HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill

[esqappellate]

This is not legal advance. If law enforcement shows up at my door, I ask for a warrant. If no warrant, law enforcement is sent away. If law enforcement has a warrant, I offer no resistance, but I will expressly invoke my Fifth Amendment right to be silent and my Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel. I then call my lawyer and sit down quietly and answer no questions or initiate any conversation. And of course, law enforcement then will likely ransack the house, but they will do that anyhow.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

This is not legal advance. If law enforcement shows up at my door, I ask for a warrant. If no warrant, law enforcement is sent away. If so, I will expressly invoke my Fifth Amendment right to be silent and my Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel. I then call my lawyer and sit down quietly and answer no questions or initiate any conversation. And of course, law enforcement then will likely ransack the house, but they will do that anyhow.

What is your opinion on not answering the door?

 

[ddeanjohnson]

I can't remember, "in good faith", where all of my firearms and ammo are located.

Page 30, lines 8-9 of the Enrolled HB 1302, indicates that allegations or documentation of any "reckless, or negligent . . . storage . . ." of a firearm, constitutes one of the indices of dangerousness, on which an ERPO may be issued or extended.

 

[Rack&Roll]

What is your opinion on not answering the door?

I think that’s a $500/hour question...

 

[GLR En]

This is in an email I received from Del. Matt Morgan: An overview of Legislative Session 2018.

HB 1302- Public Safety - Extreme Risk Prevention Orders

"One of the more complicated political bills was a bill known to us as the “Red Flag” legislation. This legislation applies ex-parte laws to disarm citizens in cases where the individual is a potential harm to themselves or others. This bill was ignored by many pro-gun groups and not a single group wrote a letter of opposition. A late amendment to the bill in the House expanded this legislation negatively. Amendments on the House Floor to address due process and mental health concerns were voted down. The bill went to the Senate where it was our hope that it would be fixed to address both due processes as well as addressing the mental health of the individual. The NRA reviewed the legislation and gave a neutral opinion. However, my concerns over both due process and mental health were still not fully rectified and I voted no."

 

[daggo66]

The Trusts language should bear out legal prohibitors. If a Trust owns a SBS 870, it can have 2 Trustees with completely different addresses. If one trustee dies or becomes prohibited the other one has not lost any rights as a Trustee.

Im not going to talk about it any more. I was just trying to show that there may be alternatives to loosing irreplaceable property.

My wife and I have a trust. If either of us becomes prohibited ownership transfers to the other.

 

[daNattyFatty]

HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill

What is your opinion on not answering the door?

I haven’t read the complete law......is there any provision for entering after being “denied” entrance?

If not, and I’m assuming it’s not in this law, they can’t *legally* enter your house without a search warrant (or for that matter, an arrest warrant if the target is known to be inside).

As a police officer who has served and attempted to serve many protective orders.....if someone doesn’t answer the door, or can’t otherwise be located, the order goes unserved......

I guess I should also add, none of what I just said constitutes legal advice, just anecdotal evidence on my experiences.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[daggo66]

This is in an email I received from Del. Matt Morgan: An overview of Legislative Session 2018.

HB 1302- Public Safety - Extreme Risk Prevention Orders

"One of the more complicated political bills was a bill known to us as the “Red Flag” legislation. This legislation applies ex-parte laws to disarm citizens in cases where the individual is a potential harm to themselves or others. This bill was ignored by many pro-gun groups and not a single group wrote a letter of opposition. A late amendment to the bill in the House expanded this legislation negatively. Amendments on the House Floor to address due process and mental health concerns were voted down. The bill went to the Senate where it was our hope that it would be fixed to address both due processes as well as addressing the mental health of the individual. The NRA reviewed the legislation and gave a neutral opinion. However, my concerns over both due process and mental health were still not fully rectified and I voted no."

That's the BS story they are using, but it's not true one bit!

 

[esqappellate]

What is your opinion on not answering the door?

They may break it down.

 

[daNattyFatty]

That's the BS story they are using, but it's not true one bit!

Slimy MFers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[daNattyFatty]

They may break it down.

That’s seriously a permission granted to law enforcement in there?!

Or are you saying “may” as in they they may decide that they can and proceed, legal or not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[esqappellate]

That's the BS story they are using, but it's not true one bit!

The House Committee completely and secretly rewrote the entire original bill and the House leadership rammed it through in short order. The House never had a hearing on the amended bill and never gave notice. This is probably why Chairman Zirkin held a hearing when the bill got to the Senate. To his credit.

 

[esqappellate]

That’s seriously a permission granted to law enforcement in there?!

Or are you saying “may” as in they they may decide that they can and proceed, legal or not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

If law enforcement has a *search* warrant, they can legally search, which means that they can break down the door if you aren't there or even if you are.

 

[daNattyFatty]

HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill

If law enforcement has a warrant, they can search, which means that they can break down the door if you aren't there or even if you are.

I understand that. What I’m getting at is, does an ERPO alone act as a search warrant or does LEO inability to serve the order automatically turn into grounds to obtain a charging document and search warrant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[iH8DemLibz]

^^^Governor Hogan.....Are you reading and considering all of this?^^^

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

IDK. If you knowingly withhold weapons when served with an ERPO order, I believe you are committing a criminal act.

Is there a right to remain silent? Can you withhold the combination to the safe?

 

[Schipperke]

What is your opinion on not answering the door?

Hire a carpenter and/or glazier after your firearms are taken.

I'd guess it's a knock and announce cause guns are hard to flush..

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

This is in an email I received from Del. Matt Morgan: An overview of Legislative Session 2018.

HB 1302- Public Safety - Extreme Risk Prevention Orders

"One of the more complicated political bills was a bill known to us as the “Red Flag” legislation. This legislation applies ex-parte laws to disarm citizens in cases where the individual is a potential harm to themselves or others. This bill was ignored by many pro-gun groups and not a single group wrote a letter of opposition. A late amendment to the bill in the House expanded this legislation negatively. Amendments on the House Floor to address due process and mental health concerns were voted down. The bill went to the Senate where it was our hope that it would be fixed to address both due processes as well as addressing the mental health of the individual. The NRA reviewed the legislation and gave a neutral opinion. However, my concerns over both due process and mental health were still not fully rectified and I voted no."

He's a real estate agent. Why would you believe anything he says. I was in St. Mary's County for awhile, and argued with him numerous times. He replaced a pro-gun democrat.

 

[ironpony]

can we get an official statement from the NRA on where they stand with MD's version of Red Flag?

 

[esqappellate]

I understand that. What I’m getting at is, does an ERPO alone act as a search warrant or does LEO inability to serve the order automatically turn into grounds to obtain a charging document and search warrant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

As I read it (and NONE of this is legal advice), you have to look carefully at where you are in the various stages, viz., interim, temporary and final. The interim is entirely ex parte and the temporary may be ex parte. Let's just start with interim. The bill authorizes services of the interim order and the order will require the immediate surrender of firearms. (3) THE INTERIM EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER SHALL:
(I) ORDER THE RESPONDENT TO SURRENDER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES ANY FIREARM AND AMMUNITION IN THE RESPONDENT’S POSSESSION; AND
(II) PROHIBIT THE RESPONDENT FROM PURCHASING OR POSSESSING ANY FIREARM OR AMMUNITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE INTERIM EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER

Now that is not, by its terms, a "search warrant" as the order must be served on the respondent. So, if your question is may the police break down the door to accomplish service? Yes, they probably may if they have reason to think you're inside. Would they? Good question. They might well. Or they might just serve the order via first class mail. Such service is contemplated for Temporary orders: IF THE RESPONDENT FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER HEARING OR ANY LATER HEARING, THE RESPONDENT MAY BE SERVED WITH ANY ORDERS OR NOTICES IN THE CASE BY FIRST–CLASS MAIL AT THE RESPONDENT’S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS

The notice provided by the order will state: A WARNING TO THE RESPONDENT THAT VIOLATION OF AN INTERIM EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER IS A CRIME AND THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WILL ARREST THE RESPONDENT, WITH OR WITHOUT A WARRANT, AND TAKE THE RESPONDENT INTO CUSTODY IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS VIOLATED A PROVISION OF THE INTERIM EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER

Note that search warrants are expressly authorized on persons who are "subject" to an order. And that language does not require actual prior service.
5–607.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF § 1–203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE, ON APPLICATION BY A STATE’S ATTORNEY OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITH PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT A RESPONDENT WHO IS SUBJECT TO AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER POSSESSES A FIREARM AND FAILED TO SURRENDER THE FIREARM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER, A COURT MAY ISSUE A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE FIREARM AT ANY LOCATION IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE WARRANT