I hope there was a very good reason for the Ferndale, MD police to confiscate a gun from a man on a 'red flag' order. When they confronted him, he put the gun down, but when they tried to take it, he tried to shoot and they ended up killing him. The reason for the 'red flag' order wasn't given.

This may be something that people on this board are interested in. Debate: 'red flag' law, method of carrying out confiscation, did the man have to die?

It seems that if police tell you to put down your gun, you need to do it, or else. Is it different if their only intent is to TAKE your gun? Still foolish to resist. I suppose the 'American way' is to take it up with the courts. But how long do you have to be without a gun? What were the reasons for the order in the first place? Were they justified? It seems that the 'procedure' for confiscation puts the citizen in a great position to get killed.

I guess in the history of law enforcement, the police have been charged with disarming citizens for no other reason than to disarm them. So surely they have the legal authority to do so. What it somebody that just 'didn't like guns' called the police on this guy. This sounds like the same bill that was proposed in Utah to take guns from citizens that other reported as risky.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"