I would assume a number of groups would provide an attorney and cover the legal fees.Most jurisdictions do not allow an "appeal" of a "TRO," but as is most often customary the "TRO" is served with notice of the lawsuit, and the "warrant" to pickup the weapon(s), like a search warrant would be served. So any "appeal" would be after the person was served and in this case the weapon(s) seized.
I guess I don't understand what has to happen to challenge the TRO in the first place. The TRO itself is injury, isn't it? Isn't injury cause for appeal at a higher court? Originally Posted by grean
The jurisdiction may allow an application for writ of mandamus against the judge issuing the TRO and Warrant, but that will not stop it's execution by the officers. The order remains until an appellate court determines the judge abused his/her discretion by entering the order sought to be set aside. That is a high burden of proof on the part of the person to whom the orders are directed, particularly when there is an existing statute in place authorizing it and the requirements of the statute have been followed in order to obtain the order/warrant.
After I wrote the above I went looking for the Maryland information ...
https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO
... most of your questions/concerns are answered there.
The District Court judgment remains in effect until superseded by a judgment of the Circuit Court.also ..
If a law enforcement officer serves the respondent personally with the Extreme Risk Protective Order, the respondent must immediately surrender all firearms to the officer.
