First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[seer]

So someone in your family doesn't like something you did or said - reports it and the first thing they try and do is confiscate your firearm? Why not send a mental health professional first? Or just have the cops talk to him?

Two Anne Arundel County police officers serving one of Maryland’s new “red flag” protective orders to remove guns from a house killed a Ferndale man after he refused to give up his gun and a struggle ensued early Monday morning, police said.

The subject of the protective order, Gary J. Willis, 60, answered his door in the 100 block of Linwood Ave. at 5:17 a.m. with a gun in his hand, Anne Arundel County police said. He initially put the gun down next to the door, but “became irate” when officers began to serve him with the order, opened the door and picked up the gun again, police said.

Anne Arundel police chief: Shooting was evidence that month-old 'red flag' law is needed.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...105-story.html

https://conservative-daily.com/2018/...rted-maryland/

[Starlight]

Yet another "law abiding gun owner" not being law-abiding? Who'd've thunk it?

[oxmixmudd]

So someone in your family doesn't like something you did or said - reports it and the first thing they try and do is confiscate your firearm? Why not send a mental health professional first? Or just have the cops talk to him?

On the whole, I tend to agree with the sheriff. Your characterization of why he was reported notwithstanding. Did you consider that he was reported for all the right reasons and that is why this went bad? Would you prefer they ignored the report and we learn about it after the man snaps?

Jim

[seer]

On the whole, I tend to agree with the sheriff. Your characterization of why he was reported notwithstanding. Did you consider that he was reported for all the right reasons and that is why this went bad? Would you prefer they ignored the report and we learn about it after the man snaps?

Jim

No, I don't agree with taking a basic right away with out due process. Do you? Or at least a mental health intervention first. Never mind the fact that these records are sealed, so we have no way of knowing if this was a frivolous charge or not, along with the fact that other family members and neighbors did not think him a threat at all...

[oxmixmudd]

No, I don't agree with taking a basic right away with out due process. Do you? Or at least a mental health intervention first.

Not sure. A man who is mentally unstable and with a gun is a ticking time bomb. If he's mentally sound, he should get the gun back. If not and he can guess who reported him, that person can end up dead. I'd say there need to be safeguards against abuse, but that the safety of the general population takes precident if there is reason to believe an individual is an imminent threat.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Not sure. A man who is mentally unstable and with a gun is a ticking time bomb. If he's mentally sound, he should get the gun back. If not and he can guess who reported him, that person can end up dead. I'd say there need to be safeguards against abuse, but that the safety of the general population takes precident if there is reason to believe an individual is an imminent threat.

Jim

The mental health experts cleared a guy that shot up a bar. Those are the ones you trust to make these decisions? Interesting...

[oxmixmudd]

The mental health experts cleared a guy that shot up a bar. Those are the ones you trust to make these decisions? Interesting...

Not acting on warnings of instability has been a key component of several of the mass shootings the last few years. I can't imagine why anyone would be against trying to do something to change that fact.

But here we are.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Not acting on warnings of instability has been a key component of several of the mass shootings the last few years. I can't imagine why anyone would be against trying to do something to change that fact.

But here we are.

Jim

Can’t imagine why anyone would have issues with lack of due process where accusations are enough to have your rights suspended. Please prove you’re not a danger to yourself or others please. Thanks.

[oxmixmudd]

Can’t imagine why anyone would have issues with lack of due process where accusations are enough to have your rights suspended. Please prove you’re not a danger to yourself or others please. Thanks.

The assumption you are making is that there was no substance to the accusation. In this case, the fact he went for his gun and got himself killed in the process would be evidence to the contrary.

And I do agree there is a conflict here between rights guaranteed in the constitution, due process, and public safety. But I would also note an accusation of a serious crime is enough to get a person arrested and detained for questioning. The frequency and severity of mass shootings is rising. It is simply irresponsible not to act if there is credible evidence a person owning a gun is mentaly unstable. Not in this day and age.


It is also illegal to make false or spurious accusations. So there are ways to make it very uncomfortable for a person to seek vengeance through such a "red flag" law.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

The assumption you are making is that there was no substance to the accusation. In this case, the fact he went for his gun and got himself killed in the process would be evidence to the contrary.

And I do agree there is a conflict here between rights guaranteed in the constitution, due process, and public safety. But I would also note an accusation of a serious crime is enough to get a person arrested and detained for questioning. The frequency and severity of mass shootings is rising. It is simply irresponsible not to act if there is credible evidence a person owning a gun is mentaly unstable. Not in this day and age.


It is also illegal to make false or spurious accusations. So there are ways to make it very uncomfortable for a person to seek vengeance through such a "red flag" law.

Jim

Do you have any evidence he was going to go and cause a mass shooting or shoot someone if the cops didn’t show up to take his property without due process? It is up to accusers to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence.

BTW, according to the stats mass shootings are really not more common now than they have been in the past decades. The media gives them more attention now than they did than to get eyeballs on the TV.

[seer]

Do you have any evidence he was going to go and cause a mass shooting or shoot someone if the cops didn’t show up to take his property without due process? It is up to accusers to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence.

BTW, according to the stats mass shootings are really more common now than they have been in the past decades. The media gives them more attention now than they did than to get eyeballs on the TV.

How about if the cops just show up and talk to him, question him about what was said, instead of going for confiscation out of the box?

[seer]

The assumption you are making is that there was no substance to the accusation. In this case, the fact he went for his gun and got himself killed in the process would be evidence to the contrary.

And I do agree there is a conflict here between rights guaranteed in the constitution, due process, and public safety. But I would also note an accusation of a serious crime is enough to get a person arrested and detained for questioning. The frequency and severity of mass shootings is rising. It is simply irresponsible not to act if there is credible evidence a person owning a gun is mentaly unstable. Not in this day and age.


It is also illegal to make false or spurious accusations. So there are ways to make it very uncomfortable for a person to seek vengeance through such a "red flag" law.

Jim

As far as I know only one person made the complaint, they acted on a single accusation. Not a series of accusation. It literally sounds like a he said she said. They wake him up at 5:17 am, and tell him they are about to take all his firearms. Then how does one get them back? Do you have to prove that you are not a threat? How does that work? Guilty until proven innocent...

[JimL]

No, I don't agree with taking a basic right away with out due process. Do you? Or at least a mental health intervention first. Never mind the fact that these records are sealed, so we have no way of knowing if this was a frivolous charge or not, along with the fact that other family members and neighbors did not think him a threat at all...

Easy to say when you're not the one living with the nut case. If you are going to have mental health intervention you'd better take the guns away first, don't you think?

[Roy]

BTW, according to the stats mass shootings are really not more common now than they have been in the past decades. The media gives them more attention now than they did than to get eyeballs on the TV.

US mass shootings with 10 or more fatalities, by decade:

1940s: 1
1950s: 0
1960s: 1
1970s: 1
1980s: 5
1990s: 4
2000s: 5
2010s: 12

There have been as many mass shootings this year as there were in previous decades.

Where did you get your stats from?

[seer]

Easy to say when you're not the one living with the nut case. If you are going to have mental health intervention you'd better take the guns away first, don't you think?

First of all, the other family members did not think he was a threat - at all. Second, they could have simply went to talk to him, maybe a couple of cops with a mental health person. They didn't, they went after his guns from the get go, all based on what ONE person said. No due process - just like the Soviet Union...