RoadDawg
Nos nostraque Deo
- Dec 6, 2010
- 94,177
Too bad you can’t throw them in the trash and get a new set.
We could... but why waste the effort?
New ones will be just like the old ones... Demwitted...
Too bad you can’t throw them in the trash and get a new set.
As I mentioned that bit about getting your gun back is from one LEO source.
He's an officer in MSP so take it for what its worth.
How the law is written is one thing, what they actually do or what ends up actually happening is another.
A great example of this is "good and substantial" which isn't mandated by law but instituted by MSP.
Well, your source is wrong. If you want to go read the actual statute, it is here: (click the "next" link to walk through each section)
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...cle=gps§ion=5-601&ext=html&session=2019RS
The part that specifically deals with the return of seized items is here:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...cle=gps§ion=5-608&ext=html&session=2019RS
You don't have to go to court every six months or anything like that. In fact, you don't *have* to go to court at all, though that would be a bad way to handle it. You have the opportunity to appear at the hearings for the extended and final orders, and if at one of those they decide not to renew the order, then you get your guns back, and that's the end of it.
It's worth almost nothing. MSP, as an organization, has a history of blatant disregard for the actual law and line officers aren't required to be specialists in this stuff. They're also not the ones that you'd be dealing with at that point anyways.
Absolutely true.
Except that it is mandated by law. Those exact words actually appear in the statute. Where do you think we got them from? MSP has a ******** interpretation of it, but it IS in the law.
Hawkeye;5397705 You don't have to go to court every six months or anything like that. In fact said:that's the end of it.[/B]
It's worth almost nothing. MSP, as an organization, has a history of blatant disregard for the actual law
Honestly, the whole "you come to PP events or you are worthless" thing really turns me off, even though I think what you guys are doing is important.
@ 0:55 the officer states the group of people who can request an erpo does include a law enforcement officer. I thought I read in this thread that this is not the case. guns given up by juveniles, can they get them back if still a juvenile?https://www.localdvm.com/news/maryland/new-red-flag-law-used-in-local-gun-related-cases/1637370580
Apparently kids in Western Maryland have been ERPO'd.
How's that work?
@ 0:55 the officer states the group of people who can request an erpo does include a law enforcement officer.
Can an officer request an erpo on their own (no family member/cohabitant/etc), not worried just thought this was not the case.?
Also says once served, they have 48 hours to turn in everything. Wondering if the Glen Burnie guy was informed of this?
https://www.localdvm.com/news/maryland/new-red-flag-law-used-in-local-gun-related-cases/1637370580
Apparently kids in Western Maryland have been ERPO'd.
How's that work?
"The sheriff's office has had two against juveniles [make threats] against people at their schools...Most of what we have had so far, was something that was put on Facebook, or in one case it was Dropbox," Mullendore said.
thank you sir,I didn't watch the video, but that is incorrect. A LEO is one of the specific people listed who can swear out an Order against anyone.
Yes, they can, and this is one of the areas where people were worried about abuse of the law.
There is nothing in the law that says that.
How’s this work?
From your linked article...
If you want to fight the 1302 law...
Find examples of cases where it has been applied wrongly. Not cases which support it because the respondent actually DID make threats to harm someone.
That didn't take long.
When they are ERPO'ing kids are they only taking guns owned by the kids?
That didn't take long.
When they are ERPO'ing kids are they only taking guns owned by the kids?
Well since you've read the law... I am sure that you know the intent is to remove any guns which the responded has access to.
Parents who do not want to see their child listed as a respondent on any ERPO... should teach their children to NOT go around threatening other children. How difficult is that? The children should be schooled as to what is and hat is NOT something they should be talking about to others. And they certainly should not be posting ANY thing on social media which can be copied and used against them or their family.
As I have said MANY times... I DO NOT SUPPORT NOR DO I CARE FOR THIS 1302 LAW.
But I know that WE as a communityareshould be able to realize that pending a ruling from the SCOTUS which clearly states that the law in its configuration is in fact UNCONSTITUTIONAL... we are stuck dealing with it in its current form.
Valid point. Only caveat I have to that is what is and isn't a threat seems to vary day by day. Just like with our legal system under Trump, what is and isn't legal seems to vary judge by judge. I can see scenarios like this playing out the same. What a judge in MoCo sees as a threat may be very different than what a judge in Dorchester sees as a threat.
I can see this happening:
1) teacher overhears a student talking about shooting "all of them that come through the door"
2) teacher reports it to police
3) police request ERPO
4) police show up at house and take all the firearms.
5) turns out the kid was talking about his next level on his call of duty video game
Now the owner has to jump through all the legal hoops to try and get his guns back. This Will happen sooner than later.