View Full Version : Gun seizure under red flag law leaves suspect dead
Nine states have passed "red flag" laws which " ...allows family members or authorities to seek a court order to temporarily restrict a person's access to guns when they show "red flags" that they are a danger to themselves or others" It's easy to see how that could lead to slippery slope to more general confiscations. Not commenting on this event as an example per se as there's little for details, but to woke members gun owners are getting killed over them, are hard to see how it's Constitutional:
"Police said the suspect, Gary J. Willis became irate when they tried to serve him. He opened the door to his house and grabbed the gun. When police tried to take the gun away, Willis fired his gun. A second officer fired their service weapon and hit Willis.
One of Willis' relatives tells the Baltimore Sun that his sister had filed for the protective order. The new Maryland red flag law lets relatives, police officers, and medical professionals file with the courts to temporarily remove someone's guns for risky behavior, including violence or threats of violence, drug abuse, or alarming statements and behavior.
Nine states have already enacted red flag laws. DC and 29 other states are considering them."
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/gun-seizure-under-red-flag-law-leaves-suspect-dead-in-glen-burnie/65-611267631
High potential for abuse. Where does due process kick in?
why the other link I had about the one NY guy or whatever wanting to do facebook searches to see if you are worthy to own a gun ?
and this post is why I say to those here who say they wont be able to take our guns !!! open your eyes they will a few at a time but they will try and they will work around the laws
this is really to bad and another eye opener
High potential for abuse. Where does due process kick in?
well if he lived I am sure he will be convicted IMHO that is where it kicks in only AGAINST the gun owners sadly
This is just one of the ways they are trying to work around 2A. Very scary stuff.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-05-18, 20:43
There are people that for various reasons become mentally unhealthy and shouldn't have access to firearms. What are we going to do about it?
The real answer is that there should be a lot more people institutionalized (more of a homeless than a gun problem), but that is expensive, so that isn't going to happen.
High potential for abuse. Where does due process kick in?
When the state decides you don't need to question status quo.
When family wants to dump responsibility on the government, new legislation pertaining to possession of firearms is enacted. A textbook example is Travis Reinking, who shot up the Waffle House in Antioch Tennessee. His firearms were seized by Law Enforcement after several documented incidents in which Reinking was delusional, suicidal and homicidal. Reinking was not charged with a criminal offense due to his mental state and his firearms were given to his father for safekeeping. His father was told that in no uncertain terms he was not to return the firearms to Travis until it was documented his mental health state improved to the point he was no longer a danger to himself or others.
In violation of state and federal law, Reinking's father returned the firearms to him during the period of time Reinking was moving to Nashville, Tennessee. Reinking's father should have been charged with transferring firearms to an unauthorized person, a suicidal, homicidal mental subject. Of course we cannot hold the responsible person accountable for his actions, we have to pass another law that spells out their responsibility under the criminal statutes in the state in which they reside.
You can thank people like Jeff Reinking for legislation that adversely affects millions of law abiding firearm owners.
High potential for abuse. Where does due process kick in?
Don't know about the MD "red flag" laws.
Under the CA "red flag" laws...
Before the TRO is issued a judge must review the evidence and decide if the TRO should be issued or not. [PC 18155]
If the judge determines that the TRO is being sought under false pretenses or being used as a means of harassment, then the party seeking the TRO is to be prosecuted. [PC 18200]
Don't know about the MD "red flag" laws.
Under the CA "red flag" laws...
Before the TRO is issued a judge must review the evidence and decide if the TRO should be issued or not. [PC 18155]
If the judge determines that the TRO is being sought under false pretenses or being used as a means of harassment, then the party seeking the TRO is to be prosecuted. [PC 18200]
All well and good but...is this actually how the law is practiced?
And a wonderful new tool soon to be ex wives can use against their husbands when they file for divorce and want to paint them in a bad light.
PatrioticDisorder
11-06-18, 04:34
And a wonderful new tool soon to be ex wives can use against their husbands when they file for divorce and want to paint them in a bad light.
Yes, that is certainly going to be a consequence & abuse of this (unconstitutional) law. I would say it is extremely important to make a wise decision on who you marry. The type of woman that would do this to a man is also the kind of woman to vote straight ticket D, it is a mentality. It is the same type of woman that would also falsely accuse a man of rape. It is the same type of woman that would tell a man she is pregnant with his baby after a break up even though it is a lie. As messed up as it is, as badly as I feel for these men, they made poor life choices on who they married/dated.
Moose-Knuckle
11-06-18, 05:36
I can hear it now . . .
Abracadabra, presto, change-o!
"Only a mentally ill person would feel the need to own a weapon of war / assault weapon."
Now all gun owners are crazy and pose threats to themselves and others, easy peasy.
Don't know about the MD "red flag" laws.
Under the CA "red flag" laws...
Before the TRO is issued a judge must review the evidence and decide if the TRO should be issued or not. [PC 18155]
If the judge determines that the TRO is being sought under false pretenses or being used as a means of harassment, then the party seeking the TRO is to be prosecuted. [PC 18200]
That's at least an attempt to balance the law in favor of not using it for false cause but it also leaves in the hands of a judge who may or may not give a damn about 2A Rights and or default to granting out of fear he/she will have blood on their hands by not granting it. We also know judges and LE have gotten warrants based on nadda but some judges will do what ever LE asks in their local circle of chums. So, on the surface, it's a good balanced concept, but I have serious doubts on the real world applications .
These laws are dangerous. Much more harm than good.
The Soviets used psychology and mental health as a means to control and silence anti Cummunist voices, and then kill their opponents.
Just think of some folks out there that would wield this as a tool to hurt their enemies. There are too many ways innocent people get hurt and this borders on pre-crime. No due process, screw your Rights if your neighbor or deranged sister turn you in as a "threat".
It's like all the good and Just stuff about our country/constitution is constantly under attack from all angles. Its sickening and tiresome.
More lives could be saved by focusing on the real dangerous players and criminals; but I preach to the choir here...
Averageman
11-06-18, 08:38
And a wonderful new tool soon to be ex wives can use against their husbands when they file for divorce and want to paint them in a bad light.
What more of an effective tool could you use than this when it comes to issues like child custody?
I'm sure it's been used and will continue to be used, ramifications of abuse be damned.
Police said the suspect, Gary J. Willis became irate when they tried to serve him. He opened the door to his house and grabbed the gun. When police tried to take the gun away, Willis fired his gun. A second officer fired their service weapon and hit Willis.
I realize this thread is about the law itself, but based on the information at the posted link, it sounds to me like he, intentionally or not, he brought on suicide by cop by pulling and firing his own gun. But agree these laws leave a lot of room for abuse.
I realize this thread is about the law itself, but based on the information at the posted link, it sounds to me like he, intentionally or not, he brought on suicide by cop by pulling and firing his own gun. But agree these laws leave a lot of room for abuse.
Men showed up to his door to confiscate his firearms violating his Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear arms. It sounds to me like what many have written here- that's the line in the sand.
Perhaps I am wrong about this one, but red flag law or not I personally will NOT be giving up my Rights nor my firearms.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-06-18, 10:20
What do we do about dangerously crazy people with guns?
What do we do about dangerously crazy people with guns?
Who decides what "dangerously crazy" is?
Some would call Trump voters dangerous and crazy. Some would call anyone who owns a gun dangerous and crazy, most on the left would see any of our posts on this forum as proof of being dangerous and crazy, etc.
What do you personally think we should do and when/what process?
ETA: simply taking a firearm away from a truly dangerous and crazy person motivated to hurt or kill others will not stop them from hurting or killing others, by the way. Simply makes them resort to other forms of inflicting pain or murder.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-06-18, 10:44
Wave your hands in the air and say that it can't be done and you end up with laws like these. If you tell regular people that there is nothing we can do about insane people with guns, they will be far more likely to vote to heavily restrict all gun ownership. How about we start with suicides? Make a dent in that number and you have a HUGE impact on the number of 'gun deaths'. I don't like anyone committing suicide, least of which gun owners.
I know this is part of the bigger issue or mental health, but this is our part of the problem. Unless we come up with a solution, a solution will be made for us.
Wave your hands in the air and say that it can't be done and you end up with laws like these. If you tell regular people that there is nothing we can do about insane people with guns, they will be far more likely to vote to heavily restrict all gun ownership. How about we start with suicides? Make a dent in that number and you have a HUGE impact on the number of 'gun deaths'. I don't like anyone committing suicide, least of which gun owners.
I know this is part of the bigger issue or mental health, but this is our part of the problem. Unless we come up with a solution, a solution will be made for us.
Okay, I'll ask again- what would YOU want to be done then? Be specific About what legislation would stop suicide by gun. Or stop crazy people from having and using firearms.
I'm all for solutions, these red flag laws are not solutions, restricting everyone's Rights for the actions of .0001% of people is not a solution.
So what would you want done and why/how would it change anything?
I'll tell you what I want- actually enforce the laws currently on the books! Novel concept. If liberal judges would levy harsh penalties for crimes where Guns are involved and stop letting career criminals out through the revolving door, that would solve a lot.
If we would ditch the failed war on drugs and spend those billions of $ on mental health support that would make another huge dent on at least 2 fronts.
Real solutions aren't wanted, just quick easy "something's" that line the pockets of politicians and criminals alike.
The problem is MUCH bigger than mentally unstable people and firearms.
What do we do about dangerously crazy people with guns?
We arrest them, charge them with whatever crime they've committed, try them in a legitimate court of law, and put them in jail upon conviction.
Thankfully, we don't have thought crime in this country yet and we don't trample the rights of American citizens because they might commit a crime. If we did have thought crime, everyone would be in prison.
All well and good but...is this actually how the law is practiced?
Case by case here. There are good guys enforcing the law here, and there are some bad ones too. In my first hand experience, the police here do whatever they want. They sometimes try to justify it later on, and sometimes they say: "Oops. We were wrong. Sorry about that...", and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Whether you win or lose literally depends on the officer on duty at the time and his or her mood. I don't know how it is elsewhere in the country, but here we are at their mercy and thankfully, most of them are decent people.
MountainRaven
11-06-18, 14:04
High potential for abuse. Where does due process kick in?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxgybgEKHHI
Eventually.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxgybgEKHHI
Eventually.
But wait! Voting (R) means our guns are safe!!!!
/sarcasm
Define the goal:
Reduce “gun violence”?
Reduce violence?
Reduce mass shootings?
Mass killings?
These are all very different, but are all being used to say, take guns and it will be good.
Eliminating gun-free zones will likely reduce mass shootings, but have no impact on overall violence or even “gun violence” numbers. Frankly I couldnt care less what was used, I have a problem with people trying to kill others.
Yes, that is certainly going to be a consequence & abuse of this (unconstitutional) law. I would say it is extremely important to make a wise decision on who you marry. The type of woman that would do this to a man is also the kind of woman to vote straight ticket D, it is a mentality. It is the same type of woman that would also falsely accuse a man of rape. It is the same type of woman that would tell a man she is pregnant with his baby after a break up even though it is a lie. As messed up as it is, as badly as I feel for these men, they made poor life choices on who they married/dated.
Do you know the difference between Charles Manson and your ex wife? Charles Manson has the decency to act crazy when you first meet.
Seriously, young men typically aren't vetting prospective mates like the secret service looks at employment candidates. They should, but usually don't. They lack the experience and often don't have a world view that includes (even people in your family can be seriously effed up). This is the kind of thing most learn the hard way.
They fall in love, imagine the person they know remaining exactly like they are and can only envision the good possibilities. It's sad when that doesn't work out and goes horribly wrong. But just as we don't blame rape victims for how they were dressed, I don't blame men for not being able to imagine the woman in front of them as a horrible monster determined to destroy their lives. They are victims of mentally disturbed people who can present themselves as normal for a long enough time to entrap a victim.
We arrest them, charge them with whatever crime they've committed, try them in a legitimate court of law, and put them in jail upon conviction.
Thankfully, we don't have thought crime in this country yet and we don't trample the rights of American citizens because they might commit a crime. If we did have thought crime, everyone would be in prison.
Sure we do, that is what hate crimes are.
Moose-Knuckle
11-06-18, 18:48
It's like all the good and Just stuff about our country/constitution is constantly under attack from all angles. Its sickening and tiresome.
That's the Cultural War. That is what we are up against 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Who decides what "dangerously crazy" is?
Some would call Trump voters dangerous and crazy. Some would call anyone who owns a gun dangerous and crazy, most on the left would see any of our posts on this forum as proof of being dangerous and crazy, etc.
ETA: simply taking a firearm away from a truly dangerous and crazy person motivated to hurt or kill others will not stop them from hurting or killing others, by the way. Simply makes them resort to other forms of inflicting pain or murder.
Truth bombs right here.
Wave your hands in the air and say that it can't be done and you end up with laws like these. If you tell regular people that there is nothing we can do about insane people with guns, they will be far more likely to vote to heavily restrict all gun ownership. How about we start with suicides? Make a dent in that number and you have a HUGE impact on the number of 'gun deaths'. I don't like anyone committing suicide, least of which gun owners.
I know this is part of the bigger issue or mental health, but this is our part of the problem. Unless we come up with a solution, a solution will be made for us.
Since murdering people is already banned and doesn't seem to be working I say we ban crazy people.
I'm probably the world's only advocate for self-abortion but at 7.2 billion people on this rock, I don't loose any sleep over them. In fact, I think the FDA should be like the UK .gov in Children of Men and pass out suicide kits complete with instructions, body bag, and an 800 number to call and schedule your pick-up.
Define the goal:
Reduce “gun violence”?
Reduce violence?
Reduce mass shootings?
Mass killings?
These are all very different, but are all being used to say, take guns and it will be good.
Eliminating gun-free zones will likely reduce mass shootings, but have no impact on overall violence or even “gun violence” numbers. Frankly I couldnt care less what was used, I have a problem with people trying to kill others.
Is it not telling that the proponents of such things do not push to limit the access of those deemed a danger to themselves and or others to box cutters, commercial airliners, pressure cookers, chassis cab trucks, or any other non-firearm implement that has been used in mass casualty attacks?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.