Red Flag info mtg Edgewater AAPD

dblas · Apr 24, 2019

Bob A said:
I can see no reason for the ERPO law; anything it does can already be initiated via other laws and regs.

It is narrowly focused on firearm owners, and it fails to address the source of the potential problem, to wit: the humans involved. Not the guns.

Given that it has already cost one life, which fact is being ignored by the legislature, it seems to me that the cost of this law is far too high.

Further, I can see absolutely no justification for anyone here defending or supporting this law.

This sums it up so well, as well as the website:

https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO?...J6znsGmX36LmvcdhmxGhhOIRkW0r11RrEfk#surrender

What an Extreme Risk Protective Order CANNOT do

An ERPO cannot order a person to:

stop threatening or committing abuse;
stay away from your home, place of employment, or school;
have no contact with you or others.

There are other legal remedies to obtain these protections.

If you need protection for yourself or a family member, see the "How to File for a Peace or Protective Order" Brochure (CC-DC-DV-PO-001BR).

An ERPO is a civil order and not a criminal charge. See a District Court commissioner or a State's Attorney to file criminal charges.

daggo66 · Apr 24, 2019

Interestingly these can be processed through the mail.

dblas · Apr 24, 2019

Occam said:
The theory isn’t that we’re dealing with someone so dangerous that multiple people including a judge think it’s urgently necessary - without any input from the dangerous person - to show up unannounced and take away their firearms. If the cop’s investigation must include not just the person on whose behalf he’s going to petition (being in some cases by definition the only person aware of and able to testify about the dire threat) has to tip off the threatening person about what’s about to happen ... and then go away, leaving the situation as-is while starting the paper mill ... that’s why. Someone unstable and theoretically on the hairy edge of committing murder is going to get an interview about his behavior and then be left alone and armed while a judge is hunted down? No cop would risk the potential victim that way.

Who is to say that an investigation of a threat to a neighbor has to tell the "dangerous person" that he is about to get red flagged??

As for the show up unannounced, are you aware that ERPOs can also be issued by mail, and once received have to be immediately complied with?

Occam said:
What good would the entire red flag construct be if it DIDN’T provide a way for (for example) a sole-witness threatened neighbor to start the ball rolling without pushing the crazy person over the edge in advance of the warrant?

And yet, there is no way outlined in the law. That is left up to the LE agency performing the investigation, and can be as simple as starting as question someone about an issue without mentioning the ERPO.

Occam said:
It’s not fear mongering, it’s pointing out exactly the sort of 1-on-1 crap that goes on all the time, only now with a far more provocative (for some) possible immediate outcome.

But there isn't any "immediate" outcome, because of the investigation and then the court hearings, at which point the neighbor can be called to testify what they feared.

Occam said:
The only fix is to amend it out of existence, and to instead embrace the notion that if someone is that dangerous, they - not just some of their dangerous implements - should be in custody, with from-the-get-go due process just like they’d get following a bar fight arrest or shoplifting.

Exactly

dblas · Apr 24, 2019

whistlersmother said:
I'd be more worried about an activist school psychologist than a pesky neighbor.

And there would be no recourse because you don't know who started the process. Nothing would happen to such a "professional" anyways.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Other than the petitioner needs to show up in court to argue why the ERPO needs to become temporary (in the case of an interim order) or final (in the case of a temporary order).

So then, yes, you would find out who initiated the order. There is nothing "secret" about them other than the entire case records.

Allen65 · Apr 24, 2019

dblas said:
Other than the petitioner needs to show up in court to argue why the ERPO needs to become temporary (in the case of an interim order) or final (in the case of a temporary order).

So then, yes, you would find out who initiated the order. There is nothing "secret" about them other than the entire case records.

Maybe I'm misreading the law, but if a neighbor goes to the police to suggest you're a danger, isn't the police officer the petitioner with the Court for the order, not the person who initiates the complaint?

ironpony · Apr 24, 2019

"See something, Say something"

is this still a thing?

ras_oscar · Apr 24, 2019

PowPow said:
Many times, the word they seem to use is "recover" as in "Officers recovered 16 long guns and 15 handguns from the scene." How can they recover something they never had possession of in the first place?

That's the same term they use when firearms come into their possession as the result of an arrest. I believe the term in the law is removal. That's what it should be called and the term they should be using.

Rab1515 · Apr 24, 2019

Allen65 said:
Maybe I'm misreading the law, but if a neighbor goes to the police to suggest you're a danger, isn't the police officer the petitioner with the Court for the order, not the person who initiates the complaint?

Yup, because the neighbor can't file one directly, but in practice a police officer will do it for them.

ras_oscar · Apr 24, 2019

inkd said:
A neighbor cannot.

But, a law enforcement officer can.

But wait... I thought A police Officer could not cite a violation of law based on someone else's information, only things they hear or see for themselves?

Occam · Apr 24, 2019

ras_oscar said:
But wait... I thought A police Officer could not cite a violation of law based on someone else's information, only things they hear or see for themselves?

But that's the whole point, here. The person who's asking for the Red Flag treatment doesn't have to say there's been a violation of law, and the person getting stripped of their guns doesn't have to have broken a law. This is about the cop taking someone's word for it (in the case of a single person doing the complaining, with no other witnesses) and going to a judge to get one of these orders without any actual crime having taken place or even having been alleged.

Not_an_outlaw · Apr 24, 2019

ras_oscar said:
But wait... I thought A police Officer could not cite a violation of law based on someone else's information, only things they hear or see for themselves?

Hearsay - it's old school!

KevinK · Apr 24, 2019

As others have posted, if the person is such a danger, why not take him/her away, and not the guns. This law is a total (unconstitutional) failure.

It's okay if, once the guns are gone, they kill with a knife/wrench/candlestick?

Colonel Mustard weeps.

44man · Apr 24, 2019

KevinK said:
As others have posted, if the person is such a danger, why not take him/her away, and not the guns. This law is a total (unconstitutional) failure.

It's okay if, once the guns are gone, they kill with a knife/wrench/candlestick?

Colonel Mustard weeps.

These type laws are not safety measures, there confiscation schemes plain and simple

The government wants you defenseless and doesn’t mind using their enforcement wing to carry out confiscation

If it were for safety reasons they wouldn’t take your guns and leave you home and able to buy 100 gallons of gasoline and a bic lighter and let you keep your car to drive it to a populated area

FHJ69 · Apr 24, 2019

Indeed

randomuser said:
next meeting will be to discuss how to get 80% weapons registered and have a sign in with q and a.
I won't be there either.

side note. I wonder if all the IP addresses, email credentials etc... from this forum have been logged yet?

Sadly yes... many times over.

ironpony · Apr 24, 2019

Is there a way to remove a law?
Are we discussing this for no real possible recourse? Hell even our POTUS says “I like taking the guns first”. #redirectedfrustration

3Paul10, can you fact check my posts over in the NRA thread?

:sarcasm

Thanks to the mods for letting this thread live on.

truthinchrist · Apr 24, 2019

Protections Already In Place

What many don't know is that we already have these protections in place for a person who one believe's is a danger to themselves or others, suicide or whatever the mental danger. As a police officer many years ago I enforced this on several occasions and it was always based on the complainant's report. We would receive the complaint or report, then take the defendant before a magistrate or judge for evaluation. If the judge finds the complaint credible they order the defendant to a 90 day mental evaluation. Thats it in a nut shell. These RPOs are not necessary they are only a cunningly devised scheme to go after the firearms period. Only the ignorant or antigun grabbers wouldn't see it that way because they are biased.

tailgunner · Apr 24, 2019

Hogan. About the life they ended, thanks to the md assembly and fatazz rhino hogan.

dblas · Apr 24, 2019

Occam said:
But that's the whole point, here. The person who's asking for the Red Flag treatment doesn't have to say there's been a violation of law, and the person getting stripped of their guns doesn't have to have broken a law. This is about the cop taking someone's word for it (in the case of a single person doing the complaining, with no other witnesses) and going to a judge to get one of these orders without any actual crime having taken place or even having been alleged.

And any officer that does that, puts his badge and job at risk without doing his due dilligence (i.e. an investigation).

BTW, I can't call the police and ask for an ERPO on you, I would have make another claim that would lead the police to find that an ERPO is needed. How do the police get to that determination......They investigate.

dblas · Apr 24, 2019

Allen65 said:
Maybe I'm misreading the law, but if a neighbor goes to the police to suggest you're a danger, isn't the police officer the petitioner with the Court for the order, not the person who initiates the complaint?

If the neighbor suggests you are a danger, and the police investigate and determine that you are, and request an ERPO based on the investigation. Then, based on the requirements of the law, the police are required to present the evidence to the judge in the ERPO hearing(s), and that would include what initiated the investigation.

dblas · Apr 24, 2019

KevinK said:
As others have posted, if the person is such a danger, why not take him/her away, and not the guns. This law is a total (unconstitutional) failure.

It's okay if, once the guns are gone, they kill with a knife/wrench/candlestick?

Colonel Mustard weeps.

This argument was made by several law enforcement leaders in testimony to the House Judiciary Committee. It fell on deaf ears, because they don't care about removing the person, only the inanimate object (Specifically firearms).

Red Flag info mtg Edgewater AAPD

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Member

Banned

Active Member

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics