Maryland Police officers serving 'red flag' gun seizure fatally shoot armed man

[Aim1]

I wonder if any of these ‘red flag’ laws will we’d be overturned as unconstitutional?

Secondly, if you’re going to arrest someone who has firearms you should probably send more than 2 cops. This was bound to happen.

Lastly, if your weapons get thrown in the back of a squad trunk I can guarantee you they aren’t coming back in the same condition they left in and that could ruin and devalue many of them.


https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/5/md-officers-serving-red-flag-gun-seizure-fatally-s/

Md. officers serving 'red flag' gun seizure fatally shoot armed man

By Jessica Chasmar -

The Washington Times -

Monday, November 5, 2018

Two police officers ordered to remove firearms from a house on a “red flag” protective order fatally shot an armed man Monday morning in Ferndale, Maryland, police said.

 

[cslinger]

So this is a gray area for me. If you are a known gun owner and have been shown legally as a violent person (due process/court ordered etc) then I sort of am totally ok with having your weapons taken away. For example a judicially rules domestic abuser.

Now I don’t think it should be as simple as X is a an ***** and I am scared. But there are real world folk who have no business owning any damn dangerous thing.

Again I don’t want laws that allow for “ I feel uncomfortable because he wore a scary T-shirt etc” but there are people in society who legitimately should have limited to no access to arms.

All I am saying that RKBA can also be totally against certain folk being armed

 

[ewlyon]

The article says that the order was requested by his sister (could be sister-in-law based on the article). I wonder if she still thinks that was the right thing to do. Frankly there is no way for me to give my opinions on "red flag" laws using THR allowed language, besides saying that I believe anything less than a conviction is by nature less than sufficient due process for even a temporary removal of one of our most basic rights. Even that has its issues, especially in misdemeanor DV cases and non violent offenses.

 

[Deus Machina]

A good argument for body cameras. Would clear up any misconceptions and hopefully clearly show whether or not he actually attempted to gain control of a weapon.
Otherwise, hardly a good argument against the red flag in this case. If all is as stated, it seems clearly justified in the eyes of its intent.

 

[alexander45]

So this is a gray area for me. If you are a known gun owner and have been shown legally as a violent person (due process/court ordered etc) then I sort of am totally ok with having your weapons taken away. For example a judicially rules domestic abuse

If they were found with due process guilty of domestic abuse they would be on their way to prison and then would only be able to get their freedoms back after serving their time, and then petitioning the courts for their rights back which is rare for anyone convicted of a violent crime.
This mess is at best a kangaroo court not due process.

 

[Waveski]

On one hand , it appears on face value that a "Red Flag Law" is wide open for abuse. Anybody can drop a dime. This makes gun owners easy targets with anyone with a personal ax to grind.
On the other hand , taking a gun with you when opening the door for an LEO is a very bad and dangerous thing to do.
In this case information given is sketchy. Can't imagine why the victim went to pick up the firearm after initially putting it down.

Bottom line : when dealing with law enforcement and firearms - total compliance is necessary whether the initial contact is justified or not. Lawyers come later in the process.

 

[rpenmanparker]

The actual text as well as the point of the 2A is not that it allows PERSONS to keep and bear arms, but rather that it allows THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. One sensible interpretation of the Constitution is that 2A is not an individual right but rather a group right. The purpose of the amendment is fulfilled when there is general gun ownership. For the purposes of the 2A it does not require John Doe to be able to keep and bear a gun in light of obvious threat to other individuals or to the society at large. If a rare individual is deprived of their (supposed but actually not real) individual RKBA following due process, I do not see that as an Infringement of 2A so long as the PEOPLE in general enjoy the right of gun ownership.

 

[sparkyv]

The problem is this: what actions/behaviors are considered to be labelled as "red flag"? Conviction by due process? Yes. Passionately expressing one's conservative opinions in the face of liberalism? No....ahh, but some might say, "yes", because it is perceived that that person might be violent or cause harm to another. Who gets to decide? "That's not the way it works", you say. "It's a slippery slope, pardner", I say.

[edit: corrected spelling; I was posting too early this morning...]

 

[rpenmanparker]

The problem is this: what actions/behaviors are considered to be labelled as "red flag"? Conviction by due process? Yes. Pationately expressing one's conservative opinions in the face of liberalism? No....ahh, but some might say, "yes", because it is perceived that that person might be violent or cause harm to another. Who gets to decide? "That's not the way it works", you say. "It's a slippery slope, pardner", I say.

All of our slopes are slippery. Learning how to navigate them is what democratic government is all about.

 

[rbernie]

he actual text as well as the point of the 2A is not that it allows PERSONS to keep and bear arms, but rather that it allows THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. One sensible interpretation of the Constitution is that 2A is not an individual right but rather a group right.

I believe that the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

I have no quarrel with anyone answering the door with a gun in their hand; I might not make that choice, but it's a harmless enough choice to make in the privacy of your own home. Subsequently tussling with the cops over a loaded gun, on the other hand, is pretty much an invitation to get ventilated - there is no way for them to NOT take that as a threat to themselves and others around them.

 

[paulsj]

I wonder if any of these ‘red flag’ laws will we’d be overturned as unconstitutional?

Secondly, if you’re going to arrest someone who has firearms you should probably send more than 2 cops. This was bound to happen.

Lastly, if your weapons get thrown in the back of a squad trunk I can guarantee you they aren’t coming back in the same condition they left in and that could ruin and devalue many of them.


https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/5/md-officers-serving-red-flag-gun-seizure-fatally-s/

It would have been better to send in SWAT Team in at about 4am.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I believe that the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

That decision is mostly consistent with my position. Much is made of the application of the decision to individual gunownership. But the DC law prevented not just select individuals from gun ownership and carry; it applied to the entire District population. Hence it infringed on the right of the PEOPLE as a whole to keep and bear arms. Just like I said. If a single class of individuals had been singled out, such as convicted felons, without affecting the people as a whole, the decision would have very likely been different.

Notice I made no mention of “militia”.

 

[Art Eatman]

rpenmanparker, you would have us believe that "the people" is only a group right and not an individual right? That the meaning of the phrase changes from item to item in the first ten amendments? E.g., the First Amendment only applies to "the people" as a group?

We are to believe that the highly-educated writers of the Bill of Rights were inconsistent in the meanings of words and phrases?

Have you ever read the opinions expressed by such as Jefferson and Adams, the writers, about gun ownership?

 

[MedWheeler]

rpenmanparker writes:

One sensible interpretation of the Constitution is that 2A is not an individual right but rather a group right.

.. and rbernie opined that the SCOTUS disagreed. I think this is why:

District of Columbia v. Heller

, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes..

This quality of the Heller decision is why a specified "John Doe", "in light of obvious threat to other individuals or to the society at large" could still be so prohibited or restricted:

(District of Columbia v. Heller) also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated

So, while the SCOTUS has upheld the idea of lawfully-applied restrictions or prohibitions, it still affirms that, barring any such restrictions or prohibitions applied specifically to an individual due to a "disqualification", that individual's right to bear (possess) a firearm is indeed protected by the Second Amendment.

Hence (the DC law) infringed on the right of the PEOPLE as a whole to keep and bear arms.

Every person included in "the PEOPLE" as a whole" is an individual. Each one of them had the protection of the 2A affirmed for them when the law was struck down. Exclusions from that protection, such as for convicted felons, falls within the "right to bear arms is not unlimited" and the "guns and gun ownership can continue to be regulated" concepts also upheld by the SCOTUS, so, yes, had the prohibition only applied to that group, for example, a challenge to the prohibition would have failed.

 

[BSA1]

If a rare individual is deprived of their (supposed but actually not real) individual RKBA following due process, I do not see that as an Infringement of 2A so long as the PEOPLE in general enjoy the right of gun ownership.

So just to be clear you are ok with not being allowed to own firearms if the Government says so.

After all your neighbors, i.e. The People, will still be armed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First they took the guns from felons and I did not speak out because I was not a felon.

Then they took the guns from those 21 and younger and I did not speak out because I was not that young.

Then they took the guns from those with mental illness and I did not speak out because I was not mentally ill.

Then they took the guns from those who opposed reasonable gun control and I did not speak out because I was not unreasonable.

Then they took the guns away from me and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[rpenmanparker]

rpenmanparker writes:



.. and rbernie opined that the SCOTUS disagreed. I think this is why:



This quality of the Heller decision is why a specified "John Doe", "in light of obvious threat to other individuals or to the society at large" could still be so prohibited or restricted:



So, while the SCOTUS has upheld the idea of lawfully-applied restrictions or prohibitions, it still affirms that, barring any such restrictions or prohibitions applied specifically to an individual due to a "disqualification", that individual's right to bear (possess) a firearm is indeed protected by the Second Amendment.



Every person included in "the PEOPLE" as a whole" is an individual. Each one of them had the protection of the 2A affirmed for them when the law was struck down. Exclusions from that protection, such as for convicted felons, falls within the "right to bear arms is not unlimited" and the "guns and gun ownership can continue to be regulated" concepts also upheld by the SCOTUS, so, yes, had the prohibition only applied to that group, for example, a challenge to the prohibition would have failed.

You don't see that we are saying the same thing. The exclusion of an individual from gun ownership for cause does not infringe on the rights of the citizenry as a whole and is therefore consistent with 2A. Put another way, when an individual is a bona fide member of the broader class of citizenry, the PEOPLE, his RKBA is protected. When he is outside that class due to a disqualification, it is not.

 

[jmorris]

Police should have waited at least until daylight and sent multiple cruisers with a search warrant.

I have often though about this since Waco. They could have just picked up David at the SuperShops and saved a bunch of lives. On both sides.

Not sure where I stand on this one. Seems like a self fulfilling prophecy to me and from what I can read from the nieces comments. That said, I have seen more than a few stories where the bad guy was “a really nice person, that would never hurt anyone.”

It does enforce a long held belief I have. Follow officers orders and do it with no sudden movements after telling them verbally what you are about to do.

 

[rpenmanparker]

So just to be clear you are ok with not being allowed to own firearms if the Government says so.

After all your neighbors, i.e. The People, will still be armed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First they took the guns from felons and I did not speak out because I was not a felon.

Then they took the guns from those 21 and younger and I did not speak out because I was not that young.

Then they took the guns from those with mental illness and I did not speak out because I was not mentally ill.

Then they took the guns from those who opposed reasonable gun control and I did not speak out because I was not unreasonable.

Then they took the guns away from me and there was no one left to speak for me.

That is not clear to me at all. The aggrieved person is never happy with the source of their grievance. No I would object to that. That's only natural. And with me being a model citizen, there is no reason for that to occur under the guidelines we are discussing, so it is a false situation. But it is certainly okay with me for YOU to not be allowed to own a gun if the government says so. After all, your neighbors, the PEOPLE, would still be allowed to own guns.

Furthermore I never said I thought 2A was written properly. I'm just telling you what a rational interpretation of how it is written should be.​

 

[cheygriz]

I don't want nutjobs, habitual drunkards, wife/child beaters, and criminals legally armed.

A judge should have the authority to seize motor vehicles, guns, etc to protect the innocent.

When you've investigated a few dead women and children, who are dead because the judge didn't think that drinking a quart of whiskey a day, and beating up the family regularly was reason enough to disarm a puke, you sure change your mind on the "absolute" interpretation of the 2A.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I am confused, why serve something like this when they did? Why not do it in the light of day? Why do it when the normal reaction of a knock on the door is to alarm someone? If it was that hot of an issue, which I doubt, because I really don't think they got a judge out of bed at that hour, with only two officers?

I'd really like to hear some law enforcement officers opinion on this. Because if there was a struggle over the weapon a cop was nearly shot.

 

[rpenmanparker]

rpenmanparker, you would have us believe that "the people" is only a group right and not an individual right? That the meaning of the phrase changes from item to item in the first ten amendments? E.g., the First Amendment only applies to "the people" as a group?

We are to believe that the highly-educated writers of the Bill of Rights were inconsistent in the meanings of words and phrases?

Have you ever read the opinions expressed by such as Jefferson and Adams, the writers, about gun ownership?

To me all the amendments are consistent along the lines that I have described. Group rights that can be taken away from a specific individual for cause as long as that action does not infringe of the rights of the rest of the citizenry. To me, if each amendment had said, "Every person...", then limiting them would have been much more difficult. You can test this idea with regard to the press, free speech, freedom of religion, etc., and it all holds together. The rights are the rights of the people as a group. Individuals can be excluded for cause. My interpretation strengthens the rights for the bulk of the people in general while clarifying how non-conforming individuals may be treated differently.

 

[rpenmanparker]

BTW background checks, which I support, are a good example of how this group/individual thing works. Passing the background check essentially stipulates that the gun buyer is a member of the group which possesses RKBA. Failing it makes them a disqualified individual. Once again it would be harder to justify disqualifying someone if 2A said that every PERSON had the RKBA. A fundamentalist interpretation of that would be that no exceptions could be allowed. With the PEOPLE wording I see a loophole in the reasoning to allow disqualifications.

 

[Tommygunn]

The actual text as well as the point of the 2A is not that it allows PERSONS to keep and bear arms, but rather that it allows THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. One sensible interpretation of the Constitution is that 2A is not an individual right but rather a group right. The purpose of the amendment is fulfilled when there is general gun ownership. For the purposes of the 2A it does not require John Doe to be able to keep and bear a gun in light of obvious threat to other individuals or to the society at large. If a rare individual is deprived of their (supposed but actually not real) individual RKBA following due process, I do not see that as an Infringement of 2A so long as the PEOPLE in general enjoy the right of gun ownership.

That is not a sensible interpretation of the 2A. First, the Heller case said so. Moreover, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms;" which does mean you, and me. The phrase "the people" appears in other amendments as well, such as the 1st. It retains the EXACT DEFINITION each place it appears. Thus, if the 2A isn't an individual right, neither are the rights present in other amendments where said phrase appears.
It is also a convention that indiividuals have or possess rights, powers are delegated to the states or to the federal goverment.
Stephen Halbrook remarks on the above points in his bolk, THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED.

 

[sparkyv]

All of our slopes are slippery. Learning how to navigate them is what democratic government is all about.

The problem with a law like the "red flag" is that the determination of who should be flagged is not a democratic decision. It is a SUBJECTIVE one, subject to the whims of any authority figure who may or may not have a slant in a particular direction. If one has a mental disorder, should they be red-flagged? Who gets to decide what a mental disorder is? Consider this: https://www.livescience.com/34765-coffee-drinking-is-mental-disorder-dsm.html

 

[Aim1]

I have often though about this since Waco. They could have just picked up David at the SuperShops and saved a bunch of lives. On both sides.

Not sure where I stand on this one. Seems like a self fulfilling prophecy to me and from what I can read from the nieces comments. That said, I have seen more than a few stories where the bad guy was “a really nice person, that would never hurt anyone.”

It does enforce a long held belief I have. Follow officers orders and do it with no sudden movements after telling them verbally what you are about to do.

This would be much harder to do though. Waco was an isolated incident.


Law enforcement doesn’t have the resources to follow a lot of people around waiting for them to stop somewhere safe to pick them up and then take their weapons. Plus, it wasn’t a warrant for his arrest but rather enforcement of taking his guns.