Suggs and Guns

[GOTA]

Ask and ye shall receive...

Firearm Prohibitions for Persons Subject to Domestic Violence Restraining/Protective Orders

In Maryland, persons named as a respondent against whom a “non ex parte civil protective order” has been issued are prohibited from possessing a handgun or assault weapon.3 Moreover, no person may sell, rent or transfer a handgun or assault weapon to a person who is subject to a current “non ex parte civil protective order” issued pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 4-506.4 Federal law also prohibits the purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by certain domestic violence protective order defendants.

Removal or Surrender of Firearms When Domestic Violence Restraining/Protective Orders Are Issued

A final domestic violence protective order issued under Maryland Code Ann., Family Law § 4-506 must order the person subject to the order to surrender to law enforcement any firearm in his or her possession, and to refrain from possession of any firearm for the duration of the protective order.5

Maryland authorizes, but does not require, courts issuing temporary domestic violence protective orders to require the subject of such order to surrender all firearms in the person’s possession and require that the person refrain from gun possession for the duration of the temporary order.6 The court may order the surrender of guns in these instances if the abuse consisted of:

Use of a firearm by the respondent against the person to be protected;

Threat by the respondent to use a firearm against the person to be protected;

Serious bodily harm by the respondent to a person to be protected; or

Threat by the respondent to cause serious bodily harm to a person to be protected.7

Law enforcement receiving a firearm lawfully surrendered must transport and store the firearm safely while the protective order is in effect.8 Maryland law addresses the retaking of possession of the firearm at the expiration of a protective order.9

Removal or Surrender of Firearms at the Scene of a Domestic Violence Incident

Maryland allows a law enforcement officer responding to an alleged domestic violence incident to remove a firearm from the scene if he or she: 1) has probable cause to believe an act of domestic violence has occurred; and 2) observed the firearm on the scene during the response.10 The officer must provide information to the owner regarding the process for retrieving the firearm and must provide safe storage for the firearm during any related domestic violence legal proceeding.11 The owner may resume possession of the firearm at the conclusion of legal proceedings related to the domestic violence incident, unless ordered by a court to surrender the weapon.12

http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-vio...s-in-maryland/

Thank you. That explains it. I don't agree with it but it explains it.

I don't own any guns and never have. Watching Top Shot is about the extent of my interest in guns. However I support the constitutional rights of those who do and am sympathetic to the seemingly endless fight to keep protect those rights.

[JAB1985]

is there a maximum they can ask for as far as length that its ceased? If not id question that, because i believe you can just keep renewing a retraining order? If thats the case theres something seriously wrong with it as its basically a technicality for taking your right away without cause, or at least a non-connected cause.

On the other hand removing the weapon from a hostile environment isnt really any different than allowing "persons of interest" to not leave a state or country. while the dispute is being worked out i can see why its so even if it isnt my personal opinion. taking them im sure has prevented more serious crimes if only minimally while the negative is inconveniencing somebody that has a "domestic violence" charge against them. granted they could be completely innocent, but thats why its only suppose to be temporary to begin with. Dont want your gun taken away, dont put yourself in a position where this scenario can happen.

[Random Thoughts]

I'm sure they've passed the state Supreme Court. But I'd be shocked if they passed on a federal level and its that level to which I was referring.

Heller is the only instance that I'm aware of where the Constitutionality of a gun law / restriction was challenged and rejected by SCOTUS.

McDonald is another case, but it specifically applies to state.

The McDonald case is something that gun right proponents can use to support their claim, but I am not sure about the applicability to Maryland statutes... I can only imagine that those statutes can be challenged by using McDonald case along with Heller.

[Captain Silver]

I am not a gun owner. I think there should be laws making assault weapons, or 'heavy weapons' harder to get, but I am a big believer in the Constitution and it is pretty clear on the 2nd Amendment.

Challenging MD law would take cash, but I could easily see it falling. For all the NRA does making noise about presidents, it seems to do a crappy job fighting the obvious.

As for Suggs, if he feels the need as NFL player to protect himself, I have no problem. My problem is the state prejudging Suggs or any other person in lawful possession of a gun under similar circumstances.

[HoustonRaven]

I think there should be laws making assault weapons, or 'heavy weapons' harder to get, but I am a big believer in the Constitution and it is pretty clear on the 2nd Amendment

I don't see how you can square the two points here.

An "assault weapon" is what exactly?

And what exactly is a "heavy weapon"?

[Random Thoughts]

I am not a gun owner. I think there should be laws making assault weapons, or 'heavy weapons' harder to get, but I am a big believer in the Constitution and it is pretty clear on the 2nd Amendment.

Challenging MD law would take cash, but I could easily see it falling. For all the NRA does making noise about presidents, it seems to do a crappy job fighting the obvious.

As for Suggs, if he feels the need as NFL player to protect himself, I have no problem. My problem is the state prejudging Suggs or any other person in lawful possession of a gun under similar circumstances.

If the gun industry becomes cash strapped, we will definitely hear from the NRA. Otherwise, why makes a noise when the industry is prosperous? IMO, I think the NRA is really doing a good job underhanded "game".

[JAB1985]

I don't see how you can square the two points here.

An "assault weapon" is what exactly?

And what exactly is a "heavy weapon"?

I have a similar belief as Silver and imo, saying its harder to get it doesnt mean you dont still get it. Its not taking away your right to own it, just making it harder to get it, which if youre of sane mind and a responsible gun owner, it shouldnt be hard to follow through with. Going to the store and just picking up an AK on the other hand i dont think is in the best interests of our society. I think that goes for all guns personally, as i know I can go get a Shotgun right now and thatll kill just as much as an AR will.

[wickedsolo]

I don't see how you can square the two points here.

An "assault weapon" is what exactly?

And what exactly is a "heavy weapon"?

Weapons are only as dangerous as those who own them.

I thought this was kind of funny:

[Captain Silver]

I don't see how you can square the two points here.

An "assault weapon" is what exactly?

And what exactly is a "heavy weapon"?

Assault weapons are what I consider 'heavy weapons'. Military grade weaponry to kill, not 1 intruder or deer, but a weapon made to kill as many people as possible in the most efficient and fastest way possible.

I have a similar belief as Silver and imo, saying its harder to get it doesnt mean you dont still get it. Its not taking away your right to own it, just making it harder to get it, which if youre of sane mind and a responsible gun owner, it shouldnt be hard to follow through with. Going to the store and just picking up an AK on the other hand i dont think is in the best interests of our society. I think that goes for all guns personally, as i know I can go get a Shotgun right now and thatll kill just as much as an AR will.

This is exactly my point. Even IF I had a billion dollars, I doubt the U.S. Government is going to allow me to buy a Lockheed Martin fighter jet, even unarmed. It would need to be old and decommissioned. But the finest weaponry to kill as many humans with bullets is almost universally availbel to all. I simply believe it should cost a big license fee to own one.

[LukeDaniel]

Thank you. That explains it. I don't agree with it but it explains it.

I don't own any guns and never have. Watching Top Shot is about the extent of my interest in guns. However I support the constitutional rights of those who do and am sympathetic to the seemingly endless fight to keep protect those rights.

Ditto for me exactly. Have never owned a gun, but I do like Top Shot. Have only fired one probably 3-4 times in my life. However, my dad and both grandfathers are both ex-military and each own/ed one. I believe in their right to own it and would defend it tirelessly.

It's nice to see there is an issue here of a political nature where we don't seem to be strenously arguing.

[NCRAVEN]

I have a similar belief as Silver and imo, saying its harder to get it doesnt mean you dont still get it. Its not taking away your right to own it, just making it harder to get it, which if youre of sane mind and a responsible gun owner, it shouldnt be hard to follow through with. Going to the store and just picking up an AK on the other hand i dont think is in the best interests of our society. I think that goes for all guns personally, as i know I can go get a Shotgun right now and thatll kill just as much as an AR will.

Okay, if making it harder to get doesn't mean you can't get it and you can get a shotgun with out paperwork which will kill just as many people as an AR, than why make the AR (for example) so hard to get (which it isn't that hard, I can get one at Walmart)?

[Captain Silver]

Okay, if making it harder to get doesn't mean you can't get it and you can get a shotgun with out paperwork which will kill just as many people as an AR, than why make the AR (for example) so hard to get (which it isn't that hard, I can get one at Walmart)?

Make it a 1,000 dollars for the license and you will see that number drop.

And, no. Give me a standard issues Soviet AK-47 and you have your Wal-Mart Shotgun and I will shoot right through the cinder block wall you are hiding behind. Machine guns are WAY more deadly than a shotgun.

[NCRAVEN]

Make it a 1,000 dollars for the license and you will see that number drop.

And, no. Give me a standard issues Soviet AK-47 and you have your Wal-Mart Shotgun and I will shoot right through the cinder block wall you are hiding behind. Machine guns are WAY more deadly than a shotgun.

The shotgun/AR was not my argument. IT was a Walmart AR btw, more accurate than an AK. Tell you what go see the ballistic from a buckshot vs a AK and tell me where you think your better chance of survival stands.

And why should I have to pay 1,000 for a license to own an AR?

[JAB1985]

Okay, if making it harder to get doesn't mean you can't get it and you can get a shotgun with out paperwork which will kill just as many people as an AR, than why make the AR (for example) so hard to get (which it isn't that hard, I can get one at Walmart)?

well that was my point. I think they should be the same. I also think their should be some type of psychiatric screening process and harder background checks for all guns, but at the same time i think its your right to own one. if youre a danger to yourself or others, you lose that right whether you committed a crime or not because frankly those are the ones were trying to weed out. I dont really agree with silvers Idea of extremely high licenses, that seems to be punishing gun owners instead of promoting healthy and responsible ones.

[NCRAVEN]

well that was my point. I think they should be the same. I also think their should be some type of psychiatric screening process and harder background checks for all guns, but at the same time i think its your right to own one. if youre a danger to yourself or others, you lose that right whether you committed a crime or not because frankly those are the ones were trying to weed out. I dont really agree with silvers Idea of extremely high licenses, that seems to be punishing gun owners instead of promoting healthy and responsible ones.

Question. Does making guns harder to get stop criminals from getting them?

[JAB1985]

Question. Does making guns harder to get stop criminals from getting them?

no. but does making it harder stop those that arent mentally stable or irresponsible gun owners that arent criminals?

[NCRAVEN]

no. but does making it harder stop those that arent mentally stable or irresponsible gun owners that arent criminals?

Could you rephrase that, I've read it 4 times and it just doesn't make sense (to me).

[Captain Silver]

The shotgun/AR was not my argument. IT was a Walmart AR btw, more accurate than an AK. Tell you what go see the ballistic from a buckshot vs a AK and tell me where you think your better chance of survival stands.

And why should I have to pay 1,000 for a license to own an AR?

Talking range and semantics. Fact is an assault rifle is called one for a reason. To debate the merits of why a shotgun isn't as dangerous as a machine gun is not the point. It is my opinion that military grade weaponry should be harder to acquire.

This concept of licensing is no different from getting a CDL license, which cost more than a standard license as well.

Question. Does making guns harder to get stop criminals from getting them?

No, it doesn't. Same can be said for underage drinking too.

Look, I am ALL for enforcing the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and I am not even a gun owner. I simply believe that excessive firepower is just that, for real enthusiasts who are willing to pay a high price to have the hobby. I don't ever think someone owning an AR-15 saved them anymore than owning a .45, difference has always been when some nut goes off like Colmbine, or that theater in Aurora, there is usually assault weapons to be involved for killing larger number of people, like bullet capacity alone.

[NCRAVEN]

Talking range and semantics. Fact is an assault rifle is called one for a reason.

You can name or call anything you want to cal it, it doesn't make it true.

I have no idea what an "assault rifle". An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. I can get a Remington semi-automatic hunting rifle (with better range) that will do the exact same thing. I can also hunt with an AR-15

To debate the merits of why a shotgun isn't as dangerous as a machine gun is not the point. It is my opinion that military grade weaponry should be harder to acquire.

A shotgun is military grade, so is a .45, so is a Remington 700 rifle (I believe that's what Marine snipers use). Point being is that the guns we're talking about are all relatively the same. If you want to start talking about a 50 caliber automatic machine gun, I might lean your way, a little.

No, it doesn't. Same can be said for underage drinking too.

The difference is, making it illegal for under age people to by alcohol doesn't infringe on the ability of people of age to buy alcohol.

Look, I am ALL for enforcing the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and I am not even a gun owner. I simply believe that excessive firepower is just that, for real enthusiasts who are willing to pay a high price to have the hobby. I don't ever think someone owning an AR-15 saved them anymore than owning a .45,

We'll to go back to your shotgun machine gun argument, range could be why someone needs to own a AR vs a .45 (range of 30 yards, accurately anyway).

difference has always been when some nut goes off like Colmbine, or that theater in Aurora, there is usually assault weapons to be involved for killing larger number of people, like bullet capacity alone.

You do know one of the biggest killings in the US, Virginia Tech, the guy killed 33 people ( almost triple the Aurora, CO theater) used 2 handguns.

[Captain Silver]

NC, you can post all you like for a mile. I still am on your side, I simply think those guns need more control than other guns.

Ask any cop and they will all say they would be more worried about any hostile situation where there are guns of that type. When common citizens have more firepower than the cops, that tells me that I am right about this. Slice it however you like, but unless the S.W.A.T. team is called in, that kind of hardware isn't even brandished by the professionals.