Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Maryland’s red flag gun law claims its first victim: Gary J. Willis



Marylands red flag gun law claims its first victim Gary J Willis

Gun confiscations under Maryland’s new Extreme Risk Protective Orders, better known as their “Red Flag Gun Law,” claimed their first victim. 61-year-old Gary J. Willis was shot and killed at his home while police were serving a protective order to confiscate his firearms.

Under the new law, which took effect last month, gun owners can have their firearms confiscated through a judge’s order if they are deemed a risk to themselves or others. To be deemed a risk, someone must file a petition with the court. It can be law enforcement, a health professional, spouse, family member, past or present boyfriend or girlfriend, or a current or former legal guardian.

According to reports, Willis answered the door with a firearm in his hand when two police officers went to serve the order shortly after 5 am. He put the gun down, but when the officers served the order he became “irate” and grabbed his gun. One officer tried to take the gun from him but a shot was fired. The other officer shot Willis. He died at the scene. Neither officer nor anyone else in the house was injured.

In a bizarre spin from police, Anne Arundel County Police Chief Timothy Altomare used this incident as an example of the law working.

“If you look at this morning’s outcome, it’s tough for us to say ‘Well, what did we prevent?’” he said. “Because we don’t know what we prevented or could’ve prevented. What would’ve happened if we didn’t go there at 5 a.m.?”

My Take

There have only been nine attempts to serve these orders since the law was enacted on October 1. That’s an 11% kill rate on people who may commit a crime in the future.

Maryland’s law is being hailed by many as the prototype for the nation. It isn’t the first but it’s the strongest to date with the widest range of people who can petition the court for action.

All it takes is a good story and a sympathetic judge to take away someone’s guns. In this case, it was a relative of the deceased who filed the petition after an incident that occurred in the beginning of the week. We don’t know the details so there’s no way to judge, but the notion that this incident is proof the law is working is the type of circular reasoning gungrabbers will use to encourage more confiscations.

Maryland officials claim around half of the petitions so far have been approved. That’s a staggering amount for a law that was allegedly intended to be used very cautiously. At the rate they’re being filed, over 600 gun owners will have their firearms confiscated in the first year alone.

What makes this law so dangerous is the fear of missing a shooter. No judge wants to be the first to deny a petition for someone who later commits acts of violence with a firearm. That’s why around half have been granted; if the reasons seem compelling, judges are going to side with the petitioner and force the gun owner to sort it out later in court.

It’s also a decision that’s impossible to get wrong. Who’s to say that if the guns weren’t confiscated that the owner wouldn’t have gone out and harmed themselves or others.

Gun violence in general and mass shootings in particular, such as the Capital Gazette shooting that prompted support for Maryland’s red flag gun law, have many people grasping for solutions. The fear of such events put people in the vulnerable frame of mind of accepting such laws for their own protection.

Laws like these will not help. A closer examination of shooters in recent years indicate trends of expressed anger, mental illness, and isolationist behavior. It seems nearly universal among shooters, especially those who commit premeditated attacks. Unfortunately, these traits are also found in millions of other Americans who would never commit such crimes.

Like I said, all it takes is a good story and a sympathetic judge to take away someone’s rights in Maryland.

Gary J. Willis isn’t dead because he tried to shoot someone. He is dead because someone convinced a judge that he might shoot someone, and now police are hailing this as a success. The PreCrime Departments are pleased with the results.

Continue Reading


  1. smok3r

    November 9, 2018 at 5:58 pm

    There’s been 114 attempts since law was enacted on oct 1 2018. correct the story please. Whats next… you’re a conservative we’re here to confiscate your gun. What you supported Trump… turn em over

    • JD Rucker

      November 9, 2018 at 6:00 pm

      There have been 114 applications. Around half approved. Nine attempts to issue and secure weapons as of today.

  2. Public Citizen

    November 9, 2018 at 8:04 pm

    Anyone banging on my door at 5AM is going to be met in similar fashion,
    Common Sense should dictate that these sort of orders be served during ~normal business hours~.
    The 5AM knock on the door just smacks of Gestapo Tactics and an attempt to provoke a confrontation.
    The brakes can be put on these petitions by making the petitioner liable for all legal consequences, be they civil or criminal, that derive from the petition. That should include both any potential financial and potential jail time that arises.

  3. Bystander Shaking His Head

    November 11, 2018 at 2:18 pm

    A law is created to prevent someone from being murdered by a firearm – during the process of enforcing the law, someone is murdered with a firearm. Maybe there needs to be an additional law made that makes murder more illegal – because the only way to curb gun violence is to make more laws.

  4. Aubrey Clark

    November 12, 2018 at 3:03 pm

    What nobody is mentioning is the REASON the Red Flag Law was enacted on him in the first place???

  5. Harry Tuttle

    November 15, 2018 at 8:47 am

    5am???? I’d come to the door armed too.

    Why the hell would cops come to the door at 5am to take a persons gun unless they knew the law is unconstitutional.

  6. Pingback: Maryland Man Killed by Cops Trying to Take His Guns Under "Red Flag" Gun Confiscation Law

  7. Pingback: Maryland Man Killed by Cops Trying to Take His Guns Under “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation Law - Survive!

  8. Pingback: Maryland Man Killed by Cops Trying to Take His Guns Under “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation Law – How to survive when SHTF

  9. Pingback: Maryland Man Killed by Cops Trying to Take His Guns Under “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation Law – The American Awakening

  10. Pingback: Maryland Man Killed By Cops Trying To Take His Guns Under “Red Flag” Confiscation Law – iftttwall

  11. Pingback: Maryland Man Killed By Cops Trying To Take His Guns Under "Red Flag" Confiscation Law - Get the latest financial news. Free real time quotes, 25 Trading Tools, Technical analysis, and much more.

  12. Pingback: Maryland Man Killed By Cops Trying To Take His Guns Under “Red Flag” Confiscation Law | peoples trust toronto

  13. Pingback: Maryland Man Killed By Cops Trying To Take His Guns Under “Red Flag” Confiscation Law | Real Patriot News

  14. Pingback: Maryland Man Killed By Cops Trying To Take His Guns Under “Red Flag” Confiscation Law – TCNN: The Constitutional News Network

  15. Pingback: Maryland Man Killed By Cops Trying To Take His Guns Under "Red Flag" Confiscation Law | StockTalk Journal

  16. Pingback: Maryland Man Killed By Cops Trying To Take His Guns Under “Red Flag” Confiscation Law – The Conservative Insider

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

Chipotle knew Masud Omar Ali bragged about dining and dashing before they fired their manager



Some are cheering on Chipotle for doing the right thing by considering rehiring the manager they fired following a viral video showing her asking African-American patrons to pay up front before placing their order. Evidence has emerged since the firing that the poster of the viral video made a habit of “dining and dashing” at Chipotle and other restaurants, apparently vindicating the manager for her decision to protect the store from theft.

Here’s the problem. According to Matt Palumbo who contacted Chipotle about the incident, they were aware of the history of the customer before they fired their manager.

All of this stems from a viral video posted by Masud Omar Ali

on Twitter.

It ended up getting over 30,000 retweets, 72,000 likes, 5,500 comments, and an astounding 5.5 million views. Many of the comments immediately following the post claimed racism on the part of the manager and Chipotle in general because Mr. Ali is African American. His racially charged Tweet made it seem like all of this was driven by racism.

As it turned out, his own Twitter feed revealed something that he regularly practiced, “dining and dashing.” This is where someone orders food from a restaurant, eats the food, then leaves without paying for it.

Ali seemed quite proud of his thefts and very satisfied that he was able to get someone fired for trying to stop his criminal activities.

Masud Ali Tweet 1

Masud Ali Tweet 2

Masud Ali tweet 3

Now that the “victims” have been exposed as the actual criminals, people on both sides of the aisle are speaking out. Some noted that falsely calling out racism masks real racism. Others talked about the hypocrisy of getting someone fired for trying to stop theft in her store.

This video by self-proclaimed liberal An0maly calls for truth even if it doesn’t fit the narrative of mainstream media, social media, or corporate America.

It’s sad that the truth wasn’t enough to keep Chipotle from firing their manager over false racism. The backlash is what made them act. Even if they rehire her, Chipotle still looks terrible for embracing political correctness in the first place.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Intellectual ammunition, part 3: Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS




Intellectual ammunition part 3 Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Is nuclear annihilation less of a threat than purchasing a lower parts kit?

In the third part of a multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.

Which is more intimidating: purchasing an inanimate object or the threat of gun confiscation?

In the beginning of the video, he asks the very pertinent question:

“Who engages in threats of gun violence, the civilian who owns, or attempts to own, a firearm, or the civilian or politician intent on passing ‘gun control’ statutes?”

Which is quite an interesting point in light of the comments from Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) who wants the government to make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse on their freedom. Rejecting said offer could see them and millions of other die in a thermonuclear style gun confiscation.

That threat being just the latest of the long list of over 70 instances of Leftists demanding gun confiscation. Note that number could easily be doubled or tripled if one were to account for the number of times those demands were syndicated or excerpted in other publications.

The video details the point that it is the people wanting to impose controls on freedom that are threatening violence – up to and including nuclear genocide. But perhaps if one if of the Liberty grabber set on the Left it’s possible that someone having a scary looking rifle is far more of an issue than the wiping out of an area via nuclear incineration with fallout contaminating everything down wind.

The illogic of so-called ‘Gun-free’ zones.

Further on he addresses question of whether the passage of more and more restrictions on freedom and setting up ‘gun-free’ zones keep people safe? Consider the scenario he proposes in how a mass murderer might select is his target:

And what of the idea that, practically, passing gun statutes will make areas safer? In Part One of this series, we looked at the real-world numbers on that question, but here is a logical argument to pose to gun-grabbers.

Suppose you are in a paintball game. You have a paintball gun, and you will win $10,000 if you enter one of three houses and, in five minutes, hit ten people with pellets. If you get hit by a pellet, you will have to pay $200,000… There are forty people in each house. In House One, you know that there is no one with a paintball gun. In House Two, you know that there are a few people with paintball guns, and in House Three, you know that there are many, many people with paintball guns.

Which house would you choose?

The answer is obvious. Let’s not be foolish about pretending that we would choose anything other than House One.

The logic of self-protection through firearm possession and use is irrefutable. The statistics of it are clear. The history of despots disarming citizens prior to destroying their lives is also clear, as is the history of what the Founders thought when they wrote the Second Amendment.


Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

When gungrabbers like Eric Swalwell say they respect the 2nd Amendment, don’t believe them



When gungrabbers like Eric Swalwell say they respect the 2nd Amendment, don't believe them

It’s a lie. Every time, it’s a lie. Most leftist gungrabbers will add a note at the end of their gungrabbing rhetoric by pretending to respect the 2nd Amendment. They want you to think they’re pushing “common sense” gun control, because who doesn’t like common sense?

There isn’t a lick of common sense in any gun control measure. Anything that could have been considered common sense gun control, such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 that kept regulated interstate commerce to hamper mail-order gun purchases, have already been put in place. Anything going forward that appeals to common sense is unnecessary and damaging to the 2nd Amendment.

Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) once said he respects the 2nd Amendment.

“I support gun safety measures, and I’ll tell you, I grew up in a family of gun owners and hunters, and I went hunting with my dad as a kid, and you know, I have deep respect for the Second Amendment and the culture of our country.”

His statements on Twitter yesterday said all we need to know.


Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report




Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report