The red flag laws allow law enforcement to seek a court order to temporarily restrict people’s access to firearms when they show “red flags” that they are a danger to themselves or others.
In Maryland, the problem must be reported by either a relative, other household residents like roommates, or health care professionals. So, the cops didn’t just break in and shoot the guy. It had to be reported that he was a noted risk by those close to him or health professional. It went through the court procedures for determination, and an attempt was made to carry out the determination. These laws were put in place by the state legislators and were co-written by twenty-six representatives that were elected. The National Rifle Association has even claimed to favor some of these laws.
There is no law that is designed as a true fix for anything other than carrying out capital punishment. The article doesn’t identify what the grounds were for the court to remove his weapons or who it was filed by. But the cops can’t do it themselves unless it was connect with a crime. And this article was about the use of State senate bill 707, not crime.
What we do know by the article is he was in possession of a fire arm, put it down, then went back to it and the weapon in the struggle to get it away from him discharged and he was shot at that point. The cops coming in would, I’m sure, have rather been at the coffee stand with a donut than wrestling with a man armed with a handgun. So this wasn’t personal as far as we can see. It was the carrying out of laws placed into effect by the voters’ choice of people to make these decisions and the shooter became a danger to himself and the cops. If he had fought it in court rather than in his living room, it might have been different. He’d be alive.
Sometimes it is better to work with the law rather than physically resist. They weren’t there to arrest him, just relieve him of his first line opportunity to harm himself or others as determined by a court from family and/or medical pros.
Somewhere along the line, he proved himself dangerous. I wouldn’t want him to own or carry a gun either. It’s one thing to get the determination changed for the legal action. It’s another to cause your death by physically resisting. That in itself raises a red flag.
rwood
He only proved himself dangerous when he was accosted in his home by jackbooted thugs trying to steal his property.
They had no warrant and so had no reason to be at his door in the first place.
If he had committed a crime it would be a different story, but he did not.
We cannot, according to our constitution, pre-emptively arrest people for crimes they “might” commit. We cannot let the liberals get into that mindset else every Patriot will be behind bars for some future offense.
Sometimes it is better to work with the law rather than physically resist. They weren’t there to arrest him, just relieve him of his first line opportunity to harm himself or others as determined by a court from family and/or medical pros.
Somewhere along the line, he proved himself dangerous. I wouldn’t want him to own or carry a gun either. It’s one thing to get the determination changed for the legal action. It’s another to cause your death by physically resisting. That in itself raises a red flag.
That's an awful lot of assumptions. Even goes into the realm of thought crime, because we don't know if the guy committed a crime beforehand. Should we now allow ourselves to submit to checks before we ask the government to allow us to exercise our God-given Natural Rights?
The NRA really doesn't comprehend "shall not be infringed".