Connect with us

Guns and Crime

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

Published

on

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.

Advertisement
19 Comments

19 Comments

  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.

    • Goddess

      November 25, 2018 at 11:15 pm

      I agree. It is a self fulfilling prophecy

  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

  17. Barbara Cloud

    January 30, 2019 at 3:44 pm

    A family member filed a petition in court, Judge approved it, an order was issued and these police officers had to go out to the home and serve it and confiscate the gun. So the reporter says he’s dead because a family member convinced a Judge he was mentally unstable and that’s why he died, no he died because he became enraged after being served with the order and got into a physical confrontation with an officer and shot the gun. Think about it, maybe his family member was right about his mental instability and unfortunately this story had a very bad ending

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Guns and Crime

Twice convicted, thrice deported Alberto Martinez Flores captured again by border patrol

Published

on

Twice convicted thrice deported Alberto Martinez Flores captured again by border patrol

Deporting criminal illegal immigrants while maintaining such porous and indefensible borders often proves to be a fruitless expenditure. Many of them simply do their time in jail, get deported, then come back the way they came last time. Rinse. Repeat.

Such is the case for Alberto Martinez Flores, 42, who has multiple convictions, including assault, strangulation, vehicular assault, and unlawful imprisonment. This is not a very nice person. In fact, he’s dangerous, yet despite three deportations over the years, including last year, he always finds a way back in.

My Take

Why do people like Flores keep coming back? Because there are too many places without a wall. There aren’t enough border patrol agents. There aren’t enough beds for ICE to house the dramatic influx of humanity crossing our border illegally.

I’m not sure where I read it, but there’s a good case that can be made for increasing jail time on crimes when committed by illegal immigrants. This is something that should definitely be considered in light of our open borders.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Nevada to seek death penalty for illegal alien Wilber Ernesto Martinez-Guzman

Published

on

Nevada to seek death penalty for illegal alien Wilber Ernesto Martinez-Guzman

Prosecutors in two counties where an illegal immigrant allegedly murdered four people are seeking the death penalty for his crimes. North Nevada was shaken by the string of murders until the alleged killer was apprehended by law enforcement in January.

Wilber Ernesto Martinez-Guzman, 20, was arrested January 19, 2019, by Washoe County Sheriff’s department and charged with multiple offenses while prosecutors and investigators worked on charging him for the four murders. They rarely invoke the death penalty but the severity and heinous nature of the crimes warrant capital punishment, according to prosecutors.

“We reserve the death penalty for the worst of the worst,” Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks said last Thursday. “We use it sparingly.”

The illegal immigrant from El Salvador is accused of shooting and killing Gerald David, 81, and his wife, Sharon, 80, in Reno and Connie Koontz, 56, and Sophia Renken, 74, in Gardnerville.

My Take

Just as traffic fines are doubled in construction zones, so too should penalties be increased when illegal immigrants commit crimes. His immigration status was not taken into account, but the crimes themselves were enough for prosecutors to seek the death penalty.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Rewarding terrorism: Why are we encouraging mass murder with more liberty control?

Published

on

By

Rewarding terrorism Why are we encouraging mass murder with more liberty control

Does it ever occur to the Left that depriving the people of the ability to defend themselves is exactly what the terrorists want?

Solving any type of problem begins with the proper determination of the cause of the problem. Mistakenly ascribing the wrong cause only serves to make the situation far worse because the wrong solutions are then applied.

The cause of the recent phenomena of mass murder attacks is a perverse desire for fame. This is why the miscreant in the recent tragedy in New Zealand posted a ‘manifesto’ and live streamed his horrific and cowardly actions. [Please note that we are not using his name or image]. This is also why he came out in favour of liberty [gun] control.

Rewarding behavior results in more of that behavior

Consider that the reprobates who perpetrate these attacks desperately want to make a name for themselves. Most people in this world want to do something positive to achieve fame. Some compete in athletic events, cure disease or work to solve societal problems. However, there are those who don’t have the ability or time to do this, so they decide to gain this by infamy instead. They choose to become infamous, shooting their way into the history books, with others helping them along the way by playing right into their hands with the notoriety by depriving others of their liberty.

They look at what mass murderers have done to achieve what they desperately crave. One way is to play into the hands of the Left looking to deprive the people of their right of self-defense. What better way to become infamous than to be the cause of a protracted battle over this fundamental human right?

Getting the reward of more media coverage by the cause of liberty [gun] control

The reprobate in the New Zealand attack made the entirely obvious point that many everyday items – including ordinary flour – can serve as explosives. As well as the fact that fuel mixtures can also be used for explosive or incendiary attacks, something the liberty grabber left doesn’t seem to understand is that these are also ‘weapons of war’. Alternatively there are other ordinary objects that can serve as weapons of mass murder ranging from blunt force, or edge weapons to vehicular attacks. He explicitly stated that he used firearms to attract more attention and have it be the cause of more leftist restrictions on freedom.

Even though they never discerned motive for the Las Vegas mass murder, court documents alluded to the idea that the reprobate in that crime had gun control as his cause celebre. Now in the case of the New Zealand attack, the miscreant was explicit about this in his rantings.

I chose firearms for the affect (sic) it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states (sic) and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.

[Our emphasis]
Note the words ‘the extra media coverage they would provide’ in reference to the use of firearms. It wasn’t just that he wanted the ‘media coverage’ from live streaming this horror with writing all over his weapons or posting a long screed where he claimed to be an ‘eco-fascist’ admiring Communist China. He wanted to have this abject horror show to be the cause of excessive media coverage resulting in the deprivation of everyone’s commonsense human and civil rights.

Most of these mass murderers don’t expect to survive these attacks, but they want to ‘live on’ in infamy by any means possible. Having the media cover their horrific crimes through their perennial hobbyhorse of gun confiscation means plenty of airtime trying to make the case for these freedom-ending measures.

Leftists don’t seem to understand that their much vaunted restrictions on liberty actually make it easier for these miscreants to carry out their horrific crimes. Most of these take place in ‘gun free’ zones because the victims cannot defend themselves, making everyone an easy target and upping the body count. Despite the denial of reality of the liberty grabbers, there have also been many cases of someone on the scene halting an attack, usually with a gun. Not to mention that these crimes are always stopped when armed authority arrives.

Should we encourage further attacks by giving the terrorists exactly what they want?

Studies have shown that the extensive coverage of these horrific crimes inspires further attacks. Thus, many have chosen to not publicize the crimes of these miscreants, granting them the infamy they crave. Shouldn’t we also apply the same rule to the policy agendas openly advocated by these reprobates?

Does it make any sense to punish the innocent for the horrific acts of a criminal? Punishments that encourage and even facilitate future attacks? Criminals and terrorists will always find ways to kill or get the weaponry to do so, as attacks in places of severe restrictions on Liberty prove this to be the case. In point of fact, these restrictions only serve to help these miscreants commit their crimes, does it make any sense to continue the practice?

The Takeaway

Mass murdering terrorists crave publicity for their horrific acts of cowardice. They also seek to change society by these acts. Knuckling under and playing along with what they want only serves to encourage further attacks. The innocent having the means to defend themselves is the practical and philosophical response to terror, no matter if it runs counter to the desires of the liberty grabber left.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report