. Ex Parte.
    2. To be used ONLY when the District Court Clerk is not open for business.
    3. Expires when either a Temporary Order is issued or at the end of the second business day after Interim Order was issued.
  2. Temporary / District Court Judge.
    1. Ex Parte.
    2. Expires when either a Final Order is issued or 7 days after the Temporary Order was issued.
    3. May be extended for 6 months for service of the order or "other good cause".
  3. Final / District or Circuit Court Judge.
    1. Full Hearing.
    2. Expires 1 year after the Final Order was issued. May be extended for 6 months for "good cause".

I find it hard to believe that HALF presented to Judges and Commissioners were turned away. I find it VERY believable that at the hearing in front of the Judge HALF were dismissed. If I am correct at that point the interim order would have been served and guns, if any, would have been seized. Then in front of the judge the next day it would be dismissed. Doesn't offer a resolution for those guns taken before the order was dismissed. Although that law does require for a quick release of the firearms when the order is dismissed.

I glanced at Dblas's source article but I don't think they clarify nor do I find many news reports on complicated matters to be factual.
__________________
"The way to get people out of poverty is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty." -- Ben Franklin

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who wish us harm." ---George Orwell
Name Taken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2018, 03:54 PM #54
TheOriginalMexicanBob's Avatar
TheOriginalMexicanBob TheOriginalMexicanBob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Frederick
Posts: 2,703
TheOriginalMexicanBob TheOriginalMexicanBob is offline
Senior Member
TheOriginalMexicanBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Frederick
Posts: 2,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_an_outlaw View Post
I wonder how this would work if during the time of the term, the person left the state of Maryland.
Should such a person try and purchase a firearm elsewhere and check the "no" box on the Form 4473 whether he or she is currently under indictment or under a protective order anywhere, he or she would be committing a crime under federal law. Even if not made an example of by a US Attorney they would likely never be able to legally possess a firearm again.
__________________
It was me...I shot Liberty Valance.
TheOriginalMexicanBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2018, 03:59 PM #55
fidelity's Avatar
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 15,740
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
fidelity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 15,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Name Taken View Post
I find it hard to believe that HALF presented to Judges and Commissioners were turned away. I find it VERY believable that at the hearing in front of the Judge HALF were dismissed. If I am correct at that point the interim order would have been served and guns, if any, would have been seized. Then in front of the judge the next day it would be dismissed. Doesn't offer a resolution for those guns taken before the order was dismissed. Although that law does require for a quick release of the firearms when the order is dismissed.

I glanced at Dblas's source article but I don't think they clarify nor do I find many news reports on complicated matters to be factual.
Good point.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
__________________
Post nubes, lux
fidelity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2018, 04:15 PM #56
Not_an_outlaw Not_an_outlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Mechanicsville, MD
Posts: 3,271
Not_an_outlaw Not_an_outlaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Mechanicsville, MD
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalMexicanBob View Post
Should such a person try and purchase a firearm elsewhere and check the "no" box on the Form 4473 whether he or she is currently under indictment or under a protective order anywhere, he or she would be committing a crime under federal law. Even if not made an example of by a US Attorney they would likely never be able to legally possess a firearm again.
I was thinking about how to get your property back.

Regarding your point, if you wait it out, are you still under a protective order?
Not_an_outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2018, 07:30 PM #57
dblas dblas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,075
dblas dblas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye View Post
I had my wires crossed. I meant to ask two questions:
  1. What was the outcome of the 60 or so that were granted (i.e. how many were extended and how many weren't)
  2. Of the ones that weren't extended, what was the disposition of the guns after they either expired or were not extended via hearing
Both are questions I have as well, but can't be answered unless the names of the respondents is known. I'm not sure if a PIA in each county would yeild what we need or not.
__________________
"If it pleases the crown"
dblas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2018, 07:32 PM #58
dblas dblas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,075
dblas dblas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_an_outlaw View Post
What if it's a permanent order? Where do they (firearms) go?
There is no permanent order, only a final order, and under state law, all orders are required to have an "expiration" date.
__________________
"If it pleases the crown"
dblas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2018, 07:35 PM #59
dblas dblas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,075
dblas dblas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Name Taken View Post
I find it hard to believe that HALF presented to Judges and Commissioners were turned away. I find it VERY believable that at the hearing in front of the Judge HALF were dismissed. If I am correct at that point the interim order would have been served and guns, if any, would have been seized. Then in front of the judge the next day it would be dismissed. Doesn't offer a resolution for those guns taken before the order was dismissed. Although that law does require for a quick release of the firearms when the order is dismissed.

I glanced at Dblas's source article but I don't think they clarify nor do I find many news reports on complicated matters to be factual.
If you look at the interactive map (instead of just glance at the article) that was a part of the article, you would have seen that indeed almost half of the orders were NOT granted, and thus, no firearms were retrieved. So whether you believe it or not, pretty much half of the requests were indeed turned down. If you don't like the source then may I suggest you submit a PIA for the numbers and then parse them out.
__________________
"If it pleases the crown"
dblas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2018, 08:03 PM #60
Name Taken Name Taken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Central
Posts: 10,316
Name Taken Name Taken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Central
Posts: 10,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by dblas View Post
If you look at the interactive map (instead of just glance at the article) that was a part of the article, you would have seen that indeed almost half of the orders were NOT granted, and thus, no firearms were retrieved. So whether you believe it or not, pretty much half of the requests were indeed turned down. If you don't like the source then may I suggest you submit a PIA for the numbers and then parse them out.
I won't be submitting anything. I think it's great to trust the media when it fits your thoughts but when they get articles wrong all the time the "false news" flag gets waved.

Until there is a real source which actually explains the disposition of each application I stand by my thought process. There is no way Commissioners are turning away HALF of the folks requesting them. The only way I could see this happening is if they aren't qualified to get an order and those are being counted.

Perhaps one day we will see a real article with the numbers and disposition of each one. Until then I'm not buying "half that were applied for" were denied at the Commissioners level. I could see an initial request being denied by a sitting Judge.

There is a lot of "fear" regarding getting these wrong at each and every level and there isn't a ton of training. I doubt HALF are being rejected.
__________________
"The way to get people out of poverty is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty." -- Ben Franklin

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who wish us harm." ---George Orwell
Name Taken is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2018, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service