Coloradans Bracing for the January 1 Effective Date of the State’s ‘Red Flag’ Law

 

Happy new year, Colorado.

“What has been different about Colorado is the response amongst some within the state and the level of concern about due process in Colorado is certainly something that we haven’t seen in other places around the country,” she said.

[University of Denver law professor David] Kopel said that from his perspective, Colorado’s law is better than other states’ in one way but worse in a number of other ways.

“The way it’s better is Colorado has a provision that says if somebody is accused under this law when they finally get into court, which is only later in the process, that if they want an attorney to be provided by the government, the government will provide that,” he said.

Kopel said it will ultimately be up to courts to decide whether or not it’s unconstitutional. But he thinks it does violate due process in a “common-sense way.”

When a firearm is removed from somebody, only the accuser’s side of information is presented in court, Kopel said. There is also no opportunity for the accuser to be cross-examined and questioned.

“That’s a fundamental thing in any fair system is when somebody makes an accusation, the accused person, if they want, can have a lawyer cross-examine the accuser and may bring out inconsistencies of the story and give the court the opportunity to observe the accuser in person and make a determination about the accuser’s credibility,” Kopel said.

– Hayley Sanchez in Colorado’s Red Flag Law Goes Into Effect Jan. 1. This Is What People Are Watching For

comments

  1. avatar dave in Houston says:

    no good can come of this. The gun grabbers will weaponize it.

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Feminists will call out judges who do not issue GVROs to divorcing men and look to remove these judges for “negligence”
      Most of these judges will be Republican-leaning. The effect will be that only anti-gun liberal judges will remain.

      1. avatar Nice Guy says:

        I’ve got guns all over the place. How would this work? Do I have to self-incriminate?

        1. avatar Mercury says:

          Yes, obviously. They’re throwing out the 4th, so why not the 5th? Not to mention the 1st, since it won’t be happening in court either.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      “The gun grabbers will weaponize it.” That’s the whole purpose of red-flag laws.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      so you get a public defender…good luck with that…

  2. avatar Carl B. says:

    Red Flag “laws” go hand-in-hand with the FISA “courts.” The 4th Amendment is dead as a hammer with the 2nd and 1st to soon follow. Enjoy your serfdom, Amerika.

    1. avatar Chris Brown says:

      Eat manure and die…..

      1. avatar LazrBeam says:

        You’re much more charitable in how you phrase that than I am, Chris. 😎

    2. avatar Mercury says:

      Some of us are old enough to remember when Americans engaging in bombing attacks against the government was a near daily occurrence. We generally believe that it isn’t quite bad enough yet that a civil solution isn’t possible. Though even I’ll admit that the string of what were once crackpot conspiracy theories (including the very existence of the term “conspiracy theory”) turning out to be verifiably true makes for a much more sinister backdrop than just openly using the national guard to enforce the state’s will and put down dissenters who won’t back down.

  3. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    If it is a matter of safety…like domestic violence…will they confiscate ALL the weapons or potential weapons…or ONLY the guns?
    These laws are targeted at guns…not weapons in general.
    Anyone else see this as a problem?
    They will leave knives…machetes…bats…swords…crossbows…golf clubs…chainsaws…gas…bleach…ammonia…aerosol cans…rope…medications…etc etc etc???

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      If it were a matter of safety you’d be taken into custody and you’d have to take a psychiatric evaluation to determine if you were free to go or were actually a threat to yourself and others. This is really just part of a culture war on us stupid redneck peasants who rely on ourselves rather than our elites. It sends a message that they can come and take our means of protection at any time. The message is that we are second class citizens and we’d best not forget it.

      1. avatar Peegeetwo says:

        Wow….brought into custody and a forced psych evaluation….and we wonder why we slowly but surely losing this.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Way to miss the point, Peewee. How do you think this would go over if public safety were actually the goal and not the marginalization of gun owners?

        2. avatar Peegeetwo says:

          I’ve been saying exactly that here for years….maybe it’s you who missed the point? The greater good, public interest, public health are all collectivist talking points being used to attack our remaining individual rights. Same methods and propaganda exactly being used with the mandatory vaccine push.

      2. avatar ColoradoKid says:

        And that’s the issue, they are afraid of violating a mentally ill persons rights by taking them into custody for their own protection and evaluation, so they violate a law abiding persons rights instead. Spurlock and Polis are delusional if they think this will fly. Too many Sheriffs have said no to this law. Our county Sheriff already has procedures for dealing with disturbed individuals that don’t involve taking firearms…and it’s working. Suicide prevention is a major concern and they have taken steps to do all they can to help, without this law.

      3. avatar PM in Fl. says:

        Gov you nailed it ! I see no due process, no facing of accusers, Direct contradiction of the enumerated rights recognized by the Bill of Rights. There is no question of it’s UNconstititionality !

      4. avatar Craig in IA says:

        “If it were a matter of safety you’d be taken into custody and you’d have to take a psychiatric evaluation to determine if you were free to go or were actually a threat to yourself and others.” In many states including Iowa, it’s always been fairly straightforward for LE to easily obtain a blanket court order to place someone under a 72 hr Psych hold if they have actually exhibited suicidal tendencies or made open and public threats, to either harm others or self. I’m not aware of any of these people under the hold having their firearms removed from their homes during the hold period as they are no longer there, and the guns are not removed unless the 72 hr hold determines that said person is actually still a threat.

        In most cases I’ve been made aware of, the often unreasonable person at the time, who has, for some reason, gone off the “deep end” is usually let go, sometimes with the person’s own consent to do a follow up counseling session or two without further intrusion by law enforcement and other agencies after they’ve had some time to cool down and see things from perhaps, a different perspective, even if it had to be forced upon them.

        I actually favor such removal of the human from the home if there are serious questions rather than the firearms. Taking guns does nothing to remove the ability for a determined person to kill scores of people with vehicles, gasoline, clubs, sharp edges and the like. It’s also a certainty that the guns do not have God-given, Constitutionally- recognized rights, but humans do. LE can easily grind up the guns, doing so to the individual is a bit more dicey.

      5. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        Gov.,
        Exactly correct, if they care one iota about safety, public, private or any other, all they need to do is remove the c̶r̶o̶s̶s̶b̶o̶w̶,̶ ̶b̶r̶o̶a̶d̶s̶w̶o̶r̶d̶,̶ ̶k̶n̶i̶f̶e̶,̶ ̶b̶r̶a̶s̶s̶ ̶k̶n̶u̶c̶k̶l̶e̶s̶,̶ ̶g̶u̶n̶, dangerous person out of circulation. But, as the Founders intended in order to avoid abuse there is that little nuisance of due process.

  4. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    These laws are too easily abused by ex-partners, disgruntled family/friends/neighbors
    Needs to be a provision for false claims and damages
    What about right to confront accuser(s)?
    Guilty until proven innocent?
    This stuff is getting out of control.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      But he thinks it does violate due process in a “common-sense way.”

      I’m wondering how anyone thinks a Constitutionally protected right can be violated in a common sense way…

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I think that’s just poor diction on his part. I think he’s trying to say that “It’s common sense that this violates due process”.

        As in, the red-flag law is self-evidently a violation of due process.

        DU has some great faculty but I’ve noted that some of them almost seem to have a speech impediment. They have a really, really nice campus. Too bad it’s not in a great area.

      2. avatar Tony Gonzales says:

        Common sense is always necessary; however, gun grabbers want to take advantage with Red Flags laws to gain control of everybody regardless of whether or not possession is a danger to the person or to others. With Reg Flag laws, every citizen is a suspect and victim.

        When gun grabbers have to start paying and having to take responsibility for making accusations and paying for lawsuits for violating citizens’ rights without reason, gun rights will be restored. When it is required that they pay for violating constitutional rights, gun grabbing will become something they think about only. In other words, gun grabbers want total control of Americans, but don’t want to pay the heavy price in the process of gaining that control.

    2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      I remember when the unconstitutional Patriot Act was enacted, the gun control activists were using the ” see something say something” to report individuals that were taking firearms to or from their vehicles to go hunting or to the shooting range.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      thank you Mr Trump….if obama had proposed this he’d still be hanging on the cross…..

  5. avatar LifeSavor says:

    If I am understanding the new Red Flag law in Colorado:

    1. An complaint can be filed and you will not be informed of it nor of whom the accuser is nor of that which you are accused.
    2. A hearing will be held and you will not be informed that a hearing will take place, of when it is scheduled, nor of whom will participate.
    3. You will not be given the opportunity to defend yourself in this hearing.
    4. A decision of guilt (you are too high-risk to possess a firearm) may be rendered.
    5. A sentence will be handed down: “Take his guns”.
    6. The sentence will be enforced.
    7. The enforcement action is when you learn you have been accused, tried, convicted, and sentenced.
    8. After enforcement, you are given the opportunity to defend yourself.

    If that is really how it works, this will not stand when challenged.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      4. A decision of guilt (you are too high-risk to possess a firearm) may will be rendered.

      FIFY. No judge is going to stick his neck out and say “the accused sounds safe enough to me”.

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Fedup,

        You are probably correct. Unless it is clear that the complainant is a nutcase or is committing a fraud, the decision will likely always go against the accused.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        ‘No judge is going to stick his neck out and say “the accused sounds safe enough to me”.’

        This will depend heavily on where you are. In Boulder, Denver and JeffCo this is almost certainly true. In other places like Adams and Weld it’s doubtful. The judges in those counties have already expressed some serious skepticism about these laws. In fact, it appears there’s one in Adams who’s licking his chops to get these into his courtroom so he can put the state through the ringer. Adams county is currently recruiting lawyers specifically to defend people accused under the ERPO laws too.

        Weld, though I don’t live there and never have, is a 2A sanctuary county where I doubt this will even be enforced except in extreme cases where there’s another actual crime that gets the person arrested in the first place.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “This will depend heavily on where you are. In Boulder, Denver and JeffCo this is almost certainly true.”

          That’s where the greatest danger lies, where the concentration of Leftists are the greatest. That makes it vastly more egregious.

          Keep a very low profile in our city, conservative, if you know what’s good for you.

          You’re probably still not safe, out in the boonies. What if a Leftist decides to ‘venue shop’ for a certain judge in the big city likely to give them what they want? If they claimed it took place in the city, it’s their jurisdiction…

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “Keep a very low profile in our city, conservative, if you know what’s good for you.”

          Been that way for years already in certain areas. It’s not new.

          “What if a Leftist decides to ‘venue shop’ for a certain judge in the big city likely to give them what they want? If they claimed it took place in the city, it’s their jurisdiction…”

          Then they’d rapidly find out why my attorney has stable of Maseratis complemented by a Ducati collection and is a gun “super collector” many times over. Said Leftists would also find out what “extreme generational poverty” is actually like.

          Generally I’m pretty mild-mannered. Piss me off however and you’ll find out that I take the Klingon concept of vengeance to an extreme. I’m not out to fuck you. I’m out to fuck your great-great-great-great-great grandchildren and I don’t much care what it costs me to make such a point.

      3. avatar Robert Messmer says:

        Quote: “FIFY. No judge is going to stick his neck out and say “the accused sounds safe enough to me”. Sorry but how is the judge sticking his neck out to turn down the order request? I have never, ever seen any media reports reading thusly “Judge Somebody was sentence to prison for releasing a known serial killer back onto the city streets. The Judge was sent to prison because just one week after setting the killer free to kill again, he did just that. In broad daylight, Jose Illegal-Alien first raped and then killed every member of a family of five.” There is zero accountability to judges for any decision they make.

        1. avatar Someone says:

          This is completely different case. Because guns. If just once someone goes postal with a gun that some judge refused to confiscate, said judge will be crucified by the left and it’s pet mass media.

          Judges know it and will not risk it, as being wrong costs them nothing and being right gains them nothing. The leftists know that judges know and that’s why they wrote the laws this way.

          This is just another avenue to total public disarmament. By any means necessary.

    2. avatar JT says:

      You forgot that once you have hired a lawyer and gone through the process of proving yourself innocent of a non-crime and get your guns back, you will be charged a storage fee for the time they were confiscated.

      1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        And your lawyer ain’t free. I’d be more worried about the lawyer’s fees than any storage. Very likely the police won’t even be returning your firearms anyway. “Sorry, they were donated to the Police Benevolent League!”

        1. avatar Someone says:

          And if they eventually return your guns, maybe only after you successfully sued them, you will find out how cops treated your priced possessions. We have all seen photos of piles of rifles on the ground, on backs of trucks and in plastic garbage cans. Those pristine collectibles are not so pristine anymore.

    3. avatar William Blackstone says:

      Welcome back to the Star Chamber. They say US law is based on British law, so what is so wrong about resurrection of the Star Chamber, is has a long lasting British legal precedent.

  6. avatar Fred says:

    Are they going to fight, or they going to smoke dope? Three-quarters of America on pain pills and now legalized marijuana and 75% morbidly obese, they knew exactly what they were doing. Now take our guns and we will all become slave to high taxes

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Marijuana is better than the heroin pills, but we all know the reason for legalizing it is either for money or to get high.

      1. avatar William Nusbaum says:

        What is WRONG with ENDING the PROHIBITION of MARIJUANA ???

        1. avatar Defens says:

          MJ causes PEOPLE to capitalize INAPPROPRIATELY. That’s why.

        2. avatar William Nusbaum says:

          So because of this effect it MUST be a banned and PROHIBITED and ILLEGAL substance and those who are caught with it MUST be treated as CRIMINALS and be subjected to punishment and penalties ???

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Three quarters of Americans on pain pills? Seventy five percent morbidly obese. You really need to start hanging out with some different people. Maybe stop eating at McDonald’s and frequenting Dunkin Doughnuts. Broaden your horizon or somthing.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      Only about 40% of adult Americans qualify as obese. 80% are considered overweight.

      But it is indeed yet another route the Left is using to get people to trade their freedoms for subsidies. Colorado has already done that with the fatties who’ve managed to *acquire* T2 diabetes. But… fatties gonna fat. As long as it frees up their junk food, soda and Starbucks budget they don’t care.

      Besides, other people will pay for the insulin induced vascular damage that requires cardiac care.

  7. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Red Flag laws are no more then state-sanctioned thievery.
    If a cop tries to take my property. I would fight back. If they kill me so be it. I would not go quietly.
    If I kill one of them its with pride that I know I did whats right.
    Im very willling to put up a fight on this and many other issues.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      As tempting as such a futile stand would be it would only play into their narrative. It is set up that way. They are more than willing to “martyr” a few cops for the cause. It is like a witchcraft test – you can’t possibly win. The time and place to resist is definitely not at the exact place and moment they want you to.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        got that right…total “catch 22″….

      2. avatar Someone says:

        Do you mean “if she weighs as much as a duck, she is made of wood and therefore a witch”?

  8. avatar Dennis says:

    Got news for ya folks! “Due process” is not gonna be included in this sham!

  9. avatar Tony Gonzales says:

    First and foremost, Red Flag laws are unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment of the U. S. Constitution; and, therefore, illegal. But since some are hell-bent on confiscating firearms from citizens to supposedly protect people and society in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the law needs to include that the accuser take full legal and financial responsibility for making accusations to the accused to clear his or her name, including payment of lawsuits brought about by the accused for the confiscation of his or her firearms. Furthermore, the accuser must also bear full financial responsibility for restitution of the accused person’s Constitutional rights for having violated his or her rights.

    Since the issues surrounding Red Flag laws in many cases turn out to be subjective, political, social and personal in nature, the violation of a citizen’s Constitutional rights must never be used as a means to address those issues for the purpose of gaining control over American citizens.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Tony G.,

      I agree that the accuser should pay all costs if the accusation fails. However, even if an accusation succeeds, a sentence (“Take his guns”) is being handed down without a crime having been committed; a Constitutional right is being denied based upon a suspicion. It seems to me there is no Constitutional underpinning for Colorado’s Red Flag law.

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Tony G.,

        Point of clarity: I am not disagreeing, but rather agreeing, will you. Just realized my wording, above, might seem otherwise. You are spot-on.

    2. avatar Tony Gonzales says:

      There is never any underpinning for violation of a citizen’s Constitutional rights, which in the case of Colorado’s Reg Flag law would be thrown out as unconstitutional when challenged, especially in the higher courts.

      In addition, the danger with Reg Flag laws is it assumes that every citizen is an expert in medicine, psychology, and/or law enforcement, which we all know is not true. Therefore, full legal and financial responsibility for making accusations is to lay directly on the accuser with the responsibility to restore the accuser’s rights for violating his/her rights under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. When an accuser has to take full responsibility for making accusations, which is what most of this is about for firearms confiscation, it will offer greater protection to the accused and prevent the freedom to confiscate firearms at will.

    3. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      The Second Amendment aspect of Red Flag laws is not their most onerous threat. That they violate not only nearly the entire Bill of Rights, the Constitution and many other Constitutional Amendments is the threat. Now if only the SCOTUS could see a violation of the Commerce Clause in Red Flag laws, the world is saved.
      Maybe I should do the homework for them.

  10. avatar Shire-man says:

    Wait, they’re trying to spin a public defender as a big positive?
    So, until now, CO never provided public defenders?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Colorado did provide public defenders (and still does).

      The issue here is that an ERPO in and of itself doesn’t actually accuse someone one a crime but rather accuses them of being *dangerous*. Sans an actual crime there was nothing on the books to ensure that someone got legal counsel because public defenders job is to defend against criminal charges that very well might be absent in an ERPO.

      Regardless, I doubt the higher courts in the State will allow this. You’ll have a flurry of abuse in a couple places and this will get shot down pretty quick.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        In striking it down, will they also strike down the broader violence restraining orders (or whatever they call ’em where you are. You know what I mean…)

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I was actually referring to the broader ERPO law being struck down. It was my piss poor paragraph transition there that was to blame for your misunderstanding.

          I don’t think the appeals or state Supreme Court are going to stand for ERPOs, particularly once they start getting abused which is certainly going to happen in certain parts of Boulder and probably to a lesser extent in Denver.

          Similarly I don’t think Boulder’s AWB is going to stand up in court but we’re gonna have to wait and see if it ever makes it back to Federal court. The federal case got stayed indefinitely until the state courts hash out the issue of preemption. I suspect the federal 2A case will never resurface because the Colorado Supreme is unlikely to allow Boulder to have such an ordinance.

  11. avatar WI Patriot says:

    They can reap what they’ve sown…the people of colorado traded guns for pot, hope they’re happy…

    1. avatar William Nusbaum says:

      Why should the People be forced to trade guns for pot ??? Why can’t we have BOTH guns AND pot ???
      Why must it be Either one or the other and not both ???

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        There are a LOT of people who use it. People pushing the idea of “potheads are lazy, stupid, and worthless” have NEVER used it. Had all of these anti-pot people actually gotten high one time, they’d realize everything they’re supporting is nonsense. I’d forever rather deal with a stoner who is high as hell, vs a drunk who’s completely wasted.

        Once people start coming out of the closet as users (best explanation), it’ll be accepted. I guarantee that everyone in this country knows someone or is related to someone who uses pot.

        1. avatar Harry Flashman says:

          BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAH!!

        2. avatar WI Patriot says:

          “stoner who is high as hell, vs a drunk who’s completely wasted.”

          There is no difference…

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          “There is no difference…”

          You’ve very obviously never dealt with stoners vs. drunks then.

      2. avatar WI Patriot says:

        You completely missed my point, but my guess is that you were stoned at the time…perhaps in time you’ll figure out what I was trying to get at, but if not, then all logic will elude you…

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          Well, the logic on this one has completely eluded me, and I haven’t smoked pot in 25 years. So why don’t you drop the smug shit and just spell it out? How is there no difference (’cause I KNOW there is)?

    2. avatar ColoradoKid says:

      We haven’t traded guns for pot. Maybe you need to try some, it might mellow your attitude somewhat. And in case you hadn’t noticed, pot is legal is quite a few states now, and they haven’t traded guns for pot either. Although WI hasn’t come around yet…but they will.

      1. avatar LazrBeam says:

        In a manner of speaking, you HAVE traded guns for pot. When purchasing a firearm check yes to the question regarding marijuana on the 4473 and see how THAT transfer goes.

        1. avatar Colorado Kid says:

          You’re very naive, aren’t you? You really think smokers/users answer that question honestly? That is the most asinine question on the 4473. Do you really think that question in its current form is enforceable? If you read and interpret it, by the use of commas and ‘or’ in that question and you drink a certain amount of coffee, or alcohol, or smoke tobacco, which are all stimulants, you should be answering it Yes as well. If anti-gunners are allowed to misinterpret 2A, I don’t feel bad interpreting question 11e the way I do.

  12. avatar Biatec says:

    I was debating who ever manages the NRA’s youtube channel. I kept going to to their videos linking people to the video where the NRA supports red flag laws. The video is deleted now though

    How ever. They kept telling me they support it with strong due process protections. I told them that is still an anti gun position. Just because you throw due process in front of something does not make it Constitutional or a good thing.

    We need to change the way people think about rights. It’s either a right or a privilege and right now our government and our fellow citizens view it as a privilege.

    The 2a is is almost completely infringed and people even on our side think there is more laws we need.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    They already have psychiatric holds in most states. How is THAT constitutional? I don’t “think” it’ll help shooting a few cop’s. They’ll just send in the military hardware…and a sh#tload of republitard’s are on board 😩

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      The military wasn’t sent in for the Bundy Ranch debacle, and the armed citizens held their ground. Just sayin’…

      1. avatar Robert Messmer says:

        Quote: “The military wasn’t sent in for the Bundy Ranch debacle, and the armed citizens held their ground. Just sayin’…” No military at Bundy Ranch but they did have snipers in position. You want military? Waco, TX Federal alphabet agencies, state and local police, and military all took part. Crimes of the victims? Minding their own business, exercising their 1st and 2nd amendment rights. And unlike at Bundy there was no claim that the victims owed the federal government more than a million dollars.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Interesting. You took my comment about Bundy Ranch, re-directed it to a completely different and unrelated event, and challenged me about that other event as if to tell me I’m wrong…about the first event I was talking about. Sorta odd debate logic.

          But okay. Since you deflected to the Waco incident, please tell me how the military was involved. I’m aware of the “alphabet letter agencies”, but not the involvement of the military. Wouldn’t that be a Posse Comitatus violation?

  14. avatar Sisted Twister says:

    Thankfully our beloved political rulers, Hollywood freaks, media morons, criminal justice and law enforcement flunkys will be exempt from these Communist Flag laws.

    Thank them for all their hard work keeping us safe! And fly the Red Flag with pride!

    1. avatar LazrBeam says:

      Along with their OTHER pride flag.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      in regard to Waco…since when does the FBI have tanks?….

  15. avatar SurfGW says:

    Watch divorce cases. Most military commands issue an MPO (MPO = military restraining order) against the husband in a divorce to be “proactive”. Restraining orders are always filed with GVRO/ERPOs.
    Judge who does not issue a GVRO to a divorcing man are “negligent”.
    Expect most men in divorce or counseling are ordered to turn in their guns.

    1. Especially if they are black.

      http://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/10/ethics-quote-of-the-day-ann-althouse-2/

      According to various studies — not just one, but a wide range of studies that have been carried out over a number of years — African Americans are 30 percent more likely than whites to be pulled over. After being pulled over, African Americans and Hispanics are three times more likely to be searched. Last year, African Americans were shot by police at more than twice the rate of whites. African Americans are arrested at twice the rate of whites. African American defendants are 75 percent more likely to be charged with offenses carrying mandatory minimums. They receive sentences that are almost 10 percent longer than comparable whites arrested for the same crime.

      1. avatar PM in Fl. says:

        The article as a whole was very good. It seems that one can quote a paragraph ,out of context and TRY to make a point. This link is worth the time to read in it’s entirety.

  16. avatar Dan W says:

    Red flags will be used to set up ambushes for enforcers.

  17. avatar Unlicensed Bozo says:

    Why is it, that liberal’s “Common Sense” is lacking of Common Sense? Always.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      they write the laws that others have to enforce…

      1. avatar Tony Clement says:

        Liberals are flakes. That’s just who they are. No common sense, no nothing, just flakes.

  18. avatar UpInArms says:

    It all had to unfold this way. A red flag law that scrupulously adheres to due process as laid out in the Constitution is totally useless as a gun-confiscation weapon. Since the end game is confiscation, and not public safety, it has to be that red flag laws are a laundry list of Constitutional violations. Of course, none of this is to say that legislators are above passing useless laws, so for the sake of the optics it’s entirely possible they could pass a red flag law that is totally ineffective and call it a win. But, legislators are not above violating rights as a matter of convenience either, so as long as they’re being arrogant, might as well go for the whole ball of wax.

    I haven’t perused a single red flag law that would pass Constitutional review. I doubt that even RBG or the ACLU would let this one slip through unless they are totally void of any integrity at all (possible, maybe even probable). Even if we set aside the 2A violations, there are still more than enough due process issues to knock it down. Let’s just hope the courts can sort this out before the shooting starts. Time is short.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      For RBG it doesn’t have to pass Constitutional scrutiny. She looks to Europe for her legal direction. “The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,” Justice Ginsburg said.” Basically, you cant’t let that pesky Constitution get in the way. If she can’t find something to support her decisions in the Constitution, she looks to European Jurisprudence. In her own words.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        But as RBG looks more and more like Stephen Hawking as she slumps in her chair, at what point can/will she be declared incompetent to deliberate cases that affect 320+ million people in this nation? That, and the fact that she let her political colors be fully known when she stated that the country would be in big trouble if Trump were to be elected.

  19. Red Flag Laws do not seem to go far enough.

    Why not do the following?

    * Suspend any licenses to practice law or medicine
    * Forbid any sort of intimate contact or relationship
    * Require wearing a distinctive badge on the left sleeve while out in public.

  20. avatar M1Lou says:

    Tyranny incoming. I guess they want to totally finish off marriages and the family. Why would you want to get married when it’s a 50/50 chance it will end in divorce and 80% of divorces are initiated by the woman? It is more likely than not a restraining order will be filed against the man to be used as leverage against him. His gun collection will be taken from him because he can’t use knives, hands, fists, or a gas can to kill his family, right? I saw this often when I lived in MA as guys would run down to the LGS and start the transfer process of their collection to their buddy so he could hold it until the divorce was over. That was not a cheap process. This is so ridiculously unconstitutional, but I am sure the courts will rubber stamp this like the FISA court rubber stamps spying because “muh safety!”

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Another reason to never register anything.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      been there..done that…and it got pretty dicey for awhile…even a favorable outcome will put a serious dent in your bank account…but as I told her…”less for you”…..

    3. avatar Matt(TX) says:

      I just drove my stuff over to a friends. “Guns? What guns?”

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    Judges are going to hand out these orders like party favors.

  22. avatar Tired of the bs says:

    I wish the pols that pass this unconstitutional shit could be held accountable for violating the people’s rights. But when the swat teams roll out send the unmaried ones and issue them each a body bag.

  23. avatar Chuck says:

    The problem in Colorado is Liberal ran Denver and its Satellite Liberal communities. They’ve effectively shut out the other areas of the state from having a voice in State Government. We no longer have a voice in how the State is ran. Personally, I shut down all my social media accounts and deleted them. Only person to person email do I still engage in. In truth, I look for Colorado to become just like Virginia in the future (we’re already a branch office of the Peoples Republic of Commiefornia).
    I’ll refrain from saying what needs to happen, because many would find it too extreme.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      right now we’re losing this fight…only the courts can save us…don’t hold your breath….

  24. avatar Jon in CO says:

    We have to remember too, that the state Supreme Court in CO will rule on magazine ban in the next 90 days or so. The case is looking good for gun owners. The state constitution forbids almost all of these laws, not to mention the US constitution. It will take some time, and money, but we will get it overturned.

  25. avatar jwm says:

    Never have all your firearms in one place. always have a couple of off the books firearms.

    1. avatar Colorado Kid says:

      I agree with you 80%.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      once again:…buy all you can, any way you can and hide them everywhere you can…to which I might add.. leave a few in your safe for sucker-bait….eventually they’ll get tired and give up looking….

  26. avatar Tired of the bs says:

    If you think you need to bury them it’s probably time to use them.

  27. avatar John Galt says:

    So if a substantial part of your assets are tied up in a large collection that is confiscated, will the value of the gun collection be used to deny you a .gov attorney?

    How does this pass 5A?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email