States Are Depriving Innocent People of
Their Second Amendment Rights
Reason,
by
Jacob Sullem
Original Article
Posted By: M2,
10/6/2019 6:50:38 AM
Shortly after 5 a.m. on November 5, 2018, two police officers arrived at Gary Willis' house in Glen Burnie, Maryland. They were there to take away his guns. They ended up killing him instead.
According to the Anne Arundel County Police Department, the 61-year-old man, who at that hour presumably had just been awakened by the officers' knocking, answered the door with a gun in his hand. He put it down when he saw who was there. Upon learning that the two officers had come to serve him with an "extreme risk protective order" (ERPO) that barred him from possessing firearms, police said, Willis became "irate" and
Reply 1 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 10/6/2019 7:14:25 AM (No. 199008)
"They were there to take away his guns. They ended up killing him instead."
Tell me how many times this will happen under Democrat rule.
27 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
GO3 10/6/2019 7:39:37 AM (No. 199028)
Issued an ERPO because he was a guy who "spoke his mind" and got into an argument with his sister. I speak my mind and lost count of how many times I've argued with my sister, who is a lefty and certifiable (redundant). So there you go. Minority Report is a reality in 17 states.
15 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
FunOne 10/6/2019 7:44:50 AM (No. 199033)
I live in a rural area. Any knock on the door after dark is answered with a firearm in my hand. I am sure that is the standard procedure for most of my neighbors.
Our county law enforcement agency has made it clear that they would not participate in, and subject their officers to, a general, overall gun confiscation operation.
Democrats fail to understand that in "flyover country", this is a basic guideline of life as to the protection of ourselves and our loved ones.
15 people like this.
One more step towards Orwell's worst nightmare.
If you have red flag laws it seems to me that the defendant should immediately have a right to a lawyer since he has committed no crime. The police should have to execute the order within daylight working hours rather than in the middle of the night. These really are gestapo tactics that are just another means to slowly strip us all of our second amendment rights. This man's sister should be charged with manslaughter, or maybe conspiracy to commit murder. How do we know that she didn't plan his murder? How do we know that she will not benefit from his death and so got the police to do legally what she could not do by hiring a hit man? See here are the questions you must ask if you are to be fair. They were arguing over the care of the mother. How do we know how much mother is worth? Shouldn't others in the family be questioning her motives? See how that works? Everybody gets trapped in the web of lies and innuendo when you make hearsay and gossip the criteria for arrest or even confrontation with the police or authorities. You would have thought Salem taught us something but apparently not.
22 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
IowaDad 10/6/2019 8:26:37 AM (No. 199056)
Yeah.
But psychopaths should not have access to weapons.
2 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Strike3 10/6/2019 9:01:22 AM (No. 199081)
Wrongdoing and bad judgement on both sides here. Was the guy's sister just angry at her brother or did she sincerely think he was dangerous enough for her to call the police? Think twice before making that call. Once they are called, procedures are set in motion that one can not stop. Gun confiscation without warning does not set well with the average gun owner but it's stupid to get angry and wave your gun around or argue with the police who are just following sombody's order and are not to blame for this law. He should have been made aware of the charge before the visit, surrendered his weapon and got it back later in court. The police had ample reason to be concerned for their own lives but might have been better off making the visit at noon. Better yet, give the guy a chance to box his weapon and bring it to the station. Early morning surprises are not good for anybody.
10 people like this.
This is "common sense" gun control at its best.
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
weejun 10/6/2019 9:16:31 AM (No. 199094)
Great premise, #5. I’m sure there are many on this forum who want to hear the specifics of how you would propose we achieve your goal to limit psychopaths’ access to firearms without taking away the rights of 99.99999999% of the law-abiding, sane population.
9 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
BarryNo 10/6/2019 9:24:36 AM (No. 199103)
Based on this result, I would have to say ALL red flag laws, and laws that restrict gun ownership are unconscionable, and harmful to the populace. I don't care if my neighbor possesses a machine gun, provided I can do the same. I don't really care if he's mentally incompetent, so long as I and my neighbors can defend themselves against him, if he gets violent. Whenever there is trouble the police are minutes, or longer, away. A sidearm is at your belt and available.
Insane or evil people will always find a way to kill, but it is stupid to deprive their possible victims of a means to defend themselves.
9 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 10/6/2019 9:51:04 AM (No. 199125)
This if a prime example of why I don't like the President to compromise or sign onto the 'red flag' law to appease the left.
A good honest law abiding citizen can be 'red flagged' by an angry ex-wife in a divorce or vindictive ex-girlfriend by just telling law enforcement you're nuts and a danger. A disgruntled neighbor could post a complaint to law enforcement because you 'flipped him off' over an argument about your dog barking in the mornings. There are many ways this ERPO robs many of their second amendment rights or cause death in this case.
6 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
red1066 10/6/2019 10:06:25 AM (No. 199146)
It's Maryland. The so called FREE STATE. The state that taxed rain. The state where Francis Scott Key wrote the national anthem. It's also the state, the only state, that voted for Jerry Brown for President during the democratic primary. If stupid needed a home, stupid would have two choices of where to live. California, and Maryland.
7 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
JunkYardDog 10/6/2019 10:40:51 AM (No. 199171)
All these red flag laws violate the 2nd Amendment. It has no preconditions on who shouldn't own a firearm. Any competent lawyer should have an easy time in front of SCOTUS to have them declare red flag laws unconstitutional.
6 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 10/6/2019 10:53:03 AM (No. 199184)
One wonders how the anti-death penalty folks feel. Here is a man that committed no crime other than own a gun and was executed by the state without due process, a jury of his peers, nothing! What if a Democrat complained that they felt threatened by some poltitical statement made by a Rebublican? And you know this will happen! The State sends its execution sqad to the house and finds an excuse to execute the poltical dissident. Oh but that will never happen. Well the state just executed a man who wasn't even accused of a crime, much less committed a crime other than owning a gun. And not long ago, owning a gun,was a 2nd Amendment right. All without due process. Two systems of Just-Us. One for liberals and one for the rest of us. And now they can execute us without even committing a crime.
5 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
RuckusTom 10/6/2019 11:24:01 AM (No. 199200)
Red flag an civil forfeiture laws are unconstitutional. Under the red flag laws you have to prove you're innocent after being deemed guilty without due process and under civil forfeiture you have to prove your property was not used in committing a crime that you were aware of - e.g. the police seizing your rental house because a renter living there sold drugs (without you knowing it); or having large amounts of cash confiscated in a routine traffic stop because "it might be used in a drug deal".
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
DVC 10/6/2019 11:54:14 AM (No. 199233)
Nice theory, #5, but who gets to decide? Lizzie Warren thinks that ANYONE who would own a gun is a "psychopath", and a whole lot more of the antigunners think so to.
These laws are a serious, serious breach of "shall not be infringed".
3 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
DVC 10/6/2019 2:49:43 PM (No. 199413)
And if you take out a couple or three of their evil minions when they come for your guns, they will say "See, we were right, he was crazy and we need to DO THIS MORE OFTEN."
Lose, lose.
We have to stop these laws from spreading and reverse them everywhere that they exist. I think that due process denial lawsuits could get them wiped out on Second Amendment grounds, and at least require hearings and some sort of, at least approximation of, due process, if we couldn't get the laws tossed entirely, as would be right.
0 people like this.
1. All gun or gun related laws keeping honest people from protecting themselves are unConstitutional.
2. The second amendment does not bestow any rights on anybody, your rights come from the Creator.
Educate yourself folks, bad times they are acoming!
1 person likes this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Mike22 10/6/2019 3:43:03 PM (No. 199448)
If the government can prove that someone is too dangerous to be allowed access to firearms, why is that person not confined? If dangerously insane but having not committed any crime, a nice padded room with all the amenities. If guilty of a crime a nice jail cell. In either case, the person should be given their day in court and only deprived of rights if found guilty. I believe the founders would be appalled by no knock, civil forfeiture and red flag laws. From Patrick Purdy, the 1989 elementary school shooter to the Parkland High School murderer most crazed murderers have given ample warning of the danger they pose.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "M2"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)