Gun Confiscation Killing in Maryland

The state law seems to say "reasonable cause". It doesn't say "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion". Perhaps they were attempting to present a standard less broad than reasonable suspicion but not as narrow as probable cause. All the concepts are closely related.

I read the article you linked, and again stand corrected. The prosecutor is not involved. It is a civil hearing. The hearing, however, is to be held within 2 business days, which is pretty fast.

The man died because he grabbed a loaded handgun when police told him it would be seized. He wrestled with a police officer over the loaded handgun, causing it to discharge.

That is an irrational and violent response to the situation he was in and it is not slander to say so

 

There is a lot of truth to what you are saying here. However, it is difficult to know the motives of all the people who passed the law. There were probably several motives.

Obviously some wanted a way to remove all firearms from citizens and they make the argument openly.

But the focus of this law is on stopping dangerous people before they commit mass murder. I believe most people will see this as reasonable.

The law may or may not be constitutional. From what I have read of it, it seems some safeguards are in place to protect gun owners. The hearing is held within 2 days. The seizure is temporary. Gun owners get to present their case to a judge.

No doubt you will not trust the courts to favor the gun owner, and that is likely were any abuse will occur. It will then eventually go before SCOTUS, where guidelines will be put into place.

 

well, when you barge into someone's house at the break of dawn and start confiscating their property because of some whiny sibling, you might get an irrational and violent response. They wouldn't have been there if it weren't for her, this gun grabbing law cost a man his life and two cops have to live with what they had to do for the rest of their lives. It's a terrible terrible bill.

No. The focus of this law is to grab guns. It is not meant to help the mentally ill.

"
An Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) is a court-issued civil order temporarily requiring a person to:

• surrender any firearms or ammunition to law enforcement; and
• not purchase or possess firearms or ammunition"

that's what it does and that's all it does.

lol, all the "safeguards" are in place to seize firearms. The time from somebody reporting you to the time they issue the order can be as little as ten minutes.

"

• Usually, the court will schedule a hearing within seven (7) days after the respondent is served the Temporary ERPO."

Look, I know you're struggling with this, but first you get an interim order:

• An Interim ERPO usually lasts until the Temporary ERPO hearing, but not beyond the second business day after issued unless the court is unexpectedly closed.

At that point, they can confiscate, and within two days they have to have the temp hearing, then the permanent one. The guns are already gone. Some due process.

This is Maryland, gun control central, so, yeah, can't trust their courts because they will rubberstamp any ERPO that is filed by some angry friend, relative, or the cranky nurse next door who's a big gun grabber.

 

The challenge goes to court. That is where you fight it.

 

I admit that the more I find out about the law, the less I think it will pass constitutional scrutiny.

I believe this case will be used by supporters to justify the law. They will claim the man proved himself to be dangerous and irrational by fighting with police over a gun.

I wonder if the NRA has commented on this case? I will be surprised if they support the gun owner.

 

I meant the challenge to the constitutionality of the law will be in the courts.

 

Although I agree with the concern of abuse over these "red-flag" laws to hear some make slippery slope arguments and turn a blind eye to the need to find ways of governing guns being in hands of mentally disturbed people is just as concerning. They ignore the fact that if any sane person wants to wrestle with police over a gun that they be prepared to kill or be killed and try to rest on 2 wrongs a makes a right. The same throw the baby out with the bath water in the name of protecting our 2nd amendment while they do harm to rational discussion about the right of people to be protected from the incompetent. Like I said, I'd be one of the first in line to protect our rights to bear arms but to use this kind of ground to stand and make these neglectful arguments does more to defeat the purpose than help strengthen it. I don't consider this kind of rhetoric helpful to support the 2nd amendment in the least...

 

Let me ask you a question. Do you have any ideas about how we, as a society, can get firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable people before they murder someone?

 

Good question. Cool and dry?

 

He isn’t dead because of the law. He is dead because he opted to make a bad situation worse. This case would have had more power had the man not validated the reason for the police being there in the first place.

 

The people who passed this law believe they have followed the constitution. If you have any specific ideas beyond "follow the constitution" (the way you see it), please feel free to offer specific ideas that will remove weapons from the hands of mentally ill or violent people.

You cannot be more wrong in holding this man's irrational and violent behavior toward law enforcement officers as a demonstration of courage.

Law Enforcement officers were doing their job. This man, and this man alone, is responsible for the escalation of force and the use of deadly force that cost him his life.

He didn't show courage. He demonstrated irrational and violent behavior, not courage.