Antis Want to "Strengthen" Red Flag Law

East2West · Nov 8, 2018

EdHershon said:
I was in trial last week and the judge had an emergency 1302 petition that he had to hear. There was a detective that brought the petition and indicated that they had brought to the hospital an individual who was threatening to kill himself. They ran his name through the gun registry and it came up that he had no guns. The judge asked the detective why he was there then. The detective stated that they "wanted to be sure that he had no firearms."

This is scary because in my opinion, the police did not have probable cause to obtain this. The individual was being held for a psych evaluation. He had no access to any firearms. If he were released, that would mean that he was not a danger to himself or others. Why search his home then for weapons that do not exist?

Come on now, the cop was just doing their job. Don't think too much into it.

CrabcakesAndFootball · Nov 8, 2018

EdHershon said:
I was in trial last week and the judge had an emergency 1302 petition that he had to hear. There was a detective that brought the petition and indicated that they had brought to the hospital an individual who was threatening to kill himself. They ran his name through the gun registry and it came up that he had no guns. The judge asked the detective why he was there then. The detective stated that they "wanted to be sure that he had no firearms."

This is scary because in my opinion, the police did not have probable cause to obtain this. The individual was being held for a psych evaluation. He had no access to any firearms. If he were released, that would mean that he was not a danger to himself or others. Why search his home then for weapons that do not exist?

Scary stuff; I assume the judge signed away. Thanks for sharing.

Not_an_outlaw · Nov 8, 2018

Wow, search warrants with no factual support. Sounds rather Totalitarian to me. Maybe they should get a search warrant for everybody who has and argument or threatens suicide. Imagine all the "fruit of the poisonous" tree items they could find. Imagine the possibilities with mental patients.

CrazySanMan · Nov 8, 2018

Not_an_outlaw said:
Wow, search warrants with no factual support. Sounds rather Totalitarian to me. Maybe they should get a search warrant for everybody who has and argument or threatens suicide. Imagine all the "fruit of the poisonous" tree items they could find. Imagine the possibilities with mental patients.

Wait until they tie the speed cameras to the firearms database and take your guns when you run a red light.

ironpony · Nov 8, 2018

Strengthen the law?? How much worse can that get , no wait don t answer that

Rab1515 · Nov 8, 2018

EdHershon said:
I was in trial last week and the judge had an emergency 1302 petition that he had to hear. There was a detective that brought the petition and indicated that they had brought to the hospital an individual who was threatening to kill himself. They ran his name through the gun registry and it came up that he had no guns. The judge asked the detective why he was there then. The detective stated that they "wanted to be sure that he had no firearms."

This is scary because in my opinion, the police did not have probable cause to obtain this. The individual was being held for a psych evaluation. He had no access to any firearms. If he were released, that would mean that he was not a danger to himself or others. Why search his home then for weapons that do not exist?

Was it granted? 1302 explicitly states "by possessing a firearm" as THE critical criteria. To approve it would be assuming guilt.

ironpony · Nov 8, 2018

Rab1515 said:
Was it granted? 1302 explicitly states "by possessing a firearm" as THE critical criteria. To approve it would be assuming guilt.

I’m assuming there is no way to tell?

BeoBill · Nov 8, 2018

New sign suggestions:

1302
the
MGA

1302
Miller

fidelity · Nov 8, 2018

EdHershon said:
I was in trial last week and the judge had an emergency 1302 petition that he had to hear. There was a detective that brought the petition and indicated that they had brought to the hospital an individual who was threatening to kill himself. They ran his name through the gun registry and it came up that he had no guns. The judge asked the detective why he was there then. The detective stated that they "wanted to be sure that he had no firearms."

This is scary because in my opinion, the police did not have probable cause to obtain this. The individual was being held for a psych evaluation. He had no access to any firearms. If he were released, that would mean that he was not a danger to himself or others. Why search his home then for weapons that do not exist?

That's amazing. New tool in the toolbox. Wonder if it's being used as a manner of routine. I presume people can not consent to searches of their homes, and at least for households with no known firearms owners, they can't easily obtain a warrant to force it on the pretext that there might be guns there.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

ironpony · Nov 8, 2018

They were just talking of this on FNC in regards to CA and they changed to introducing the idea of how many guns one person may own!!

Wheres that panic buying thread loll

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Nov 8, 2018

Back in the early '90s there was an effort in the MD General assembly to limit the number of firearms one can own or otherwise enact an "arsenal tax". It went nowhere at the time but I expect it to be resurrected this coming year in some form. There's a chance that even if Hogan would veto such a measure it might get overridden.

ironpony · Nov 8, 2018

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:
Back in the early '90s there was an effort in the MD General assembly to limit the number of firearms one can own or otherwise enact an "arsenal tax". It went nowhere at the time but I expect it to be resurrected this coming year in some form. There's a chance that even if Hogan would veto such a measure it might get overridden.

Perhaps turned into the MD Collectors license?

welder516 · Nov 8, 2018

I & my son will be in Annapolis in Jan. 2019 .

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Nov 8, 2018

ironpony said:
Perhaps turned into the MD Collectors license?

No...that came later I believe. When those proposals were up for public hearings I was asked to testify and did so. It was very instructive to see how the deck was stacked against us. The gun control people testified first...the media left after they testified other than one news crew. Those of us who were opposed to the bills received no media play at all...the public only got to see the gun control arguments televised.

RepublicOfFranklin · Nov 8, 2018

For even suggesting such a thing, the detective should be suspended until he can pass a Constitutional Law class on his own dime, disgusting overreach.

MD and CA in an all out race to be the first to overreach into powder keg territory.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BMiller · Nov 9, 2018

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/chapters_noln/Ch_250_hb1302E.pdf
Well here is the ERPO

BMiller · Nov 9, 2018

Who can file an Extreme Risk Protective Order?
The person requesting an ERPO is the petitioner. A petition may be filed by a:

spouse;
cohabitant;
relative by blood, marriage, or adoption;
person with child(ren) in common;
current dating or intimate partner;
current or former legal guardian;
law enforcement officer; or
medical professional who has examined the respondent (this includes a physician, psychologist, clinical social worker, licensed clinical professional counselor, clinical nurse specialist in psychiatric and mental health nursing, psychiatric nurse practitioner, licensed clinical marriage or family therapist, or health officer or designee of a health officer who has examined the individual).

BMiller · Nov 9, 2018

Who is an Extreme Risk Protective Order filed against?
A person who poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having firearms. The person who is alleged to be a danger is called the respondent.

Factors demonstrating possible risk include:

alarming behavior and statements;
unlawful firearm possession;
reckless or negligent firearm use;
violence or threats of violence to self or others;
violating peace or protective orders;
drug and/or alcohol abuse; and/or
information contained in health records.
An Extreme Risk Protective Order can be filed against a minor.

dblas · Nov 9, 2018

BMiller said:
Who can file an Extreme Risk Protective Order?
The person requesting an ERPO is the petitioner. A petition may be filed by a:

spouse;
cohabitant;
relative by blood, marriage, or adoption;
person with child(ren) in common;
current dating or intimate partner;
current or former legal guardian;
law enforcement officer; or
medical professional who has examined the respondent (this includes a physician, psychologist, clinical social worker, licensed clinical professional counselor, clinical nurse specialist in psychiatric and mental health nursing, psychiatric nurse practitioner, licensed clinical marriage or family therapist, or health officer or designee of a health officer who has examined the individual).

Yep, the actual complete verbage was posted further up thread.

dblas · Nov 9, 2018

BMiller said:
Who is an Extreme Risk Protective Order filed against?
A person who poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having firearms. The person who is alleged to be a danger is called the respondent.

Factors demonstrating possible risk include:

alarming behavior and statements;
unlawful firearm possession;
reckless or negligent firearm use;
violence or threats of violence to self or others;
violating peace or protective orders;
drug and/or alcohol abuse; and/or
information contained in health records.
An Extreme Risk Protective Order can be filed against a minor.

Not entirely true, Factors demonstrating risk DO NOT include information contained in health records as stated in the state statute.

5-602(A)(2) - A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER MAY
INCLUDE, TO THE EXTENT DISCLOSURE IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED,
HEALTH RECORDS OR OTHER HEALTH INFORMATION CONCERNING THE RESPONDENT.

Antis Want to "Strengthen" Red Flag Law

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banned

Active Member

Ultimate Member

2013'er

Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Crank in the Third Row

piled higher and deeper

Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Deplorable Welder

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Member

Member

Past President, MSI

Past President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics