Immediate Action Required -- Urge Gov. Larry Hogan to veto HB 1302 ("red flag bill")

esqappellate · Apr 25, 2018

swinokur said:
Does this mean a legal challenge might be considered?

I would need a plaintiff with standing to mount an equal protection challenge. Who wants to volunteer? To have standing, you would have to be able to allege that application of this law is imminent as to you!

swinokur · Apr 25, 2018

But an involuntary commitment BEFORE a hearing still makes you prohibited.

No due process there

iH8DemLibz · Apr 25, 2018

At the risk of playing mini-mod, this helpful information would be of benefit in the how to avoid being 1302ed thread.

This veto thread is now moot.

esqappellate · Apr 25, 2018

swinokur said:
But an involuntary commitment BEFORE a hearing still makes you prohibited.

No due process there

You can't impose "involuntary commitment" without a hearing. See MD Code Health General Section 10–632. IN this sense "involuntary commitment" is more than a detention for evaluation.

swinokur · Apr 25, 2018

What I was referring to was the 1302 hearing but I get what you’re saying

Abulg1972 · Apr 25, 2018

Well, the problem with my idea is that being involuntarily committed to a mental health facility is an automatic disqualifier under both the GCA and Maryland law. So, although there could be a local legislative fix in MD to address a short-duration commitment under an ERPO, Congress isn't going to do something similar.

I don't know how you skin this cat. How do you take emergency action to neuter a dangerous person pending a hearing without implicating all sorts of other issues?

Rack&Roll · Apr 25, 2018

Abulg1972 said:
Well, the problem with my idea is that being involuntarily committed to a mental health facility is an automatic disqualifier under both the GCA and Maryland law. So, although there could be a local legislative fix in MD to address a short-duration commitment under an ERPO, Congress isn't going to do something similar.

I don't know how you skin this cat. How do you take emergency action to neuter a dangerous person pending a hearing without implicating all sorts of other issues?

You CAN’T!

That “gap” is called “freedom under the Constitution.”

It can never be closed.

Rack&Roll · Apr 25, 2018

We have an open society, plus freedom that allows potentially dangerous people to be out in public amongst us. It was a decision made 240 years ago.

We have common law to roll up the symptomatic mentally ill who pose a danger.

We know where most of the criminals are but must catch them in the act.

In between are citizens who own guns who may have moods that scare people. Tough luck. It’s the American system that disallows The Thought Police.

EL1227 · Apr 25, 2018

All in 'due' time ...

esqappellate said:
I would need a plaintiff with standing to mount an equal protection challenge. Who wants to volunteer? To have standing, you would have to be able to allege that application of this law is imminent as to you!

It will happen as sure as the sun rises and sets every day. And, I can almost bet it will be an MDS member or someone who has been prominent in the gun rights movement here locally. No need for a volunteer, someone will 'volunteer' you. If the powers that be can secretly order you arrested for exercising your 1A right on a sidewalk in NapTown, they can anonymously order your firearms seized. As Rush would say ...

Biggfoot44 · Apr 25, 2018

The * Involuntary Commitment* that triggers being Prohibited is a specific legal proceeding .

Under discussion here might be against your voluntary will , and you might be getting your head shrunken , but its not the same thing until the procedures in 10-632 take place .

Abulg1972 · Apr 25, 2018

Biggfoot44 said:
The * Involuntary Commitment* that triggers being Prohibited is a specific legal proceeding .

Under discussion here might be against your voluntary will , and you might be getting your head shrunken , but its not the same thing until the procedures in 10-632 take place .

Maybe under MD law ...

swinokur · Apr 26, 2018

Being adjudicated a mental defective or admitted to a mental facility is also a Federal prohibitor.
.

ddeanjohnson · Apr 26, 2018

elaboration regarding the federal disqualifier

From the Code of Federal Regulations

27 CFR § 478.11 Meaning of terms.

[. . . ]

Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.

Adjudicated as a mental defective.

(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or

(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

(b) The term shall include -

(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and

(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

[. . .]

Committed to a mental institution.

A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

swinokur · Apr 26, 2018

The major difference being that in MD a voluntary commitment that exceeds 30 days also makes you a prohibited person

Rus · Apr 26, 2018

Letter sent.
I also focused on "unintended" consequences.

ddeanjohnson · Apr 26, 2018

swinokur said:
The major difference being that in MD a voluntary commitment that exceeds 30 days also makes you a prohibited person

Yes. To further elaborate: That provision applies to admission "for more than 30 consecutive days to a facility as defined in § 10–101 of the Health – General Article." § 10–101 of the Health – General Article defines "facility" to include "any public or private clinic, hospital, or other institution that provides or purports to provide treatment or other services for individuals who have mental disorder," but "does not include a Veterans' Administration hospital."

esqappellate · Apr 26, 2018

ddeanjohnson said:
Yes. To further elaborate: That provision applies to admission "for more than 30 consecutive days to a facility as defined in § 10–101 of the Health – General Article." § 10–101 of the Health – General Article defines "facility" to include "any public or private clinic, hospital, or other institution that provides or purports to provide treatment or other services for individuals who have mental disorder," but "does not include a Veterans' Administration hospital."

You must have been a fine lawyer in one of your past lives!

ddeanjohnson · Apr 26, 2018

esqappellate said:
You must have been a fine lawyer in one of your past lives!

I think not, but my guru says that if I perform many more good deeds, I may yet aspire to achieve that exalted status in my next life.

RepublicanJD · Nov 28, 2018

Anyone else get a form e-mail from the governor's office today?

Shazam · Nov 28, 2018

RepublicanJD said:
Anyone else get a form e-mail from the governor's office today?

Yes. I got one too.

Immediate Action Required -- Urge Gov. Larry Hogan to veto HB 1302 ("red flag bill")

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

President, MSI

In a State of Bliss

When All Else Fails.

President, MSI

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

R.I.P

R.I.P

R.I.P.

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Attachments

autodidact

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

autodidact

President, MSI

autodidact

Active Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics