Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 8/10/2005 11:21:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 11:26:24 AM EDT by fight4yourrights]
www.gazette.net/200532/montgomery/news/288747-1.html

Aug. 10, 2005



Lawsuit questions taking of property three years ago

Anthony Mora wants his stuff back--including the 41 guns taken by Gaithersburg police.

He's already asked the police who seized the guns that apparently were a threat to his safety.

The official police reply: Sign here, please.

But Mora won't sign--at least not the "Application for the Return of Firearms" that Gaithersburg police want him to fill out; Mora feels the questions it asks are an invasion of privacy aimed at embarrassing gun owners.

Compromises haven't worked. Neither side will budge.

So Mora filed a lawsuit in an attempt to end the stalemate by forcing police to return his guns.

"It's a classic case of government overreach," said Howard J. Fezell, Mora's attorney and a former National Rifle Association board member.

The suit, filed in federal court in Greenbelt July 22, seeks compensatory and punitive damages--with no dollar amounts specified--against the police who took and still have the guns, as well as an injunction ordering Gaithersburg to return Mora's property.

The suit also seeks a declaratory judgment that Gaithersburg has no authority to demand that Mora sign their "Application for the Return of Firearms," which Fezell claims violates Mora's constitutional rights as well as state laws pre-empting local jurisdictions from regulating the transfer of firearms.

A declaratory judgment concerns an interpretation of a law--in Mora's case, Fezell would ask the court to agree that state law precluded Gaithersburg from taking Mora's guns and doesn't permit the city from keeping them any longer.

A city attorney said Tuesday that Gaithersburg could not comment on the suit, as it hadn't yet been served a copy.

Fezell said Tuesday that the city would be served "very shortly."

The impetus for the suit occurred July 23, 2002, when police from Gaithersburg, the county and the county sheriff's department surrounded Mora near his Gaithersburg apartment, at 439 West Side Drive, after an acquaintance apparently told police Mora might be suicidal, Fezell said.

Mora, then a county firefighter, was readying for a weekend vacation when confronted by three officers "who had drawn their service weapons and yelled at the defendant to get on the ground," according to the complaint.

Police handcuffed Mora, who is still a firefighter and has since moved to Fairfield, Pa., and searched his apartment, where they found the 41 guns along with ammunition, gun-related books, a spotting scope and binoculars, among other items.

Mora has never been arrested or charged with any crimes.

Even more indefensible, Fezell said, is that police did all this without a search warrant or Mora's consent to search his property.

"They searched the gun safe, they searched the closets--everything," Fezell said. "They never had authority to search anything. They never had authority to seize anything."

The defendants, including Gaithersburg Police Chief Mary Ann Viverette, also have no right to ask Mora to fill out the firearms return form, Fezell said, explaining that it asks probing, personal questions that violate state law and discriminate against gun owners.

"They have this form that is totally off the wall in terms of what they're asking," Fezell said.

A copy of the police form provided by Fezell asks whether the person requesting the return of firearms is an alcoholic or drug addict and has ever attended 12-step meetings to deal with such problems.

Fezell said they haven't been able to "pin down exact" details of what happened the day police confiscated Mora's stuff. He said 911 tapes are kept by county police for 120 days and then discarded, and that Gaithersburg never got a copy of the tape.

But such details aren't as important to Fezell as the fact that state and federal laws appear to permit Mora to have guns, while Gaithersburg does not.

And that if the issue were about some other protected freedom, Gaithersburg wouldn't be asserting such authority. "If you're a gun owner," Fezell said, "it's a different story."

Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:24:55 AM EDT
Hope he gets his stuff back.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:25:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
www.gazette.net/200532/montgomery/news/288747-1.html

Aug. 10, 2005



Lawsuit questions taking of property three years ago

Anthony Mora wants his stuff back--including the 41 guns taken by Gaithersburg police.

He's already asked the police who seized the guns that apparently were a threat to his safety.

The official police reply: Sign here, please.

But Mora won't sign--at least not the "Application for the Return of Firearms" that Gaithersburg police want him to fill out; Mora feels the questions it asks are an invasion of privacy aimed at embarrassing gun owners.

Compromises haven't worked. Neither side will budge.

So Mora filed a lawsuit in an attempt to end the stalemate by forcing police to return his guns.

"It's a classic case of government overreach," said Howard J. Fezell, Mora's attorney and a former National Rifle Association board member.

The suit, filed in federal court in Greenbelt July 22, seeks compensatory and punitive damages--with no dollar amounts specified--against the police who took and still have the guns, as well as an injunction ordering Gaithersburg to return Mora's property.

The suit also seeks a declaratory judgment that Gaithersburg has no authority to demand that Mora sign their "Application for the Return of Firearms," which Fezell claims violates Mora's constitutional rights as well as state laws pre-empting local jurisdictions from regulating the transfer of firearms.

A declaratory judgment concerns an interpretation of a law--in Mora's case, Fezell would ask the court to agree that state law precluded Gaithersburg from taking Mora's guns and doesn't permit the city from keeping them any longer.

A city attorney said Tuesday that Gaithersburg could not comment on the suit, as it hadn't yet been served a copy.

Fezell said Tuesday that the city would be served "very shortly."

The impetus for the suit occurred July 23, 2002, when police from Gaithersburg, the county and the county sheriff's department surrounded Mora near his Gaithersburg apartment, at 439 West Side Drive, after an acquaintance apparently told police Mora might be suicidal, Fezell said.

Mora, then a county firefighter, was readying for a weekend vacation when confronted by three officers "who had drawn their service weapons and yelled at the defendant to get on the ground," according to the complaint.

Police handcuffed Mora, who is still a firefighter and has since moved to Fairfield, Pa., and searched his apartment, where they found the 41 guns along with ammunition, gun-related books, a spotting scope and binoculars, among other items.

Mora has never been arrested or charged with any crimes.

Even more indefensible, Fezell said, is that police did all this without a search warrant or Mora's consent to search his property.

"They searched the gun safe, they searched the closets--everything," Fezell said. "They never had authority to search anything. They never had authority to seize anything."
The defendants, including Gaithersburg Police Chief Mary Ann Viverette, also have no right to ask Mora to fill out the firearms return form, Fezell said, explaining that it asks probing, personal questions that violate state law and discriminate against gun owners.

"They have this form that is totally off the wall in terms of what they're asking," Fezell said.

A copy of the police form provided by Fezell asks whether the person requesting the return of firearms is an alcoholic or drug addict and has ever attended 12-step meetings to deal with such problems.

Fezell said they haven't been able to "pin down exact" details of what happened the day police confiscated Mora's stuff. He said 911 tapes are kept by county police for 120 days and then discarded, and that Gaithersburg never got a copy of the tape.

But such details aren't as important to Fezell as the fact that state and federal laws appear to permit Mora to have guns, while Gaithersburg does not.

And that if the issue were about some other protected freedom, Gaithersburg wouldn't be asserting such authority. "If you're a gun owner," Fezell said, "it's a different story."




This guy is living in the 50's

....wake up and smell the injustice
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:25:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Hope he gets his stuff back.



Me too

You know he won't
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:28:02 AM EDT
File a theft report and call the ATF.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:28:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 11:32:12 AM EDT by A-nus]
Calm down, Cops are our friends, if you didn't do any thing wrong, you have nothing to worry about, RIIIIIGHT!!!!

And the cop crowd wonders why we don't trust our beloved public servants.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:32:46 AM EDT
From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?

Why do I smell a whackjob?
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:34:03 AM EDT
I'm willing to bet that if Mr. Mora gets HIS FIREARMS back they will be either well used or inoperable. Sounds like the guy got screwed. How about the NRA getting in on this court action?
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:34:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 11:36:45 AM EDT by A-nus]

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?

Why do I smell a whackjob?



He did NOTHING WRONG!!


They stole his guns for no real reason then make him fill out a form (most likely obsolving them selfs of any wong doing) to get them back, thats bullshit.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:35:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?j]




He is being forced to sign a LEGAL document answering all kinds of personal, private questions.


Sounds like putting your neck in the noose to me
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:36:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
File a theft report and call the ATF.


+1!
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:37:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 11:38:39 AM EDT by EPOCH96]

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?

Why do I smell a whackjob?



+1

what kind of question would violate his rights? Yeah, they don't have the right to keep them, but you can't get anything in today's society without signing a form.

Would like to see that form...

EPOCH
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:38:48 AM EDT
They won't return the ammunition........



and that is THEFT.


(I know this for a FACT - had a buddy that was a Baltimore PD and had gun seized, they stole the ammo)
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:40:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?

Why do I smell a whackjob?



Why would you think whackjob? They cuffed and stuffed him, and then took all his stuff. No crime committed, and no wrongdoing found. Now they don't want to give him his stuff back without playing twenty-fucking questions? Utter bullshit.

If you were pulled over and the cops took you gun and your car for no real reason, would you feel like being cooperative and sheepishly asking permission to have your stuff back? I sure as hell wouldn't!
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:40:35 AM EDT
If they searched my house, and seized my shit without good effing probably cause or a warrant, and refused to give me my shit back after it was concluded I did nothing wrong, I'd let ya'll know how I liked my new city hall in a few weeks.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:42:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?

Why do I smell a whackjob?



You must be smelling yourself...law enforcements biggest apologist chimes in again.

What part of he did nothing wrong don't you understand? He wasn't convicted or even charged with anything...why should he have to jump through their hoops to get HIS property back?
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:43:20 AM EDT
He can legitimately be required to show ID and sign a receipt. Anything else is crap. The responsible parties should be jailed on 41 counts of Grand Theft.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:44:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 11:45:49 AM EDT by Johninaustin]

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?j]




He is being forced to sign a LEGAL document answering all kinds of personal, private questions.


Sounds like putting your neck in the noose to me



WHAT questions? You'll note that part was left out. As for the charged with a crime stuff, he apparently went for an involuntary EDP commitment. Police do that with suicidal subjects. We also retain for safekeeping the instruments used by suicidal subjects.

You have to look beyond your blinders and the lawyer's press release.

As already stated, you want the guns, You'll have to sign for them. The paperwork drones must be appeased.

The lawsuit will go nowhere except to make money for the lawyer. (and give Arfcom tinfoil wearers another excuse for a cop bashing thread)
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:44:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?

Why do I smell a whackjob?




You have soooo missed the point. They tuck the firearms with out warrant, and now he has to ask for permission to get them back.

If he fills out this form and for some reason the powers that be do not like how he filled out this form then they can just keep the guns locked up and he will never get them back

“for his own good”
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:45:12 AM EDT
That's too many guns anyway!
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:45:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?

Why do I smell a whackjob?



What happens if the police don't like some of his answers? Do they then get to refuse to return them based on the questionnaire?
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:46:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?j]




He is being forced to sign a LEGAL document answering all kinds of personal, private questions.


Sounds like putting your neck in the noose to me



WHAT questions? You'll note that part was left out. As for the charged with a crime stuff, he apparently went for an involuntary EDP commitment. Police do that with suicidal subjects. We also retain for safekeeping the instruments used by suicidal subjects.

You have to look beyond your blinders and the lawyer's press release.

As already stated, you want the guns, You'll have to sign for them. The paperwork drones must be appeased.

The lawsuit will go nowhere except to make money for the lawyer.



Fine, he wants his guns, let him sign a simple form, I the undersigned received back my property. Period.

There is NO REASON whatsoever for any questions.....
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:46:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
www.gazette.net/200532/montgomery/news/288747-1.html

Aug. 10, 2005

The defendants, including Gaithersburg Police Chief Mary Ann Viverette, also have no right to ask Mora to fill out the firearms return form, Fezell said, explaining that it asks probing, personal questions that violate state law and discriminate against gun owners.




but, but, she's on the Board of the IACP

Surely she would never violate a citizen's rights???
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:49:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

WHAT questions? You'll note that part was left out. As for the charged with a crime stuff, he apparently went for an involuntary EDP commitment. Police do that with suicidal subjects. We also retain for safekeeping the instruments used by suicidal subjects.




So if someone reported you as "possibly suicidal" then you might earn an involuntary EDP commitment and have your things taken for "safekeeping"? Interesting...

Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:50:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:55:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gopeterson:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?

Why do I smell a whackjob?



What happens if the police don't like some of his answers? Do they then get to refuse to return them based on the questionnaire?



Damn good question!

Hey Fight...have any related articles mentioned whether or not his dog is Ok?
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:56:53 AM EDT
I'll answer some of the questions really quickly, since I have to go to work.

This is obviously an involuntary mental commitment following a suicide threat. You do not need a warrant to seize the guns. A judge's order is the usual method. They could also be given up voluntarily by a family member or the guy himself.

He didn't commit a crime, therefore he's not charged with one.

As for the paperwork, He's not saying what he does not like, and the lawyer left that part out too. Kind of worthless to speculate about it. (why wait three years BTW? Was he in an institution?)

Just for clarification, if you came into my dept on this sort of case, the paperwork would need your signature, Your verification of nomenclature and serial numbers we're giving back to you, and a statement you are the rightful owner. You would also have to show ID.

This would happen on ANY property. Not just guns. Heck, if he threatened to kill himself with a cuisinart the process would be the same.

Where in any of that is a rights violation?

Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:59:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

WHAT questions? You'll note that part was left out. As for the charged with a crime stuff, he apparently went for an involuntary EDP commitment. Police do that with suicidal subjects. We also retain for safekeeping the instruments used by suicidal subjects.




So if someone reported you as "possibly suicidal" then you might earn an involuntary EDP commitment and have your things taken for "safekeeping"? Interesting...




Yes, in my state if the perrson is found to be a danger to themselves or others W&I 5150 then their guns will be collected for safekeeping and the suicidal person nees a court order to get them back. thats the law in Cali.

the lesson here is do not make suicidal statements to your friends or the cops.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:01:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

WHAT questions? You'll note that part was left out. As for the charged with a crime stuff, he apparently went for an involuntary EDP commitment. Police do that with suicidal subjects. We also retain for safekeeping the instruments used by suicidal subjects.




So if someone reported you as "possibly suicidal" then you might earn an involuntary EDP commitment and have your things taken for "safekeeping"? Interesting...




Nope, a little more involved than that. He has to be evaluated to be involuntarily commited. There is also a hearing before the judge. (the same one that would order the guns seized) there would also be continuing evaluations/court hearings during his stay in whatever facility he went to. Usually in 30 day increments.

A complaint would certainly start the process though.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:04:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
He can legitimately be required to show ID and sign a receipt. Anything else is crap. The responsible parties should be jailed on 41 counts of Grand Theft.



+1
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:05:05 PM EDT
I have never seen the police draw down on an unarmed suicidal person.

I wonder if there is more to the story. If not they need to return his stuff.


Probably a case of CYA. The police don't want the liability if he does kill himself or others.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:06:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:

I have never seen the police draw down on an unarmed suicidal person.
.





Move to Maryland.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:08:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 12:14:05 PM EDT by fight4yourrights]
.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:08:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
I have never seen the police draw down on an unarmed suicidal person.

I wonder if there is more to the story. If not they need to return his stuff.


Probably a case of CYA. The police don't want the liability if he does kill himself or others.

Everyone is armed, you just don't pull the trigger till you see that weapon being displayed in a threatening manner and believe by taking that life your saving a life.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:12:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?j]




He is being forced to sign a LEGAL document answering all kinds of personal, private questions.


Sounds like putting your neck in the noose to me



WHAT questions? You'll note that part was left out. As for the charged with a crime stuff, he apparently went for an involuntary EDP commitment. Police do that with suicidal subjects. We also retain for safekeeping the instruments used by suicidal subjects.

You have to look beyond your blinders and the lawyer's press release.

As already stated, you want the guns, You'll have to sign for them. The paperwork drones must be appeased.

The lawsuit will go nowhere except to make money for the lawyer. (and give Arfcom tinfoil wearers another excuse for a cop bashing thread)



Yeah, INVOLUNTARY based on an anonymous acquaintance's bullshit.

Cop bashing????????? According to you, no cop ever does anything wrong and you have no problem with this either!

There is a difference between cop bashing and knowing right from wrong, something you seem to have a problem with.

Does the part about no search warrant concern you at all?
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:12:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 12:13:20 PM EDT by Inspector1]
thats bs but i would sign the form to be done with it besides they wont and i repeat WONT enter my house without a warrant
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:14:14 PM EDT
CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST SUES POLICE FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY

(July 25, 2005) In Maryland's 2005 legislative session Senator Alex Mooney introduced his marvelous bill SB 818, which would have placed a “shall return” obligation on police, that is, property taken during an investigation must be promptly returned to the owner once police are done with it. Leadership in the General Assembly chose not to bother even voting on the bill which languished and died. It didn't take long for another case to emerge and remind us why we needed 818 in the first place.

On the afternoon of July 23, 2002, Tony Mora stood in the parking lot of his Gaithersburg appartment complex, his car packed and ready to embark on a short vacation for some rest. Gaithersburg and Montgomery County police had other plans. What started as a colleague's telephoned expression of concern for Mora's health mushroomed when police learned the county firefighter was also a long-time gun owner. They intercepted him in the lot, forced him to the ground at gun point and handcuffed him. Still, this isn't a story about enforced health care. Before taking Mora to the hospital (where he was treated and released some hours later), police wanted his guns.

Understand that there has never been a warrant, order or crime alleged in connection with Mr. Mora. After police intercepted him in his parking lot and asked for his guns, they took keys from his pocket, went to his home, unlocked the house and began the process of taking his property. When they found a gun safe, they returned to him and demanded the combination, under threat of having the safe destroyed in opening it the hard way if he didn't comply. Before they left, police had grabbed 61 firearms, plus spotting scopes, binoculars, ammunition and books about firearms.

To this day, Mora has yet to learn from Gaithersburg police any reason why they needed his guns or think he should be disqualified from possessing firearms. He has yet to get his property back (even property like books or optics.)

Facts about Mora's three year ordeal trying to get his property back are emerging now that he has filed suit in federal court seeking relief and damages for the gross violation of his Constitutional rights. To date Gaithersburg City has cited no basis for keeping his goods, much less for having taken them in the first place, and apparently maintains that Mora must apply for permission to get his property back. Even though Mora has provided affidavits with all the information normally supplied on federal form 4437 and state form 77R, police maintain he hasn't yet opened himself up to enough government scrutiny.

The best we can tell from this perspective is that city and county police are simply tasked with a mission to grab guns. Whenever they encounter a citizen, even in the most innocuous circumstance, they run his name against gun records, and use every excuse possible to gain leverage over any who turn up as a gun-owning, right-thinking individual.

Okay, so … what turns up when we research Tony Mora?

Anthony Mora was not only described by a detective as a “licensed gun collector”, he is on record as a conservative activist in Montgomery County politics. As a Republican, he ran unsuccessfully for the House of Delegates in 1994, making news at the time with the raffle of a handgun to raise funds for his campaign. In 1998 he fought the good fight for a Senate seat in his up-county district, again unsuccessfully but at least serving as standard bearer for things in which we believe. The Washington Post's candidate guide said, “Mora opposes as intrusive government controls on everything from handguns to seat belts.”

Gaithersburg officials obviously feel they have infinite tax money at their command, available to fuel jihads against citizens who exhibit ‘dangerous right wing tendencies.' You know, like owning guns or articulating conservative beliefs. Mora's federal lawsuit will test how deep are the city's pockets. Meanwhile, we'll cheer Senator Mooney's shall return bill for another try next session. Opponents will mount just as much resistence then as before. After all, the person most responsible for denying 818 a vote was the committee chairman Brian Frosh – whose district is in the same county holding Mora's property.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:15:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
I'll answer some of the questions really quickly, since I have to go to work.

This is obviously an involuntary mental commitment following a suicide threat. You do not need a warrant to seize the guns. A judge's order is the usual method. They could also be given up voluntarily by a family member or the guy himself.

He didn't commit a crime, therefore he's not charged with one.

As for the paperwork, He's not saying what he does not like, and the lawyer left that part out too. Kind of worthless to speculate about it. (why wait three years BTW? Was he in an institution?)

Just for clarification, if you came into my dept on this sort of case, the paperwork would need your signature, Your verification of nomenclature and serial numbers we're giving back to you, and a statement you are the rightful owner. You would also have to show ID.

This would happen on ANY property. Not just guns. Heck, if he threatened to kill himself with a cuisinart the process would be the same.

Where in any of that is a rights violation?






It doesn't say anything about a "suicide threat", it just mentions someone thought he might be suicidal. Do you bother to read the contents of articles before you post?

How do YOU know what is in the paperwork? You don't, you just condone it all, don't you.

Why wait three years? Again, you didn't read. That is how long he has been trying to get them back. He just finally decided enough was enough.

Sheesh.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:16:23 PM EDT

After police intercepted him in his parking lot and asked for his guns, they took keys from his pocket, went to his home, unlocked the house and began the process of taking his property.


I'm far from a cop basher, but that sounds like breaking and entering as well as burglary.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:16:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 12:20:54 PM EDT by bulldog1967]
Peoples Republik of MD, nuff said.

Glad I left.

ETA: They probably already sold his guns at auction.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:17:13 PM EDT
I keep telling myself that I should trust police....
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:17:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
From what I get from this, He gets the guns back when he signs for them, but he's refusing because he does not like the form?

Why do I smell a whackjob?



This doesn't sound like a simple receipt. Particularly not if it is in fact entitled "Application for the Return of Firearms" and if it contains questions such as "Have you ever participated in a 12 step program?"


Requiring the signing of a receipt is one thing but anything beyond that....
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:17:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

WHAT questions? You'll note that part was left out. As for the charged with a crime stuff, he apparently went for an involuntary EDP commitment. Police do that with suicidal subjects. We also retain for safekeeping the instruments used by suicidal subjects.




So if someone reported you as "possibly suicidal" then you might earn an involuntary EDP commitment and have your things taken for "safekeeping"? Interesting...




Yes, in my state if the perrson is found to be a danger to themselves or others W&I 5150 then their guns will be collected for safekeeping and the suicidal person nees a court order to get them back. thats the law in Cali.

the lesson here is do not make suicidal statements to your friends or the cops.



Well, he obviously was not found to be a danger.

He did NOT make suicidal statements, not according to the article.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:20:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

WHAT questions? You'll note that part was left out. As for the charged with a crime stuff, he apparently went for an involuntary EDP commitment. Police do that with suicidal subjects. We also retain for safekeeping the instruments used by suicidal subjects.




So if someone reported you as "possibly suicidal" then you might earn an involuntary EDP commitment and have your things taken for "safekeeping"? Interesting...




Nope, a little more involved than that. He has to be evaluated to be involuntarily commited. There is also a hearing before the judge. (the same one that would order the guns seized) there would also be continuing evaluations/court hearings during his stay in whatever facility he went to. Usually in 30 day increments.

A complaint would certainly start the process though.



I see nothing that says he was ever committed, nor do I see anything about a hearing before a judge. There is also nothing about a judge ordering the gun seized.

If you go back and read, they had NO WARRANT!
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:24:06 PM EDT
I'm curious about what supposed suicidal statement was ever made? As far as I can tell, a friend or coworker was concerned about him and it got blown way out of proportion.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:27:17 PM EDT
I wonder what would happen if he just filled out the form and put a line though any questions he didn't want to answer.

Probably wouldn't get his stuff, but it would probably bode better for him in court as he showed intent to go about things properly.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:28:00 PM EDT
Great. All it takes to have your guns taken from you is a "concerned" person calling the cops and reporting that you are _______. (insert affliction here)

Hell, I'm suicidal every time I see my mother-in-law coming up the driveway.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:30:32 PM EDT

Anthony Mora was not only described by a detective as a “licensed gun collector”, he is on record as a conservative activist in Montgomery County politics. As a Republican, he ran unsuccessfully for the House of Delegates in 1994, making news at the time with the raffle of a handgun to raise funds for his campaign. In 1998 he fought the good fight for a Senate seat in his up-county district, again unsuccessfully but at least serving as standard bearer for things in which we believe. The Washington Post's candidate guide said, “Mora opposes as intrusive government controls on everything from handguns to seat belts.”


There you go

Wrong thinking for Maryland.

Better send over Johninaustin to set his mind right.


GM
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:35:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Just for clarification, if you came into my dept on this sort of case, the paperwork would need your signature, Your verification of nomenclature and serial numbers we're giving back to you, and a statement you are the rightful owner. You would also have to show ID.




i thought texas didn't register guns...

more importantly, according to the article [which may be missing something] he was never even charged with anything, never mind convicted. it doesn't matter if he waited 3 years to get his guns back because the cops should have been forced to bring them back with an apology, the day after they realized there was no reason for any of that.


Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:36:23 PM EDT
I had the same lawyer in Montgomery County in 1993, he was AWESOME! He's a real bulldog when it comes to firearms rights, and he's in the 1% of lawyers giving the others a good name. Montgomery County as a whole is rabidly anti-gun.

Some folks don't have any understanding of how bad it is in "occupied" states.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:37:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:
I'm curious about what supposed suicidal statement was ever made? As far as I can tell, a friend or coworker was concerned about him and it got blown way out of proportion.



That's ok. See it's fine for them to speculate about information not present or make up reasons not included in the bullshit story why this happened. Anyone who does that the other direction is idiot, or moron or has mental issues.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top