In just over a month 118 Red Flag PO’s

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!
  • 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... :lol2:
     

    Hawkeye

    The Leatherstocking
    Jan 29, 2009
    3,971
    As I mentioned that bit about getting your gun back is from one LEO source.

    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&section=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&section=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.

    He's an officer in MSP so take it for what its worth.

    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.

    How the law is written is one thing, what they actually do or what ends up actually happening is another.

    Absolutely true.

    A great example of this is "good and substantial" which isn't mandated by law but instituted by MSP.

    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.
     

    RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,177
    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&section=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&section=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.

    A fair clarification of the point. :thumbsup:
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,687
    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

    Except for the damage that was incurred by storage and added "identification markings". So your gun values may well have been forcibly diminished. You might try to exact compensation, but how much will that cost?
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,187
    Davidsonville
    @ 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?



    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?
     

    Hawkeye

    The Leatherstocking
    Jan 29, 2009
    3,971
    @ 0:55 the officer states the group of people who can request an erpo does include a law enforcement officer.

    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.

    Can an officer request an erpo on their own (no family member/cohabitant/etc), not worried just thought this was not the case.?

    Yes, they can, and this is one of the areas where people were worried about abuse of the law.


    Also says once served, they have 48 hours to turn in everything. Wondering if the Glen Burnie guy was informed of this?

    There is nothing in the law that says that.
     

    RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,177

    How’s this work?

    From your linked article...
    "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.

    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.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,187
    Davidsonville
    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.
    :thumbsup: thank you sir,



    So that LEO did not know the law as well as I ... I have learned here.


    If confiscations grow I would think these people would be searching/googling what to do and how to get their 2A goods back, I would suggest starting a thread (Titled to come up in searches) dealing with this. MDS comes up in Google searches very often so this might be helpful to those searching. This may even help us to get good info from those who have gone through an ordeal. Just a thought.
     

    IDFInfantry

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Feb 21, 2013
    926
    Nomad
    I'd assume that any expensive accessories or optics that one has on their firearms at the time of removal will have mysteriously disappeared upon return if their firearms are ever returned.
     

    East2West

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 20, 2013
    902
    Nomalley, Nobama
    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?
     

    IDFInfantry

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Feb 21, 2013
    926
    Nomad
    This is so clearly and blatantly just a tool that will be used and abused by the left to disarm their political opponents and those they don't agree with. The only thing that could have slightly protected law abiding gun owners would have been if harsh penalties were given to those who make false statements or falsely accuse in order to get someone's guns taken away. I don't see any such wording written into the bill holding anyone accountable in the event that an emergency protective order was taken out under false pretenses. This is a seriously dangerous and bad bill. Now if your hormonal kids say something stupid you are pretty much screwed. Great way for kids to get back at their parents. How is any of this even legal? On the face of it so much of it seems illegal violating numerous Constitutional amendments.

    :sad20:
     

    RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,177
    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 community are should 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.
     

    East2West

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 20, 2013
    902
    Nomalley, Nobama
    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 community are should 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.
     

    basscat

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 23, 2012
    1,390
    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.
     

    RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,177
    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.

    It is of course a known factor of humanity that not all humans view a given thing in the same manner.

    So don't ask for a blanket response to or from any of them...

    We can just as easily compare Maryland to Pennsylvania... as MoCo to other areas of Maryland. Attitudes are going to differ.

    But in any event... what will fear do for us? We need to have cooler heads and respond in a lawful and calculated manner. Lest we be painted as ALARMISTS and fools who foist tinfoil and hoist the fear flags for the sake of attention.
     

    RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,177
    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.

    Between 2 and 3... you forgot...

    2A) the Police investigate the complaint and talk to the students involved... ascertain that they were in fact talking about COD... Converse with them about which level they are currently on... and tell the teachers... thanks for calling... but try to be less suspicious in the future... and more judicious in asking the students to explain. :cool:

    Part of what Hogan actually did fight for before agreeing to sign the 1302... was legal assurance written into the law that it would not allow it be abused by those looking to use it to "SWAT" people they don't like.
     

    basscat

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 23, 2012
    1,390
    What exactly is worded in the law that prevents this from being abused? "In good faith" is not a prevention.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,411
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom