No they don't.
They deliberately crafted the law to do an end run around the 4th Amendment in order to destroy the 2nd amendment
They knew exactly what they were doing. They don't care how many rights they violate, they want the guns.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Gun Confiscation Killing in Maryland
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
No they don't.
They deliberately crafted the law to do an end run around the 4th Amendment in order to destroy the 2nd amendment
They knew exactly what they were doing. They don't care how many rights they violate, they want the guns.
This isn't just the "way I see it". This is the way it is. It's already codified. It's the law.
If they have a credible complaint, they notify the respondent either by arrest, if they have probable cause, or summons to appear in court whenever, if they don't. If he doesn't show, they issue an order for his arrest. (By credible complaint, I'm not talking about a neighbor that is mad because the neighbor's dog pooped in his yard, so he tells the police the man has been pointing his gun at him and pretending to shoot him)
Once he is in court, it is up to the plaintiff, or the court, to prove him either a danger to society or incompetent. Whereupon they will issue an order to seize any firearms he may possess. If necessary, they can keep him in custody and get a search warrrant issued to find any weapons.
All legal.
But this isn't quick enough or sure enough for the gun grabbers. So they craft a law to go around all the legal barriers in place to protect a citizen's rights.
Last edited:
I don't believe it will matter if your weapons are seized in Maryland. They don't intend to ever give them back to you unless you have a LOT of money, enough to sue to get them back after you use a ton of money to prove you are not dangerous or incompetent.
True, but my point is the standard of care in a police evidence locker is low enough to take hundreds if not thousands of dollars off a collection.
Understood. But I don't think they care.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
So you want to keep it the way it was.
People of good concious disagree with. They look at the mass shootings that occur on a regular basis, and think maybe we can protect our children and have reasonable safe guards for gun owners as well.
After the shooting, you often hear stories of how people knew that the person was dangerous, how law enforcement claimed their hands were tied, they couldn't do anything.
You don't see the shootings as a big enough problem to change the law.
Like I said, people of good concious disagree.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I agree it is unlikely law enforcement facilities will be equipped to properly care for collector grade firearms.
The people of good conscience? Liberals are always the problem, never the answer.
Last edited:
Which other rights are "people of good conscience" willing to give up, or more precisely, take away from others and keep for themselves?
Do you want to repeal the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments completely? Or just obey them when it's convenient?
There are plenty of left wing radicals that fall right in line with your thinking. I don't call them "people of good conscience" at all.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
You see liberals as the problem.
I see mentally ill people committing mass murder on a regular basis as the problem.
You see any attempt to get the guns out of the hands of these mentally ill people before they shoot up a school, or a church, or a concert as the problem.
We disagree.
From my reading of this thread, I'd say that "any attempt" overstates Carpro's position, that he supports the clearly constitutional process of convincing a judge there's probable cause and then taking action. Your posts seem to imply that's a too slow/cumbersome process for protecting possibly at-risk people.
Some mental case mass killers have provided little/no advance sign that they're about to go nuts. Others provide such signs, like the school shooter in Florida. I wonder how different those signs were from hundreds of others that reach the police.
A question, for anyone on this thread: Do we know whether there was lapel cams or sound recording of the incident, or just the officers' accounts of what went down? Did they announce clearly who they were and why they were there, so the guy wouldn't think it was a home invasion? (Probably, IMO, but I don't know.)
One source I saw said they were not wearing body cams. Even the police chief has his doubts about using a pre dawn raid to confiscate the weapon.
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 guy came to the door with a gun. I probably would have responded the same way to someone banging on my door at 5:17 AM. He put is gun down when he realized it was the police, but became agitated when they told him why they were there and picked his gun back up. The officers then attacked him in an effort to wrestle the gun away from him. There is no mention of him ever threatening the officers with the gun. If he had, I'm sure the police would have been happy to say so. I believe they ASSUMED he was going to either threaten them or shoot them, so they attacked. I'm not sure I would have done any different if I was in their shoes. During the struggle for the possession of the gun, it went off. No one was harmed. That is when one of the officers decided to shoot him.
None of this should have taken place. They could have come during daylight and the man probably would have answered the door without his gun in hand. At least, he did the previous day when they came to see him. And nothing happened that time.
In their zeal to confiscate the gun, the court order was issued by a local judge after hours and the effort to take the weapon was made before dawn. This was deliberate, and I believe this underhanded and unconstitutional process caused the death of an innocent law abiding citizen.
Last edited:
Not really, as I believe you must have a mental disorder to be a liberal. Where do you see a mass shooter who wasn’t a liberal? You are not being honest, are you. Under these red flag laws who do you think is going to rat out their family or neighbor? The idiot in your face liberal. The school shooter in Florida was known to authorities but was protected under an Obama policy. Liberal sheriff let people die in the process, & then tried to turn the blame on gun control. I’m telling you, they are mental. Liberals are always the problem. Gun free zones. Moronic. Liberal feel good bs.
That police chief's words were telling - what did they prevent? Nothing AFAICT, but what happened was a guy was shot dead in his own home because of some unconstitutional order. It's bizarre to claim that the unconstitutional order was justified in the first place because of they way he acted when they tried to enforce the unconstitutional order. Circular reasoning, you could argue just as well that the cops shot the guy rather than tasing him because they were power-tripping. .
He didn't know anything about the order, that was issued in super-secret. They had no warrant, didn't need one. This is a dangerous mindset.
First off, this is NOT a classic left-right issue. There are many people that agree with you about these red flag laws that are all over the political spectrum - the right (trust LEO), the left (gunz are bad) and the center (Rick Scott, Marc Rubio, Trump himself). The center buy into your argument and the left's fake "reasonable gun law" propaganda.
The NRA and the ACLU have lined up against them, no due process - it is suspended and it's assumed the gun grabbers can read your mind and foresee some crime.
He didn't know anything about the order, that was issued in super-secret. They had no warrant, didn't need one. This is a dangerous mindset.
First off, this is NOT a classic left-right issue. There are many people that agree with you about these red flag laws that are all over the political spectrum - the right (trust LEO), the left (gunz are bad) and the center (Rick Scott, Marc Rubio, Trump himself). The center buy into your argument and the left's fake "reasonable gun law" propaganda.
The NRA and the ACLU have lined up against them, no due process - it is suspended and it's assumed the gun grabbers can read your mind and foresee some crime.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I don't see people exercising their 4th and 5th amendment rights committing mass murder on a regular basis.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The police were there legally. The law has not been ruled unconstitutional, that is your opinion.
Since the police are there legally, you obey the police. You don't grab a loaded handgun because you think your 2nd amendment rights are being violated. There is no way for that to end well.
As far as the cops using deadly force instead of tasing him, the situation became life threatening the moment he grabbed the loaded handgun. The police officer was justified.
There are aspects of the law that are problematic, and will likely be struck down.
I think a good change would be requiring the person who makes the complaint to pay the legal fees of the gun owner if a judge rules the complaint to be frivilous.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
It is nonsense to claim liberals have a mental disorder or that all mass shooters are liberal. To make such claims shuts down all discussion and guarantees no progress on finding a solution.
The dominant characteristic among mass shooters is mental illness.
Now you've gone from simply thinking it's ok to ignore the constitution when it suits you to being just down right ridiculous.
It's clear you ran out of any arguments that made sense a long time ago.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I understand your argument and disagree.
I am concerned about your repeated attacks upon the law enforcement officers in this case.
The appropriate response to this incident would have been to go to court and prove your case, not go for the loaded handgun.
To praise this man as showing "courage" in grabbing the gun is misguided at best. It encourages anarchy and hostility to law enforcement.
Your arguments against this law are overshadowed by your attacks on police lawfully executing their jobs and praising a man who acted irrationally and violently toward law enforcement officers.
Peace to you