From Maryland State Police:
A Harford County man was arrested this afternoon after he allegedly fired shots at another motorist on I-95 during an apparent altercation.
The suspect is identified as Nicholas Heider, 34, of the 1600-block of Dugan Drive, Joppa, Md. He is being charged tonight with first degree assault and reckless endangerment. Troopers will be consulting with the Harford County State’s Attorney’s Office and additional charges are possible. Heider will be taken to the Harford County Detention Center for an initial appearance before a court commissioner later tonight.
Just before 4:00 p.m. today, Maryland State Police received a 911 call from a motorist on I-95 who reported another driver had fired possibly three shots in the direction of his vehicle in the area of northbound I-95, as they were approaching the exit for Rt. 152. The victim driver said this resulted from a dispute over right of way between the drivers that had started near Exit 67 and the two had begun gesturing at each other and cutting each other off.
The victim driver, a male, provided troopers with the tag number of the suspect’s vehicle, as troopers from the JFK Highway and Bel Air barracks, as well as Harford County deputies converged on the area. Police went to the suspect’s address and found his GMC sport utility vehicle in the driveway. After a phone call to the suspect from the duty officer at the Bel Air Barrack, the suspect came out of his home and surrendered to troopers and deputies on the scene without incident at about 4:30 p.m. today.
No one was injured in the incident. Troopers found no indication the victim’s vehicle had been struck by the gunfire.
State Police investigators obtained a search warrant for the suspect’s residence. During the search, a semi-automatic handgun was recovered. The investigation is continuing.
So word of mouth with no evidence is enough these days for police to obtain a search warrant and sieze your property?
It has been before!!!!!
Many times before!!
That’s why you request a search warrant. So you can legally search. Why is this hard to understand?
You mean a witness is not enough to obtain a search warrant? I mean, the Maryland Legislature voted that a witness isn’t enough for the death penalty, and even that was stretching it. I don’t think I’ve ever heard before someone saying that a witness is not enough for a search warrant, good job.
This clearly shows why we need stricter gun control laws. Someone could have been killed because some “cowboy” had a gun on his person. Did he have a valid permit?
Sure — more gun control laws will keep guns out of criminal hands because they would not want to be breaking the law.
TAXPAYER: Because the seller would not want to break the law. No one is saying this cowboy was a criminal, just that he is unsuited to owning a lethal weapon. Do you feel every nut job should be able to own a weapon? How would you feel if he started to shoot at you or a police officer?
FYI – True “nut jobs” are NOT ALLOWED to purchase or own a gun.
And if a “nut job” did somehow obtain a gun (illegally) and started shooting at me, I would be wishing I HAD a CCW to protect myself FROM HIM. (A right that is not afforded to most citizens of this state.)
🙁
Safetech,
Please state your definition of a “True nut job,” and offer the cite in the Maryland Criminal Code that states they are prohibited from possessing firearms. Unless a court orders you committed to a mental health facility, being a nut or just plain stupid has no bearing on firearms ownership. The MD State and federal firearms laws state factors that prohibit certain people from lawfully possessing a firearm.
Driving: I think you have hit upon the meaning of “stricter gun laws.” It is too easy for people to buy and own weapons. The Va Tech shooter legally owned the weapons he used to kill so many kids. It should be MORE difficult for anyone to purchase a weapon. There should be extensive psychological tests to determine if prospective gun owners are the type to use a weapon in anger (which would have prevented the Va Tech shooter from owning weapons). Before you exclaim, “ …but that would be expensive and who would pay for this?” let me state that the purchaser would pay for it as part of the costs of owning a weapon.
Proud,
And once you have been cleared to own a gun because you are of sound mind and not angry, should you have to report on a weekly basis for assessment that you are still not angry?
RETIRED: Now your just being obtuse.
Proud,
No matter what laws are put into place regarding ownership of a gun, there will always be something that happens outside and beyond the scope of what the law covers. I understand that a person such as the VA Tech shooter may not have been permitted to purchase a gun under your suggestion, since we assume he was an angry person the day he purchased the guns. I am not stupid, but I do see the that you can’t create laws that are all encompassing. I also know that the VA Tech shooter would have been able to obtain guns through other means had he not been able to obtain them legally.
Proud, A valid permit for what?
RETIRED: To carry a weapon. Surely you have heard of a gun permit?
PTBL, I have indeed. A permit to carry a “concealed” gun on your person.
Proud,
Please explain to me how “stricter gun control laws” would have prevented something like this. (Assuming it even really happened.)
PERMIT TO CARRY A HANDGUN IN MARYLAND
Application for a permit to carry a handgun is made to the Secretary of State Police. The applicant should submit a notarized letter stating the reasons why he is applying for a permit, in addition to the printed application form. The permit may be issued if the Secretary finds that the applicant:
1. Is 18 years of age or older.
2. Has not been convicted of a felony or of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
3. Has not been committed within the previous 10 years to any juvenile detention center for longer than one year.
4. Is not an addict or alcoholic nor has ever been convicted of a narcotics offense.
5. Has not, based on the results of investigation, exhibited a propensity for violence or instability.
6. Has, based on the results of investigation, “good and substantial reason” to carry a handgun, including a finding that the permit is “necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.”
How to Get a Permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon in Maryland
A private citizen can be given the right to carry a concealed weapon, either on their person or in close proximity, by applying for a permit. Maryland limits this right to handguns. To find out more on how to obtain your permit, read the following steps.
Instructions
1. Have your photo taken. All applicants must submit two 1 1/2 by 1 1/2-inch passport-type photographs. These are taken on a white background with full face and shoulders in view but no hats or dark glasses. Photographs must have been taken within 30 days prior to submitting your application.
2. Get fingerprinted. You will be required to submit a set of fingerprint cards which include one orange and white CJIS-011 card and one blue and white FBI applicant card bearing the code “ORI-MDMSP6000.” These can be obtained at your local Maryland State Police barracks.
3. Ensure that you have three references from reputable citizens. These people should have known you for at least two years but are not related to you.
4. Provide evidence of recent threats and/or assaults. This information is mandatory for personal use permits and must be supported by police reports and/or notarized statements.
5. Submit your application and payment. Double-check to make sure you have filled this out correctly and included all of your supporting documentation. By doing this, you can help to significantly decrease the amount of time it takes to investigate your application.
6. Wait approximately 90 days. At the end of that time, you should receive either your rejection notice or your permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Tips & Warnings
• Be honest on your application. A background check is conducted before an individual can be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon; therefore any discrepancies can have a negative impact.
• If you have ever been treated for mental illness and/or arrested and charged for a criminal violation, you will most likely not be awarded a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Those laws are ALREADY in place.
You still haven’t stated how “STRICTER gun control laws would prevent the incident in question. (Evade the question = Typical liberal response)
SAFETECH: (Unable to comprehend statement = Typical GOP/Tea Party response) What you fail to comprehend in your weapon fervor is that keeping weapons out of the hands of nut jobs is what I stated. Obviously there are many people (who are NOT criminals) who have access to weapons who should not have access to them. A perfect example is the recent case where an angry 16 year old that should not have had access to a weapon killed his father. “In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.”
If all laws that are on the books are followed, we would be safer. There should be proper background checks and training to own a gun. One needs “The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers. “
Proud,
You didn’t list a new law that is needed. There are laws that say 16 year olds shouldn’t have access to guns. There are laws that say you are only allowed to drive with your gun if it is unloaded and stored and is on the way too and from a legal use of the weapon. There are laws that say you can’t shoot at somebody. There are laws that say aggressive driving is illegal. And we still need police because people break laws. Criminals break laws, so if you ban the guns, the only people that will have access to them, are the criminals breaking the law.
FACTCHECK: That NEA sound bite is invalid: “…so if you ban the guns, the only people that will have access to them, are the criminals breaking the law.” I am NOT talking about criminals; I am talking about unstable people who should not have access to weapons, but are not criminals: such as a person who has a restraining order against him or who a profession has determined is unstable (such as the Va Tech shooter).
“Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence. Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005. Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 23 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm. A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm. In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim. Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides Between 1990 and 2005, individuals killed by current dating partners made up almost half of all spouse and current dating partner homicides. A study of applicants for domestic violence restraining orders in Los Angeles found that the most common relationship between the victim and abuser was a dating relationship, and applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married.”
Perhaps we can cut back on the “…more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.” Moreover, I believe ONLY hunting weapons should be allowed and NOT handguns. Also there can never be a reason to own an assault weapon.
Liberal,
A judge has the ability to take away a person’s weapons if a restraining order has been issued against them if the judge feels that it is necessary. This is following due process and is guarenteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Can you please define an “assault weapon.” It’s a great sound bite to say that “assault weapons” should be banned, but just like every issue in the world, when you get to defining it is where the problems come in. Is it a fully automatic weapon (which is currently banned) or are you going to go to the extreme and say that if a rifle has a pistol grip on it then it is automatically an assault weapon. I would guess so since you are already going to ban handguns and are saying that the only reason to own a gun is for amusement (hunting). While I many gun owners enjoy hunting, the principal foundation of the 2nd Ammendment wasn’t for hunting food (it doesn’t mention anything about fishing rods does it) but for the protection of our lives.
But other than the outright ban on handguns, you do not propose a single new law that isn’t already on the books in Maryland and did not help prevent the problem highlighted in this case. Maryland law prohibits someone with a PO from buying a gun and guns can be taken away from someone with a PO (federal law). So again, what new law are you proposing that would stop this from happening, other than outright banning handguns, because then criminals would be the only one with handguns (since owning a handgun would be a crime and they obviously don’t care about commiting crimes).
PTBL
The permit you are describing is to carry a weapon “concealed”. What if you just bought the gun and were returning home with it?
There are already laws against shooting at other people. If you’re willing to attempt murder, would a law against carrying a loaded firearm stop you?
KHARN,
It would not, as evidenced by the recent shooting of a father by his 16 year old son.
Moron!!!
Bill,
Without seeing the affidavit in support of the search warrant, it is difficult for anyone to make a reasonable statement about the probable cause. It is likely that police relied upon statements made by the victim of the alleged crime as well as those made by witnesses, who were deemed credible. There may also have been physical evidence recovered at the crime scene. Furthermore, the police may have spoken to the Defendant prior to writing the affidavit.
The article made no mention, what so ever, of any “other witnesses” or “physical evidence”.
In fact, to the contrary, it said, “No one was injured in the incident. Troopers found no indication the victim’s vehicle had been struck by the gunfire.”
Safetech,
Apparently you don’t comprehend much that you read. I’ll make it easy for you:
* The article did not attach a copy of the affidavit in support of the search warrant.
* Affidavits contain probable cause to obtain arrest and search warrants.
* The article is obviously just a brief summary, and has no further information about witness statements, defendant statement, physical evidence and other things that could be probable cause.
I believe you owe it to the readers of this post to explain how you determined the police got a warrant “to search the guy’s house and arrested him because he owned a gun?”
We are all looking forward to your response.
So let me get this straight…
No witnesses (other than the “victim driver”)? No evidence that this actually occurred? And they got a warrant to search the guy’s house and arrested him because he owned a gun?
Unless the guy admitted to doing it (which the article does not mention), all they are going by is the word of someone with an obvious ax to grind.
I hope there’s more to this story.
Wow you people crack me up its amazing how its always the cops fault… If you people hate the police so much next time you need help call a crack head. Good job Troopers thank you for taking a pos off the street!
Who said ANYTHING about hating the police?
Some people on here are always quick to judge the actions of the police the first comment that was posted is evidence of this. If people think that the police are going to release every detail of the investigation they are sadly mistaken. And yes police bashing takes place often on here; all I am saying is cut them some slack. They do a job that a lot of us would not want to do. They are under paid and put their asses on the line everyday for people like you and I. Like them or not they deserve more credit then they are given.
UNREAL,
I agree that there is police bashing that has occurred on Dagger posts.
However, the first post on this article pertains to the issuance of a search warrant by judicial authority, not the actions of the police.
In my view the comment has more to do with how the article was written. The article seems to imply that everything through arrest occurred prior to obtaining a search warrant, and that may be exactly how it happened.
It’s amazing how many of you think that the police released every single detail of the investigation to the media. Like other posters have commented, maybe other credible witnesses have been found. Maybe the police found shell casings on 95. Maybe the suspect admitted to doing this. Remember, a judge still needs to read and sign the search warrant. They are neutral and detached for a reason. If the judge didn’t feel like there was enough probable cause, then they wouldn’t have signed it!
Arguing on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics. Even if you win your still retarded.
One of the saddest comments I have read on the Dagger. Your (sic) an embarrassment to yourself.
Get over yourself.
FED UP: As evident by you.
And actually I’m not embarrassed at all. You people need to lighten up. You won’t get out of life alive. Stop being such drama queens.
Doesn’t anyone wonder why there is so much Police Bashing going on?
Must be a reason?
Tougher gun laws isn’t going to change things.