Gun Confiscation Killing in Maryland

[carpro]

You are just wrong. The police were lawfully at the home to serve an order of protection. The police lawfully took possession of the loaded handgun.

The man broke the law, and became an immediate deadly threat to the officers when he attempted to, by force, re-take possession of the loaded handgun.

You can disagree with the law all you want. You have several, lawful, ways to show your disagreement. Peacefully protest. Support candidates that agree with you so you can change the law.

You can't fight with police over a handgun, whether you think you are in the right or not.

I give up.

You just can't read.

 

[Benjamin]

So resisting arrest brought them to his door? Really?

The LAW, one concerning a mentally disturbed person with a gun, brought them to his door. (Once again, this seems to have some merit.)

In addition to that, they weren't there to arrest him.

Correct, they were there according to their job to enforce the law and remove his gun. - upon which he then broke the law.

Some critical reading skills seem to missing here.

Indeed.

 

[carpro]

The "first wronged" would be the person who filed the order of protection.

How do we know? We don't know who it was or what the complaint is and if that person was "wronged" at all. It could be he just didn't like the defendent so decide the way to get back at him was to file a bogus complaint.

And since the defendent wasn't allowed to answer the complaint before having his constitutional rights taken away, we don't know that that is not exactly what occurred.

We would know that if the constitution had been followed.

And an innocent man would still be alive.

 

[canadyjd]

Simple. You follow the Constitution. A complaint was filed. A hearing is scheduled to see if the defendant is, in fact a danger to himself or others. If it is determined he is, his firearms can be confiscated.

He has a Constitutional right to own firearms. That right may not legally be taken away without due process..

Due process was followed. A complaint was filed, a judge heard the evidence by a prosecutor, an order of protection was issued. The police were sent to deliver the order of protection.

Under that state's law, guns can be confiscated by law enforcement until the hearing.

If you think that's unconstitutional, you go to court and make your case. That's how "due process" works in America.

 

[canadyjd]

How do we know? We don't know who it was or what the complaint is and if that person was "wronged" at all. It could be he just didn't like the defendent so decide the way to get back at him was to file a bogus complaint.

And since the defendent wasn't allowed to answer the complaint before having his constitutional rights taken away, we don't know that that is not exactly what occurred.

We would know that if the constitution had been followed.

And an innocent man would still be alive.

You have to trust the judicial system we have. You have to trust that, eventually, the constitution will be followed.

That man did answer the complaint. He answered with violence toward the police. He would still be alive if he hadn't fought with police over the gun.

 

[carpro]

The LAW, one concerning a mentally disturbed person with a gun, brought them to his door. (Once again, this seems to have some merit.)

Correct, they were there according to their job to enforce the law and remove his gun. - upon which he then broke the law.


Indeed.

It is not against the law to own a gun. Who declared him "mentally disturbed"? The answer is, no one. If they had, the news reports would have said so and the police never made that statement, either.

The law is unconstitutional. If due process was followed, an innocent man would still be alive.

 

[carpro]

You have to trust the judicial system we have. You have to trust that, eventually, the constitution will be followed.

That man would still be alive if he hadn't fought with police over the gun.

He would also still be alive if the officers hadn't been there to make an unconstitutional gun grab.

He would also be alive if the constitution had been followed in the first place. It is the people that wrote the law that do not trust the constitution and since they can't change the constitution, they write an illegal law to circumvent it.

That's the whole point.

 

[canadyjd]

He would also still be alive if the officers hadn't been there to make an unconstitutional gun grab.

Her would also be alive if the constitution had been followed in the first place.

that's the whole point.

I get your point. You think the law is unconstitutional. You think this is a first step toward confiscating guns from law abiding citizens.

My point is this is a poor case with which to make that argument.

 

[Benjamin]

It is not against the law to own a gun. Who declared him "mentally disturbed"? The answer is, no one. If they had, the news reports would have said so and the police never made that statement, either.

The law is unconstitutional. If due process was followed, an innocent man would still be alive.

There is certainly room for abuse with such a law. This is also a concern of mine. But once again, I think most would agree that there needs to be some kind of lawful action to be able to remove a gun from a suspected mentally disturbed person before they commit a crime with a gun. Sometimes "due process" comes in the form of first protecting the innocent from harm before settling the matter of competency or not.

 

[carpro]

I get your point. You think the law is unconstitutional. You think this is a first step toward confiscating guns from law abiding citizens.

My point is this is a poor case with which to make that argument.

An innocent man is dead. You couldn't find a better case to make the argument that the law is unconstitutional.

He's just the first. There will be more. Next time , it may be a law enforcement officer that dies attempting to enforce an unconstitutional law.

 

[carpro]

There is certainly room for abuse with such a law. This is also a concern of mine. But once again, I think most would agree that there needs to be some kind of lawful action to be able to remove a gun from a suspected mentally disturbed person before they commit a crime with a gun. Sometimes "due process" comes in the form of first protecting the innocent from harm before settling the matter of competency or not.

Known criminals are released daily all over the country because due process was violated forcing their release. Including known killers and baby rapers. If we do it your way, we'll keep all those people in jail without a hearing to keep them from harming innocent people.

You can't have it both ways. You either follow the constitution or you don't.

 

[HankD]

No due process is given to gun owners, so just hand in your weapon and we will talk about it later. All these type of gun laws are just another way to infringe upon your 2nd Amendment rights placed into law by the Democrats.

"Turn in your guns then we can read the confiscation bill to see what is says".

 

[Benjamin]

Known criminals are released daily all over the country because due process was violated forcing their release. Including known killers and baby rapers. If we do it your way, we'll keep all those people in jail without a hearing to keep them from harming innocent people.

You can't have it both ways. You either follow the constitution or you don't.

I guess it's okay then to yell "FIRE!" inside a crowded movie theater?
Likewise, allow a potentially mentally disturbed mass murderer to keep his guns until his court date?

 

[InTheLight]

The Maryland law allows a District Court judge, in the short- and long-term, to issue orders temporarily prohibiting someone from possessing or purchasing weapons and ammunition if there is evidence the person poses a danger by having a firearm. A final order lasts up to a year, but a gun owner must have an opportunity to respond at a hearing.

The law requires the person being served to surrender the firearms to law enforcement. If they refuse, law enforcement gets a search warrant, seizes the weapons and arrests the respondent on a misdemeanor charge.

As Anne Arundel police prepare for 'red flag' gun seizures, law's sponsor holds Capital Gazette shooting victim close

I suppose the key is to know if evidence was presented showing he was a danger and what that evidence was.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[carpro]

The Maryland law allows a District Court judge, in the short- and long-term, to issue orders temporarily prohibiting someone from possessing or purchasing weapons and ammunition if there is evidence the person poses a danger by having a firearm. A final order lasts up to a year, but a gun owner must have an opportunity to respond at a hearing.

The law requires the person being served to surrender the firearms to law enforcement. If they refuse, law enforcement gets a search warrant, seizes the weapons and arrests the respondent on a misdemeanor charge.

As Anne Arundel police prepare for 'red flag' gun seizures, law's sponsor holds Capital Gazette shooting victim close

I suppose the key is to know if evidence was presented showing he was a danger and what that evidence was.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

No the key is to have the respondent's hearing BEFORE his second amendment rights are removed.

 

[carpro]

I guess it's okay then to yell "FIRE!" inside a crowded movie theater?
Likewise, allow a potentially mentally disturbed mass murderer to keep his guns until his court date?

Useless hyperbole.

If you don't like the constitution, go live somewhere else.

 

[InTheLight]

No the key is to have the respondent's hearing BEFORE his second amendment rights are removed.

I agree, but in some circumstances it may not be possible to arrange a hearing ahead of time. If someone presents credible evidence that a person is a danger it ought to be acted on immediately.

 

[carpro]

I agree, but in some circumstances it may not be possible to arrange a hearing ahead of time. If someone presents credible evidence that a person is a danger it ought to be acted on immediately.

How many women have reported stalkers that the police can't do anything about until he actually commits a crime? How many battered wives are killed because their husbands or boyfriends are never arrested and charged, even though police and medical personnel know he's beating them?

What other constitutional right can be removed without due process? Which one is next if this is allowed to stand. You know as well as I do the left would also like to curb free speech and religious activities. If this works, they'll come after both, just like in the UK.

This is elementary. A person's second amendment rights cannot be removed until the hearing is held. It's that simple.

FYI Additionally, Emergency mental health evaluations are covered under current law.

A man that committed no crime that made the police come to his house is dead. Why are his life and his rights worth less than anyone else's?

 

[InTheLight]

I am on your side on this...but...sometimes there is no time for a hearing.

How many women have reported stalkers that the police can't do anything about until he actually commits a crime?

The women should get a restraining order.

How many battered wives are killed because their husbands or boyfriends are never arrested and charged, even though police and medical personnel know he's beating them?

Agree it is a problem.

What other constitutional right can be removed without due process? Which one is next if this is allowed to stand. You know as well as I do the left would also like to curb free speech and religious activities. If this works, they'll come after both, just like in the UK.

I am afraid you are correct.

This is elementary. A person's second amendment rights cannot be removed until the hearing is held. It's that simple.

This law looks destined to be sent up the line to higher and higher courts. Eventually we will get a final judgment on it.

FYI Additionally, Emergency mental health evaluations are covered under current law.

Maybe that was done in this case. We don't know.

A man that committed no crime that made the police come to his house is dead. Why are his life and his rights worth less than anyone else's?

We'd have to know what was in that court order to know the full story. We do know it's a tragedy.

 

[carpro]

I am on your side on this...but...sometimes there is no time for a hearing.

The women should get a restraining order.

Agree it is a problem.

I am afraid you are correct.

This law looks destined to be sent up the line to higher and higher courts. Eventually we will get a final judgment on it.

Maybe that was done in this case. We don't know.

We'd have to know what was in that court order to know the full story. We do know it's a tragedy.

The police arrived at 5:17 AM holding a local judges order written in the dead of night to prevent any chance of legal representation for the gun owner. No effort whatsoever was made to have a hearing. This is the tactic of a police state..

Said Anne Arundel County police chief Timothy Altomare:

"If you look at this morning’s outcome, it’s tough for us to say, “Well, what did we prevent?” Because we don’t know what we prevented or could’ve prevented.

What would have happened if we didn’t go there at 5 am?"

The implication is that the resident came to the door with his gun BECAUSE of a 5 AM banging on his door. I would do the same.

Restraining orders are useless at stopping a determined killer. You know this. If they work so well, why wasn't one issued for this man?

A change later , or a final judgement as you call it, won't restore this man's life. A man that committed no crime that made the police come to his home is dead. How do you fix that?