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
I don't agree with the statutes at all. Completely unconstitutional and incriminating before a crime has been committed.
I don't own a lot of guns, but I do enjoy target shooting. I have a CCP in Virginia and several other states (reciprocity) and my wife and I are going to be moving to Maryland in a year. Not looking forward to being unable to carry.
Moved thread to the more appropriate forum, since its now morphed into a discussion about the pros and cons of guns and gun laws ....
The USA Today has a feature in their issue today on NFL players and guns. They claim that "three out of four players own a handgun". My immediate reaction was "what the hell is wrong with the fourth player"?
This MD law is an extension of the Lautenburg Ammendment surrounding firearms and domestic violence. To my knowledge, the constituionality has not been challenged.
I'd also be willing to bet Suggs shipped the weapons out of state. That's a quick way to dodge the law and shows just how silly the law really is.
I wish our legal system has a constitutional council similar to the French's. France's Constitutional Council can initiate a constitutional review of a legislation if it wants to without a party brings it to the Council's attention, unlike ours.
Heller is the only instance that I'm aware of where the Constitutionality of a gun law / restriction was challenged and rejected by SCOTUS.
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.
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.
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.
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.