Sun Article on ERPO Served in Pasadena

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!
  • Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    I apologize for reading the Sun, but at least I managed to find something relevant and not overly loaded with emotion. In this case, it seems they confiscated the target's father's guns, too, for a total of 146 guns confiscated. I just know some of you are thinking "amateur".:innocent0

    https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/ac-cn-mark-rutkowski-20190904-zpxgq3xvz5e2vizmbvtonyt7ai-story.html

    Does anyone here know this guy? Name sounds sort of familiar.
     

    ToolAA

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 17, 2016
    10,499
    God's Country
    I’m just curious, what legal means would police have had to confiscate weapons and charge this guy prior to ERPO? I assume that if someone threatened shooting up his workplace before, and that threat could be substantiated and verified, the outcome may have been similar?
     

    inkd

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 4, 2009
    7,512
    Ridge
    And they took the fathers guns.

    They should have taken their vehicle keys and gas cans too.

    I hate this fvckin' state.
     

    daggo66

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 31, 2013
    1,992
    Glen Burnie
    The real question is how an ERPO was issued to begin with. I thought it could only be a relative or LEO. Now it looks like anyone can simply tell the LEO whatever they need to hear to get the ERPO. That is the alarming part and the part that was dismissed by so many during the legislative process.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,359
    SoMD / West PA
    And they took the fathers guns.

    They should have taken their vehicle keys and gas cans too.

    If the father did not secure the firearms, and the firearms were just laying around. That would allow law enforcement to confiscate said firearms, because they probably had a warrant to seize all firearms found.
     

    daggo66

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 31, 2013
    1,992
    Glen Burnie
    If the father did not secure the firearms, and the firearms were just laying around. That would allow law enforcement to confiscate said firearms, because they probably had a warrant to seize all firearms found.

    If you read the article you would have seen that the issue is that they are not sure who owns which guns. At least one is an AK and unfortunately no one is getting that one back. Hopefully someone cuts them a break on the transfer fees.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,359
    SoMD / West PA
    If you read the article you would have seen that the issue is that they are not sure who owns which guns. At least one is an AK and unfortunately no one is getting that one back. Hopefully someone cuts them a break on the transfer fees.

    Oh, I read the article.

    The AK must be returned, if the father lawfully owned it prior to FSA2013. Otherwise, someone is in a heap of trouble.

    If law enforcement made the father dump out the contents of the safe(s), that is completely wrong.
     

    pbharvey

    Habitual Testifier
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 27, 2012
    30,153
    Registration = confiscation
    Officers learned via the Maryland Gun Center that Rutkowski had one handgun registered in Maryland and found five firearms locked in a safe Tuesday.
     

    MJD438

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 28, 2012
    5,849
    Somewhere in MD
    Oh, I read the article.

    The AK must be returned, if the father lawfully owned it prior to FSA2013. Otherwise, someone is in a heap of trouble.

    If law enforcement made the father dump out the contents of the safe(s), that is completely wrong.

    Per Howard County PD's ERPO process, this is exactly what will happen - all firearms in the home, regardless of ownership or segregated access, are to be seized. If the "subjects" in question (not just the target of the ERPO) refuse to "voluntarily" surrender their firearms, a warrant will be sought by HCPD for their seizure.
     

    3paul10

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 6, 2012
    4,879
    Western Maryland
    Shame on him for making threats, shame on the dad for leaving guns out, so the person that appears like a nut can have access to them...
     

    KevinK

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 24, 2008
    4,973
    Carroll County, Md
    Shame on him for making threats, shame on the dad for leaving guns out, so the person that appears like a nut can have access to them...
    A wise old owl sat in an oak,
    The more he heard, the less he spoke;
    The less he spoke, the more he heard;
    Why aren't we all like that wise old bird?




    Very cosmopolitan.

    UX5KJORYP5GFBFEIMW2SGNLV24.jpg
     

    lowoncash

    Baned
    Jan 4, 2010
    3,447
    Calvert county
    Was It the father's home or the son's? Once the suspect was removed from the home, especially if the home belongs to the father, the threat is stopped. It is up to the judicial process to determine if the suspect is a threat and decide to hold or release him. Can't the court order the suspect to not return to the home as they do in domestic cases? Releasing the suspect before trial would seem to indicate the judicial system does not think he is a threat. If released the suspect has access to all manner of things such as vehicles, knives, flammables, rocks etc. None of these were confiscated. The whole process is firearms seizure cloaked in biased reasoning. If a drunk driver kills or tries to run over someone they don't confiscate vehicles under red flag. Cars are not confiscated for road rage.

    In a nutshell, the firearms were arrested.


    Also as a side note, when I saw the suspect's picture I immediately thought - Gary Busey's drinking buddy.
     

    Sealion

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    May 19, 2016
    2,710
    Balto Co
    Why did the Judge ask specifically about AK 47s instead of the weapon of war AR15? Seemed odd to me.
     

    pbharvey

    Habitual Testifier
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 27, 2012
    30,153
    Was It the father's home or the son's? Once the suspect was removed from the home, especially if the home belongs to the father, the threat is stopped. It is up to the judicial process to determine if the suspect is a threat and decide to hold or release him. Can't the court order the suspect to not return to the home as they do in domestic cases? Releasing the suspect before trial would seem to indicate the judicial system does not think he is a threat. If released the suspect has access to all manner of things such as vehicles, knives, flammables, rocks etc. None of these were confiscated. The whole process is firearms seizure cloaked in biased reasoning. If a drunk driver kills or tries to run over someone they don't confiscate vehicles under red flag. Cars are not confiscated for road rage.

    In a nutshell, the firearms were arrested.


    Also as a side note, when I saw the suspect's picture I immediately thought - Gary Busey's drinking buddy.


    We had a conversation at the dinner table the other night that one off handed comment, even if joking, could mean all our guns being removed from the house under threat of force.
     

    daggo66

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 31, 2013
    1,992
    Glen Burnie
    Was It the father's home or the son's? Once the suspect was removed from the home, especially if the home belongs to the father, the threat is stopped. It is up to the judicial process to determine if the suspect is a threat and decide to hold or release him. Can't the court order the suspect to not return to the home as they do in domestic cases? Releasing the suspect before trial would seem to indicate the judicial system does not think he is a threat. If released the suspect has access to all manner of things such as vehicles, knives, flammables, rocks etc. None of these were confiscated. The whole process is firearms seizure cloaked in biased reasoning. If a drunk driver kills or tries to run over someone they don't confiscate vehicles under red flag. Cars are not confiscated for road rage.

    In a nutshell, the firearms were arrested.

    Also as a side note, when I saw the suspect's picture I immediately thought - Gary Busey's drinking buddy.

    The son lived there. Who owns the home is irrelevant.
     

    daggo66

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 31, 2013
    1,992
    Glen Burnie
    Oh, I read the article.

    The AK must be returned, if the father lawfully owned it prior to FSA2013. Otherwise, someone is in a heap of trouble.

    If law enforcement made the father dump out the contents of the safe(s), that is completely wrong.

    “Must be returned?” Aren’t you funny. This isn’t America. It’s the PROM. They will be taken to his dealer of choice for transfer to him. He will have the option to sell the AK out of state.
     

    lowoncash

    Baned
    Jan 4, 2010
    3,447
    Calvert county
    The son lived there. Who owns the home is irrelevant.

    A much to common practice in nasty divorces is for the female to make accusation of violence against the husband. Husband is arrested, goes to jail, and is ordered by the court to not return to the residence where he lived and may have his name on the deed and mortgage. Also required to make future mortgage payments.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,918
    Messages
    7,258,679
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom