national gun control confiscation
(AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

The Second Amendment Foundation and one of its members, Donald S. Willey, a 64-year-old Marine Corps veteran, have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the so-called “red flag” law enacted by the State of Maryland five years ago.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division. Defendants are Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, Dorchester County, Dorchester County Planning and Zoning Director Susan E. Webb, and Dorchester County Sheriff James W. Phillips. All three are sued in their official capacities, and Webb is also being sued personally.

SAF and Willey are represented by attorneys Edward Andrew Paltzik and Serge Krimnus of the Bochner PLLC law firm in New York City.

According to the federal complaint, for almost two decades Dorchester County authorities have “relentlessly pursued Willey for de minimis nuisance and zoning infractions.” More than two years ago, Webb allegedly stepped up the effort by accusing Willey of operating an illegal business on his property, leaving his yard in poor condition and for an “unpermitted disturbance to a 100-foot tidewater buffer.” These complaints were ultimately withdrawn, resulting in a consent order regarding the alleged condition of Willey’s yard. 

Earlier this year, one of Webb’s inspectors entered Willey’s property to conduct a compliance inspection, culminating with Webb issuing new notices for Willey to make other improvements. Several days later, Webb and one of her inspectors visited Willey’s property without advance notice, as required by the consent order. At that time, Webb allegedly berated Willey before “violently” affixing Notices of Violation to a fiberglass cover on his boat, damaging the boat cover.

Webb subsequently filed for an Extreme Risk Protective Order (“ERPO”) to have Willey’s firearms and ammunition confiscated, alleging threats, which Willey steadfastly denies. The complaint accuses Webb of committing perjury resulting in seizure of Willey’s firearms and ammunition and forcing Willey to endure a humiliating involuntary mental health evaluation. The lawsuit alleges Willey’s constitutional rights were violated for nearly two weeks, after which his firearms were returned.

“This is the sort of nonsense we have repeatedly warned about,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “These so-called ‘red flag laws’ can be abused and weaponized against private citizens who have done nothing wrong. It is an outrage.”

Likewise, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said, “Red flag laws are based on the inherently Orwellian belief that you can take actions against someone for an alleged crime that hasn’t occurred. Such laws authorize seizure and punishment for a crime nobody committed but which could occur at some place and time in the future. This may work in a science fiction movie, but should not be allowed in real life.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

23 COMMENTS

  1. You deserve the Tyranny and Tyrants…You Allow. 3-2-1 Let the whining, pissing, and moaning begin.

    • Meh not on that box yet. Besides looking like this will not be readily allowed much longer.

  2. On this day in 1775 Britain’s King George III proclaimed the American colonies to be in a state of open and avowed rebellion. For many of the same reasons avowed on this website and others. What is the difference between the people of 1775 America and those of today. Desire, willingness, courage, realizing they could not be Free under the current Regime and the laws enacted by it. To keep them from achieving the life they desired. Free of the shackles of Tyranny. What is the difference? That is a question that can only be answered after, one has been honest with oneself.

    • I think you can boil it down to ‘character.’ Colonial era vs current society is not comparable. We are shiftless, gutless, vapid and lazy. Not universal, but generally.

    • I just think we’re not to the point of no return yet. Also most have decent jobs and the need to support the wife and kids outweighs open rebellion. For now.

      Talking about this with my wife the other day, i said if i was single i could see myself going a bit more “extreme”.

      • Darkman,
        I have seen civil war up close in foreign lands. I pray we don’t have civil war. Civil war is the very worst of war. There are no non combatants, there is no quarter given, everyone is fair game, infrastructure is annihilated, starvation and loss is the normal, generations are destroyed, what took years to build is forever gone. The means justify the ends is the only guiding principal. A civil war at this stage in the United States would take 100+ years to recover from…if ever. By that time everyone you know and everything you saw will be gone. No! I pray we never see this again on Our Land.

    • Calories and the level of accountability of the state enforcers. When we have fewer calories to go around and there is even less accountability on the part of the state, then there will be less to lose. Then the overton window will shift and the world will be far less friendly. We don’t want this, it’ll be a hot mess. We need to pursue other means.

    • As someone who occasionally finds himself compelled by forces external to enter that forsaken shithole state I welcome this outcome.

  7. Likewise, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said, RE: “Red flag laws are based on the inherently Orwellian belief that you can take actions against someone for an alleged crime that hasn’t occurred. Such laws authorize seizure and punishment for a crime nobody committed but which could occur at some place and time in the future. This may work in a science fiction movie, but should not be allowed in real life.”

    Nothing Orwellian about it…It’s the History of Gun Control repeating itself…
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=neLdsW7XZSM&feature=shared

    • Up next – “Of course confiscating this person’s property was justified. It got mad when we showed up at 3am, w/o warning or cause…”

      If you like your rights, you can keep your rights! Unless you get mad when we take them away! Then that’s different! Nuff said!!! And we are going to need a new warehouse to keep all this stuff…

  9. The Far Right Fanatics will cherry pick an incident and they try and foster the belief that every person who has his guns confiscated is as innocent as the new fallen snow. In reality the majority of the time law enforcement has good reason to take guns from mentally deraigned and abusive husbands. Its nothing new as I can remember this being done without red flag laws way back in the 1950’s.

    Even in this instance the man got his guns back which of course the far right totally ignore with the wave of a hand.

  10. accuses Webb of committing perjury resulting in seizure of Willey’s firearms and ammunition and forcing Willey to endure a humiliating involuntary mental health evaluation.”

    4473 issues, coming right up?

    “The lawsuit alleges Willey’s constitutional rights were violated for nearly two weeks, after which his firearms were returned.”

    In perfect working order, with ammo, of course. No anomalous erosion of the rifling around the muzzle, scope adjustment dials with ding marks, extractors polished to the point they don’t grip, etc, etc, etc…

    They wouldn’t do that.

  12. They don’t come to the homes of intentional offender drunk drivers and seize their property without warrant and haul them off against their will (without warrant) for involuntary commitment for mental health evaluation, they don’t come to the homes of intentional offender distracted-driving people and seize their property without warrant and haul them off against their will (without warrant) for involuntary commitment for mental health evaluation – basically, they don’t issue ‘red flag’ ERO’s against them yet each of these categories of intentional offense people display an obvious callous and dangerous mental health illness (sociopaths) threat to them selves and others and both of these categories of people (collectively) purposely do it and (collectively) injure or kill (including pedestrians) ~150 times more people annually than anyone with a gun in any ‘adverse’ use (including all categories of crime including mass shootings, including firearms accidents or negligent discharges, including police shootings or ordinary law abiding citizen uses for defense).

    And if you call the police to report these intentional offender distracted-driving or drunk driver people ya get “gotta catch them in the act, thanks for calling, buh bye” – and when they do get caught in the act they are afforded due process and get court time and a lawyer and can plead their case and have a chance to defend themselves.

    But any person can call the police or petition a court and make a ‘red flag’ ‘reporting’ on someone who owns a gun and simply claim something unsubstantiated even false – and the police go all knee jerk reaction, judges issue ERO’s, and the police go to the target-persons home and seize their property without warrant and haul them off (take them into custody without warrant) against their will for involuntary commitment for mental health evaluation and deny them due process.

    • correction: “(including all categories of crime including mass shootings, including firearms accidents or negligent discharges, including police shootings or ordinary law abiding citizen uses for defense)”

      should have been…

      (including all categories of crime including mass shootings, including firearms accidents or negligent discharges, including firearm suicides or suicide attempts, including police shootings or ordinary law abiding citizen uses for defense)

  13. If you are going to have a Red Flag Law, then it needs to require the applicant to be strictly liable for the defendant’s attorneys fees, and actual damages, plus statutory damages of $10,000 for each day the defendant was deprived of his property if the application is not finally adjudicated wholly in the applicant’s favor (i.e., a finding that the defendant was indeed a serious and immediate threat to himself or others), and require the applicant to post a bond sufficient to cover such amounts.

    Otherwise, applicants have nothing to lose by abusing the system like this . . . which is why existing Red Flag Laws are inherently a bad idea. (Fortunately, I cannot imaging how RFL’s will survive a Bruen challenge.)

    • Sounds like the “loser pays” concept of court justice that we should be adopting.

      Fat chance.

Comments are closed.