BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and Maryland resident Donald S. Willey have submitted an appellants’ brief to the Maryland Supreme Court in their federal challenge of that state’s so-called “red flag” law. The case is known as Willey v. Brown and it was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in August 2023.
Mr. Willey, a 64-year-old Marine Corps veteran, has been battling officials in Maryland’s Dorchester County over alleged di minimis nuisance and zoning infractions. Ultimately, Willey became the subject of an Extreme Risk Protective Order (“ERPO”) to have his firearms and ammunition confiscated, for allegedly making threats, which Willey steadfastly denied. Willey was forced to endure a humiliating involuntary mental health evaluation. The federal lawsuit alleges Willey’s constitutional rights were violated for nearly two weeks, after which his firearms were returned.
SAF and Mr. Willey are represented by attorneys Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore, and by Edward A. Paltzik, Serge Krimnus and Meredith Lloyd at Bochner PLLC in New York.
While the federal case remains active, it hinges on the interpretation of Maryland state law, so the federal district court certified two questions of law for the Maryland Supreme Court to answer. Once the Maryland courts interpret/define “reasonable grounds” as used in the state’s ERPO law, the federal lawsuit will resume. Those questions are:
- What legal standard does the term “reasonable grounds” connote in the Maryland RFL, codified in Title Five of the Public Safety Article of Maryland Annotated Code?
- Does the statute permit an ERPO to issue upon a standard less than probable cause?
“This case is about how so-called ‘red-flag laws’ can be weaponized against private citizens, and in order to flesh this out for our federal case, we’re asking the Maryland high court to define the meaning of ‘reasonable grounds’ in the state ERPO statute,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb explained.
“Answers to our questions will help make our case against Maryland’s law,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “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. The concept is absurd.”
The post SAF SUBMITS APPELLANTS’ BRIEF TO MD SUPREME COURT IN ‘RED FLAG’ CHALLENGE appeared first on Second Amendment Foundation.
