# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  First shooting from a gun grab protective order

## Rickity Plumber

In Maryland, There was a shooting on a protective gun grab warrant. It’s got all kinds of Google pages for it and I’m on my stupid smart phone right now and I can’t cut-and-paste and do all that stuff.

So if somebody says that this guys nuts, to go check him out Evidently the police in Maryland have every right to go in and 530 in the morning and take your guns. Well this guy wasn’t going to give up his guns so they shot him

This disturbs me quite a bit. So here I am down in Florida I can call up some police department up there in some shit hole city and demand This guy be checked out because he’s a loony tune. Well evidently the police can go there and presume automatically that you’re guilty and take your weapons. And if that doesn’t make you mad I don’t know what will. 

If someone could help out and please grab a link and post it here that would be awesome I would appreciate it thank you

----------

Big Dummy (11-13-2018),Conservative Libertarian (11-13-2018),Kris P Bacon (11-13-2018),MrogersNhood (11-14-2018),nonsqtr (11-13-2018),teeceetx (11-14-2018)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

I am sorry the OP was a crappy broken English but that’s all the best I can do with this crazy smart phone

----------


## Midgardian/Shane Ryan

*FERNADALE, Md. (WJZ) —* A 61-year-old man is dead after he was shot by an officer trying to enforce Maryland’s new ‘red flag’ law in Ferndale Monday morning.

According to police, two officers serving a new Extreme Risk Protective Order (Red Flag Law), a Maryland protective order to remove guns from a household, shot and killed the man listed on that order.

“Under the law, family, police, mental health professionals can all ask for the protective orders to remove weapons,” said Sgt. Jacklyn David, with Anne Arundel County Police.

That man was identified as Gary J. Willis of same address.

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/...rundel-county/

----------

Big Dummy (11-13-2018),Captain Kirk! (11-13-2018),Rickity Plumber (11-13-2018),teeceetx (11-14-2018)

----------


## Kris P Bacon

*Maryland police officer shoots, kills man being served ...*TheBlaze
6 days ago · Maryland police officer shoots, kills man being served with gun *grab order* under new ‘red flag’ law 1 min A 60-year-old man was shot and killed by a Maryland police officer on Monday, while he was being served a *protective order* to confiscate

----------

Rickity Plumber (11-13-2018),teeceetx (11-14-2018)

----------


## Kris P Bacon

I hope whoever reported him knows they are a party to his murder.

----------

2cent (11-14-2018),MedicineBow (11-14-2018),teeceetx (11-14-2018)

----------


## Midgardian/Shane Ryan

I can see a lot of ex-wives abusing this law.

----------

Big Dummy (11-13-2018),Hillofbeans (11-13-2018),Kris P Bacon (11-13-2018),NuYawka (11-13-2018),Rebel Yell (11-13-2018),teeceetx (11-14-2018)

----------


## Kris P Bacon

> I can see a lot of ex-wives abusing this law.


Or just anyone with a grudge.

----------

gregonejeep (11-13-2018),Rebel Yell (11-13-2018),Midgardian/Shane Ryan (11-13-2018),teeceetx (11-14-2018)

----------


## Midgardian/Shane Ryan

> Or just anyone with a grudge.


Yeah, I am too cynical. My mind automatically went to women.

----------

Kris P Bacon (11-13-2018),NuYawka (11-13-2018)

----------


## Traddles

This is exactly what this unconstitutional-on-its-face law was designed to create. The dead guy didn't like his constitutional rights being violated, specifically his property being taken without due process of law in which he could defend himself.

The guy handled it poorly - he made a move the police officers took as threatening them and shot him. But the police officers should not have been there!

This law, as I understand:

* Allows anyone to report someone;

* Anonymously;

* There is no provision for the reported person to defend themselves or for authorities to check the veracity of the report.

So, yeah, a POed ex, a hateful neighbor, a random hoplophobe ... the law sets up legal SWAT'ing. And if, after months and thousands of dollars worth of legal actions, the reported person clears his name and gets their property back, they have no recourse against their slanderer. Because the law allows anonymous reporting.

----------

Kris P Bacon (11-13-2018),Rebel Yell (11-13-2018),Rickity Plumber (11-13-2018),teeceetx (11-14-2018)

----------


## Captain Kirk!

No, cops won't enforce gun confiscation orders, will they?

----------

Ed D (11-13-2018),Kris P Bacon (11-13-2018),MisterVeritis (11-13-2018),Rebel Yell (11-13-2018)

----------


## nonsqtr

> No, cops won't enforce gun confiscation orders, will they?


It's getting to where the cops are crazier than the perps.

----------

Captain Kirk! (11-13-2018),Ed D (11-13-2018)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> It's getting to where the cops are crazier than the perps.


I don't think this would happen in Polk County, Florida. Sheriff Grady Judd's territory. What do you think @Kris P Bacon ?

----------

Kris P Bacon (11-13-2018),Midgardian/Shane Ryan (11-14-2018)

----------


## Kris P Bacon

> I don't think this would happen in Polk County, Florida. Sheriff Grady Judd's territory. What do you think @Kris P Bacon ?


I would like to think not but I would not bet the farm. Some of these grabs are underway in Fl.

----------

Rickity Plumber (11-14-2018)

----------


## gregonejeep

It is disturbing and I think a forward moving trend that all of our states will be exposed to and following is why IMO. It will not matter whether your state/location is red or blue. They are making these "gun" confiscations legitimacy based on a VERY publicized and familiar issue with too many people....domestic violence. 

How many women in the passed 15 years have been killed or wounded with guns while under the supposed protection of their EPO or PPO ?  TOO many.  And they are going to capitalize on this one for justification for the actions in the OP. 

And few people looking on, will even care about the "rights" of someone for their right of to own a gun, because the EPO/PPO will be the front and center ….object discussed. And everyone knows that once a person gets found guilty of a DV, they lose their gun rights, for set time by the court.

Because the use of a gun for the most part, will instantly be brought to peoples minds when there is a DV case. And few men, D's or R's have any use for a DV assailant. 

And I also know for a FACT, that sometimes these alleged DV charges are placed on men that are false, and were simply levied against a man, for the woman to use as a paper weapon. And that too many judges sign the request for the EPO/PPO's/to be granted for the requestee with out hesitation, or substantial review of the charged person's character or history, due to what I have mentioned in the blue. 

And then the one charged with the DV, *if they are truly NOT guilty* of the alleged DV charge and IF they can afford a good attorney, has to prove their innocence and get the DV  esponged, just to clear their record of having a very harmful DV on it . JMO

----------

Kris P Bacon (11-13-2018),Rickity Plumber (11-14-2018)

----------


## NuYawka

Sooo... just to clarify (because I'm too lazy to read the article) did the so-called perp actually and physically make a move that made the cops think he was going to harm them, or is it more a case of high tension between the parties involved?

----------


## Midgardian/Shane Ryan

> I don't think this would happen in Polk County, Florida. Sheriff Grady Judd's territory. What do you think @Kris P Bacon ?


Sheriff Grady Judd is a constitutional sheriff.

----------

Rickity Plumber (11-14-2018)

----------


## Midgardian/Shane Ryan

> Sooo... just to clarify (because I'm too lazy to read the article) did the so-called perp actually and physically make a move that made the cops think he was going to harm them, or is it more a case of high tension between the parties involved?


That is irrelevant. The man was being served a warrant because some anonymous informer (East Germany anyone?) saw fit to tell the cops that this guy was "dangerous". Now, we will never know the truth. The informer ought to be charged with murder.

----------

Kris P Bacon (11-14-2018)

----------


## NuYawka

> That is irrelevant. The man was being served a warrant because some anonymous informer (East Germany anyone?) saw fit to tell the cops that this guy was "dangerous". Now, we will never know the truth. The informer ought to be charged with murder.


Yeah, I know what the point was and is. I guess that means that any other details need to be ignored, right?

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Sooo... just to clarify (because I'm too lazy to read the article) did the so-called perp actually and physically make a move that made the cops think he was going to harm them, or is it more a case of high tension between the parties involved?




"That man was identified as Gary J. Willis of same address.
Officials said Willis answered the door while holding a handgun.
Willis then placed the gun next to the door.
When officers began to serve him the order, Willis became irate and grabbed his gun.
One of the officers tried to take the gun from Willis, but instead Willis fired the gun."



The second cop shot the guy

----------

MrogersNhood (11-14-2018),NuYawka (11-14-2018)

----------


## gregonejeep

> "That man was identified as Gary J. Willis of same address.
> Officials said Willis answered the door while holding a handgun.
> Willis then placed the gun next to the door.
> When officers began to serve him the order, Willis became irate and grabbed his gun.
> One of the officers tried to take the gun from Willis, but instead Willis fired the gun."
> 
> 
> 
> The second cop shot the guy


Then with the above being the known truth, Willis died as the result of a legitimate action performed by the LEO's. It reads to me, as they actually put themselves at risk . Because in my state, if someone does to them as Willis did, our LEO here would have popped him the second he picked up the gun and would not have got in a wrestling match.  This Willis shooting though, reads to me so far, like a suicide by police. Maybe so, maybe not.


Our police here do not play Matt Dillion with anyone. If someone picks a gun up while they are trying to question or detain them, they get shot. Legitimate action IMO. Common sense has to prevail. Pick up a gun when a LEO is conducting their orders ? Then take the consequences. 
And IMO, post 2008 has brought this MUCH higher of distrust and alarm being exhibited by our LEO's now, simply because today too many of our LEO are getting shot. 

A deputy sheriff here close to me is coming home from the hospital now. He was shot in the back while making a investigation on the scene by a unknown armed felon that he was questioning. A great, young man just starting out in life with a new child. Now he can only move his head and one arm while confined to a *wheelchair for life. *

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Sooo... just to clarify (because I'm too lazy to read the article) did the so-called perp actually and physically make a move that made the cops think he was going to harm them, or is it more a case of high tension between the parties involved?


I read elsewhere that he started to give up the gun but changed his mind and a scuffle started between one cop and him to take possession of the gun.  At that point the gun went off so one of the cops shot him.

----------

NuYawka (11-14-2018)

----------


## Old Tex

Like any law pasted the bottom line is that there is something good about it. The police have the right to get a gun away from someone that is obviously a threat to either themselves or to others. Also like any law passed it's at least a double edged sword because the police & court system can & will abuse it. In this case there's a third part where others can also abuse it without anything bad happening to them. That's a highly dangerous situation. If you think about it this could be used as a way to possibly murder someone. If you know the guy won't give up his gun, just call the law & say that he is dangerous. Then let events take their natural course. 

Something else that is interesting is the time when they tried to take the gun. More than likely they woke the guy up. That's not exactly the best time for someone to be reasoned with. Also answering the door at 5:30 in the morning, who comes to see you at that time? I find it understandable that the guy would come to the door with a gun in hand. To me this sounds like it could be well meaning or a set up but either way it was mixed up with a bunch of stupid.

So what's the answer? Forget the 2nd amendment for a minute because we are not talking on face value about a "normal" person (assumed). I see both good & bad in the law. I do see that there are limits that seem fairly reasonable as to who can request this to be done so it's not just "anyone". If those rules are followed I guess that I would go along with it.

My last comment is that it's 6 in the morning here. If someone banged on my door I'm pretty sure that I would answer it with a gun in my hand & 3 dogs going crazy at my feet. That would not result in a rational thought pattern for me. Just saying....

----------

Hillofbeans (11-14-2018),MrogersNhood (11-14-2018),NuYawka (11-14-2018),teeceetx (11-14-2018)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

I think the police tend to raid houses in the middle of the night in order to catch you unawares and less likely to put up a fight.  You're undressed, you are half asleep, not thinking clearly etc.

----------


## teeceetx

This law, without protections, will be greatly abused.  Was there a court order?

----------

MrogersNhood (11-14-2018)

----------


## Midgardian/Shane Ryan

> I think the police tend to raid houses in the middle of the night in order to catch you unawares and less likely to put up a fight.  You're undressed, you are half asleep, not thinking clearly etc.


I am always dressed. The Boy Scouts taught me to be prepared. When you can be chased out of the house by a wildfire or shaken out by an earthquake, you learn that seconds mean everything and keep your pants on.

----------


## Midgardian/Shane Ryan

> Yeah, I know what the point was and is. I guess that means that any other details need to be ignored, right?


Any other details are irrelevant.

----------


## Midgardian/Shane Ryan

> Then with the above being the known truth, Willis died as the result of a legitimate action performed by the LEO's. It reads to me, as they actually put themselves at risk . Because in my state, if someone does to them as Willis did, our LEO here would have popped him the second he picked up the gun and would not have got in a wrestling match.  This Willis shooting though, reads to me so far, like a suicide by police. Maybe so, maybe not.
> 
> 
> Our police here do not play Matt Dillion with anyone. If someone picks a gun up while they are trying to question or detain them, they get shot. Legitimate action IMO. Common sense has to prevail. Pick up a gun when a LEO is conducting their orders ? Then take the consequences. 
> And IMO, post 2008 has brought this MUCH higher of distrust and alarm being exhibited by our LEO's now, simply because today too many of our LEO are getting shot. 
> 
> A deputy sheriff here close to me is coming home from the hospital now. He was shot in the back while making a investigation on the scene by a unknown armed felon that he was questioning. A great, young man just starting out in life with a new child. Now he can only move his head and one arm while confined to a *wheelchair for life. *


I have no issue with cops, but if the cops are aiming a weapon at me it is their fault, not mine. Once that line has been crossed, only one of us is going home to die in bed. I intend that person to be me.

----------

MrogersNhood (11-14-2018)

----------


## Midgardian/Shane Ryan

I may die in a prison cell, but I will be alive and the rogue cop will be dead. So be it.

----------


## NuYawka

> Any other details are irrelevant.


I've been known to only see things in black and white also, but my wife always tells me that circumstances are usually a lot deeper than they appear. 

Oh, and she's always correct (especially when she critiques me).

----------

Midgardian/Shane Ryan (11-14-2018)

----------


## Midgardian/Shane Ryan

> I've been known to only see things in black and white also, but my wife always tells me that circumstances are usually a lot deeper than they appear. 
> 
> Oh, and she's always correct (especially when she critiques me).


Ask her to put you over her knee and spank you!

----------


## NuYawka

> Ask her to put you over her knee and spank you!


Ha. Funny.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Then with the above being the known truth, Willis died as the result of a legitimate action performed by the LEO's. It reads to me, as they actually put themselves at risk . Because in my state, if someone does to them as Willis did, our LEO here would have popped him the second he picked up the gun and would not have got in a wrestling match.  This Willis shooting though, reads to me so far, like a suicide by police. Maybe so, maybe not.
> 
> 
> Our police here do not play Matt Dillion with anyone. If someone picks a gun up while they are trying to question or detain them, they get shot. Legitimate action IMO. Common sense has to prevail. Pick up a gun when a LEO is conducting their orders ? Then take the consequences. 
> And IMO, post 2008 has brought this MUCH higher of distrust and alarm being exhibited by our LEO's now, simply because today too many of our LEO are getting shot. 
> 
> A deputy sheriff here close to me is coming home from the hospital now. He was shot in the back while making a investigation on the scene by a unknown armed felon that he was questioning. A great, young man just starting out in life with a new child. Now he can only move his head and one arm while confined to a *wheelchair for life. *


One LEO dying In the line of duty is one too many. I agree that as soon as the guy went for his gun they had every right to kill him or at least shoot him to stop the threat. 

However, the LEOs wouldnt have been there in the first place to grab guns if the person had to not be subjected to ANY type of leftist gun grabbing.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Like any law pasted the bottom line is that there is something good about it. The police have the right to get a gun away from someone that is obviously a threat to either themselves or to others. Also like any law passed it's at least a double edged sword because the police & court system can & will abuse it. In this case there's a third part where others can also abuse it without anything bad happening to them. That's a highly dangerous situation. If you think about it this could be used as a way to possibly murder someone. If you know the guy won't give up his gun, just call the law & say that he is dangerous. Then let events take their natural course. 
> 
> Something else that is interesting is the time when they tried to take the gun. More than likely they woke the guy up. That's not exactly the best time for someone to be reasoned with. Also answering the door at 5:30 in the morning, who comes to see you at that time? I find it understandable that the guy would come to the door with a gun in hand. To me this sounds like it could be well meaning or a set up but either way it was mixed up with a bunch of stupid.
> 
> So what's the answer? Forget the 2nd amendment for a minute because we are not talking on face value about a "normal" person (assumed). I see both good & bad in the law. I do see that there are limits that seem fairly reasonable as to who can request this to be done so it's not just "anyone". If those rules are followed I guess that I would go along with it.
> 
> My last comment is that it's 6 in the morning here. If someone banged on my door I'm pretty sure that I would answer it with a gun in my hand & 3 dogs going crazy at my feet. That would not result in a rational thought pattern for me. Just saying....


Very good arguments for this particular case. And yes you are right somebody knocks on my door at 5:30 in the morning, dark outside, I’m sure I am going to answer it with a gun in my hand

----------

MrogersNhood (11-14-2018)

----------


## MrogersNhood

Not good, this is.

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Very good arguments for this particular case. And yes you are right somebody knocks on my door at 5:30 in the morning, dark outside, I’m sure I am going to answer it with a gun in my hand


Same here, round chambered at that time of night.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Not good, this is.


Yoda , dat you?

----------

MrogersNhood (11-14-2018)

----------


## MrogersNhood

> "That man was identified as Gary J. Willis of same address.
> Officials said Willis answered the door while holding a handgun.
> Willis then placed the gun next to the door.
> When officers began to serve him the order, Willis became irate and grabbed his gun.
> One of the officers tried to take the gun from Willis, but instead Willis fired the gun."
> 
> 
> 
> The second cop shot the guy


Why were they at his house @ 5:30 AM trying to take his guns?

Oh! Sorry, it's the elephant in the room.

What about the 2nd amendment?

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Yoda , dat you?


Naw, I was kinda channeling him though  :Smile:

----------

Rickity Plumber (11-14-2018)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Why were they at his house @ 5:30 AM trying to take his guns?
> 
> Oh! Sorry, it's the elephant in the room.
> 
> What about the 2nd amendment?


I guess they were there at that time of the evening in order to put the sneak on him. Yes what about the second amendment?

----------

MrogersNhood (11-14-2018)

----------


## Abbey

> I can see a lot of ex-wives abusing this law.


 Depends on who the ex husband is.

----------


## Old Tex

> Why were they at his house @ 5:30 AM trying to take his guns?
> Oh! Sorry, it's the elephant in the room.
> What about the 2nd amendment?


Let's talk about the 2nd amendment some. Would it apply to a 2 or 3 year old child? If not, why not? 
Now if you say that a 2 or 3 year old has the right to have a gun because of the 2nd amendment then I'll agree with your stance about this guy. But if you say that a 2 or 3 year old doesn't have that right, any reason you give for taking that right away from them can be applied to this guy. Think about that for a minute.

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Let's talk about the 2nd amendment some. Would it apply to a 2 or 3 year old child? If not, why not? 
> Now if you say that a 2 or 3 year old has the right to have a gun because of the 2nd amendment then I'll agree with your stance about this guy. But if you say that a 2 or 3 year old doesn't have that right, any reason you give for taking that right away from them can be applied to this guy. Think about that for a minute.


3 year old ought to be legally able to have Mortars, next!

You're barking up the wrong cracker's leg on that there.

----------

