When Almost Anyone Can Seek Red Flag Confiscations, Judges Will Turn More of Them Down…Allegedly

Colorado attorney general Phil Weiser,

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

So because almost anyone a person knows can file for a gun grab in Colorado, judges will look more carefully at these requests than they do in other states. At least, that’s the theory.

The Colorado legislature’s official fiscal analysis of that state’s new “red flag” law, which took effect this week, projects that police and “family or household members” will use it to seek gun confiscation orders against people they portray as threats to themselves or others about 170 times a year. The analysis also assumes that 95 percent of those petitions will be granted, which is not far-fetched given Florida’s experience with such orders.

Such a high approval rate reflects the due process problems with red flag laws, which take away people’s Second Amendment rights for a year or more based on vague standards and dubious evidence that judges are not inclined to question because they worry about the potentially deadly consequences of rejecting petitions. But there are a couple of reasons to think Colorado’s approval rate may not be quite as high as Florida’s.

First, of the 17 states with red flag laws, Colorado is the only one that provides court-appointed counsel to respondents who can’t afford lawyers or choose not to hire them. Legal representation is crucial for respondents trying to navigate a process that is stacked against them from the beginning.

Second, Colorado’s law allows a long list of people to seek what it calls “extreme risk protection orders” (ERPOs), including anyone related to the respondent by blood, marriage, or adoption; anyone who has produced a child with the respondent; and current or former spouses, domestic partners, girlfriends, boyfriends, and housemates. In Florida, by contrast, petitions must be filed by law enforcement officers or agencies. While Colorado’s much broader approach creates a bigger risk that biased individuals will seek ERPOs out of personal animus or sincere but mistaken concerns, that risk may lead judges to treat petitions more skeptically.

– Jacob Sullum in Fiscal Analysis of Colorado’s New ‘Red Flag’ Law Assumes Gun Confiscation Orders Will Be Granted 95% of the Time

comments

  1. avatar Ralph Humphrey says:

    Yeah… My x wife would NEVER abuse a red flag law…

    [sarcasm key:off]

  2. avatar Red Flag Black Flag says:

    We should file for red flags against anti gun judges and politicians. They are clearly dangers to themselves and others.

    1. avatar Ralph Humphrey says:

      That’s a good idea Red Flag Black Flag!

    2. avatar Ralph Humphrey says:

      Let’s be sure to include their armed security forces too!

  3. avatar PTM says:

    So, for the sake of the discussion, are there never any situations in which gun confiscation is justified? Is it an entirely black and white or yes/no issue? NEVER? Ever? In any situation?

    Let’s start here:

    18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for firearm possession by a felon is up to 10 years in prison.

    1. avatar gene says:

      You’re presuming the hunk of steel is the problem – it’s not. That’s why things like Baker exist.

      If they were really interested in eliminating all possibilities of threat, they should also take knives, cars, bats, bottles, sticks, rocks, rope, .. aww – just take everything…

    2. avatar Ralph Humphrey says:

      PTM— You fail to understand that those individuals have been through DUE PROCESS… Something Red Flag law(s) ignore. Nice diversion though!

      🙂

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        Just because you put due process in front of something does not make it Constitutional or okay though. I mean there are tons of non violent silly felonies that make you a prohibited person.

        Just saying I wouldn’t make that my argument for anything.

        1. avatar Thixotropic says:

          Written like a true imbecile.

          You don’t have any idea do ya dope smoker?

        2. avatar Biatec says:

          Empty insults and ignorance. You said nothing. lol

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Where the HECK did my comment posted here earlier today go????

          What’s going on, TTAG???

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      Many people would suggest that the prohibited persons law should not exist. I am not so absolutist. As long as someone commits a felony (or other enumerated crime, i.e. domestic assault) after the federal law was passed, becoming a prohibited person is part of the punishment- just like jail, probation, fines, etc. They also have to be judged guilty under the ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ burden.

      However, note that the law you cited is implicated when someone is convicted of breaking a law. They have presumably been afforded their 5th Amendment rights to counsel, silence, and a presumption of innocence. They have had the right to a jury trial and to face their accuser in court. None of these things happen with the red flag laws I’ve read. They seem to be ex-parte motions where the court takes away someone’s rights and then checks back later.

      The comparison between red flag laws and the felony-based prohibited persons is disingenuous

      1. avatar gene says:

        Especially when the allegation can be merely “Evidence of recent acquisition of a firearm, rifle, shotgun or other deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or any ammunition therefor;” – https://www.nycourts.gov/legacypdfs/forms/erpo/Application_Temporary_ERPO_(UCS-6341)_fillable.pdf

        I guess to have your car taken away, the allegation for drunk driving can be you bought some margarita mix or little umbrellas.

        1. avatar Matt(TX) says:

          So buying a gun and/or ammo is all the evidence that you need to get your gun rights taken away? I have bought three in the last twelve months. Call my ex!

    4. avatar Prndll says:

      Why take anything? Why not focus on the threat…the person? If it’s a felon in possession, then why not just arrest the felon and give them an automatic ten years? Why focus so much on guns? Surely someone can use a wide variety of other things to be a threat to themselves and others? Why create a law that hurts people and also does nothing to solve the problem?

      Of course there are people that need to have their guns takin from them….drug dealers, thugs, killers, the insane, the suicidal, the homicidal, lunatics, gang members, and rapists.

      There just is not justification for something that specifically removes rights and due process from law abiding people that make up most of the country under the guise of disarming the very very few that have no regard for human life.

      Common sense gun law was already written many moons ago….it’s called “The Second Amendment”.

      1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        You left a few off your list…

        Left wing politicians, judges, professors, etc. /s

        They are a clear and present danger.

      2. avatar Chief Censor says:

        In Virginia there is going to be a lot of felons soon. We know they have guns. We should raid them then shoot them if they resist or put them in cages for ten years when they don’t.

        It’s going to be fun. Thank you Republicans and Democrats for all the powers invested in the state to disarm you because felonies exist and we have the power to decide what is a felony. Zero tolerance. Not voting, no self preservation.

        We be going to the next level. Get some!

        1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          The left just figured out how to win every election from now on. Make gun owners felons and disenfranchise them. They are laughing, “none of you gun lovers will be voting in the next election nor any election ever again!”

    5. avatar Bernard says:

      Apples and oranges.

      You’re comparing a felon, who already has lost a numerous amount of rights *via due process, as outlined in the constitution*, to a red flag law, which targets people based upon *hearsay*.

      Two totally different concepts.

      1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

        I have multiple problems with this:
        1: I believe that everyone – regardless of past transgressions, have the right to self defense, and a firearm is one of the best choices for that purpose. If you’re still a danger to society, then why are you an active member of it?
        2: The 4473 requires the purchaser to declare whether they were previously convicted as a felon. Since current law stipulates that felons cannot possess firearms, answering truthfully is a violation of a separate law, and thus, the government is compelling you to testify against yourself. Answering untruthfully is also a federal offense. This could be viewed as a violation of your 5th Amendment Rights (IIRC, in US vs Miller [the NFA case], the USSC determined that submitting the Form 1s and 4s were violations of the 5th Amendment, which is why the ability to have an “amnesty period” was added.
        3: Either 2A is a first class Right, or it’s not. If a felon can speak, practice religion, can travel across state lines, vote, and still be presumed innocent (of additional crimes), then why not keeping and bearing arms?

        1. avatar Anymouse says:

          Actually, most states don’t allow felons to vote.

        2. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

          That’s rapidly changing, especially in blue states. In 2016, VA Gov. Terry McAuliffe signed an executive order restoring voting rights to 200,000 convicted felons, prior to the 2016 elections.

          It’s partly how current Governor Northram was elected. Elections have consequences, but convicted felons and dead people have been voting primarily Democrat for years.

        3. avatar Bernard says:

          But denying a felons rights still isn’t “unconstitutional”, wether you like it or not. The constitution is clear in that a persons rights can be removed via due process. All of them, or some of them. Remember, prison wasn’t really a thing back when the country was founded. Just because someone isn’t in prison doesn’t mean they should have full restoration of rights. The idea of locking someone up until they are deemed fit to return to society is actually a relatively new phenomenon in history. In the founders time, they were executed, whipped, placed in a stockade, fined, or held in a jail for a short time. Prisons to put people in weren’t really a thing, so had to be other options.

          There’s also the logistics of it. People are let out of prison everyday who have no business returning to society. But it happens, because of space.

        4. avatar Arc says:

          Bernard, shall not be infringed. Guess what it is when you prohibit someone from owning a gun, who has done their time? Yeah, infringement.

      2. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Stop being a leftist. Human rights do not come from man, thus the constitution doesn’t give human rights.

        Convicted felons have human rights because they are human. You can only oppress them. If they can be oppressed so can you. So stop complaining you can’t own guns once they pass laws saying you are a felon for owning them. Don’t complain when they take your gun without putting you in prison because you are a danger to society and they do not want to fill the prisons with you when they can put a child rapist there instead.

        You do not understand liberty and justice. Don’t complain when others make the same silly decisions you make but you happen to be the one in their sights.

        A lot of black men have felonies. Republicans don’t want those “kinds of people” to vote nor own guns legally. Democrats appeal to them by saying they will forgive them for their past. Those Democrats sound more Christian and less racist than Republicans. Of course the Democrats do it for the votes. Why do Republicans oppress them after they have served their sentence? It honestly appears it’s racism like how Planned Parenthood wants to decrease the non white population.

      3. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        With the same end result

    6. avatar Jim says:

      Classic concern troll behavior.

    7. avatar Miner49er says:

      Hmmmm, good question.

      A ‘red flag’ law only works if there’s advanced warning.

      “Prosecutors in northern Minnesota accused a man of fatally shooting a woman who yelled at him to hurry up and honked her horn while waiting for him outside his home.
      Angelo Borreson, 56, was charged Friday with second-degree murder and second-degree assault in the death of 51-year-old Angela Wynne.
      Borreson told authorities Wynne drove to his home near Badger on Wednesday morning to help him get gas for his vehicle. According to the complaint, Wynne arrived before Borreson was ready to leave and started yelling at him to hurry while honking her horn.
      Borreson told authorities that he accidentally shot Wynne multiple times. He said he did not mean for his shotgun to fire, the complaint said. He then called 911.”

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    Id be curious to see a diagram overlapping fans of red flags with FISA detractors. Well, a good 90% of those FISA detractors would probably turn a blind eye to what Trump went though so hypocrisy abounds I guess.

  5. avatar Dennis says:

    You don’t wait till an unconstitutional law is implemented and hope it wont be abused (and it will be) you stop it from being signed into law!

    1. avatar Hydguy says:

      Not necessarily.
      Jury nullification is another avenue that can be used to void an unconstitutional law. But the legal system doesn’t like it when mere peasants exercise that power.

      1. avatar David Bradford says:

        Jury nullification is irreverent in regard to ex parte ERPO violations of your rights to have a jury decide before you are punished.

        1. avatar Hydguy says:

          While that is true, if you are charged with violating a ‘red flag’ law, you can get the underlying ‘red flag’ law in front a jury for nullification.

        2. avatar David Bradford says:

          I get your point, but if it has reached the stage of ” if you are charged with violating a ‘red flag’ law” it is already too late. To be in violation would mean that you have already been Red Flagged. And as I noted elsewhere here today, once you have had an ERPO issued against you it is impossible to for you to ever prove a negative and YOU WILL BE SUSPECT of being a dangerous individual FOREVER. Just like nothing ever leaves the internet you will carry a brand on your reputation that can’t be removed. Even if you win and get your rights restored, there will always be a question of “Did he just get off on a technicality?” “Can I ever, or should I ever trust this guy?”

        3. avatar Hydguy says:

          You do understand that jury nullification actually invalidates a law, right? Which means that after actual jury nullification, the underlying law is null and void.
          It’s not just saying ‘not guilty’.

        4. avatar David Bradford says:

          Again, kind of irreverent that after they shoot your dog, your wife leaves and takes the kids because you can’t take care of them any more because you lost your job and no one will hire you, and if anyone googles your name the news story detailing how a SWAT team had to forcefully detain you pops up, , they are told “This law is invalid, you shouldn’t have done that.” and your property( at least the guns they recorded that they took) had been stored in a damp basement an are rusted beyond repair is then returned to you. The damage is done, it is permanent, and they are not going to bother to restore your losses

        5. avatar Liberty's Bastard Son says:

          Yeah, he should realize that juries are the silent arm of the Supreme Court; ironic that they’re compelled to serve as a juror and have to hear the case (civic duty and all that).

          Most people are abjectly ignorant of the real power a jury yields, not just over the fate of the defendant but over the fate of the law in question itself.

          Funny how our supreme court justices get to choose the cases that are the most politically convenient for their side of the aisle, or wantonly refuse to hear cases (even those of Constitutional significance), yet those who are compelled to judge a person(s) also have the power to judge the law itself, essentially stepping in where the Supreme Court won’t go/hasn’t gone.

      2. avatar UpInArms says:

        Jury nullification doesn’t nullify the law. It’s a case-by-case deal where a jury decides that the law will be ignored even if the evidence in the trial clearly shows guilt, and the jury unanimously votes for an acquittal. In order for jury nullification to do it’s work, someone has to be brought to trial, and the “nullification” doesn’t negate the law beyond that specific trial. The next guy brought up for trial might not have such a sympathetic jury.

        1. avatar Dude Homie Buddy says:

          Are you aware of this thing involving equal protection under the law known as “precedence”?

          It’s a thing. I suggest you look it up.

  6. avatar John W Weber says:

    I think it’s time for gun owners and gun rights organizations to utilize a strategy like in sports and that is the best defense is a good offense. We keep on losing and NEVER gaining anything. Just as dangerous as red flag laws are permitless concealed carry laws. With the stroke of a politicians pen that so called no permit needed for concealed carry can vanish. Then the state, county and city officials can simply say we don’t have the resources anymore to issue permits. Notice I said “politicians” I didn’t specify political party, simply because 98% can’t be trusted whether democrats or Republicans.

  7. avatar Hannibal says:

    Judges are going to rubber stamp them the same way the rubber stamp temporary restraining orders. The thought process is… if I issue this order and I’m wrong, nothing really bad happens. But if I refuse to issue it and I’m wrong, someone might die… and I’ll be blamed.

    1. avatar gene says:

      Just like with false rape accusations, fraudulent allegations would never be prosecuted because that would deter people from submitting them. Perhaps that should be a hint that prosecution should focus more on the merit of the allegation rather than how easy it is to get a “win”… but law is about process rather than justice, and promotions are about metrics, I guess.

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

      “The thought process is… if I issue this order and I’m wrong, nothing really bad happens. But if I refuse to issue it and I’m wrong, someone might die… and I’ll be blamed.”

      And where judges are elected by the public, no judge will want to give a future opponent ammunition to use against him/her. Add to that the judges interested in a future in politics, and you have created a system where rubber-stamping will be the norm.

      This will have to squashed by the courts. The only problem is, that will take time, and folks will be deprived of their rights until those laws can be declared unconstitutional.

      This is only gonna get worse, people. If we win big in expanding gun rights with SCOTUS, the Leftists are going to the ends of the earth to declare as many people possible as prohibited persons. I foresee a future where getting into a heated argument with someone will be considered proof of not being stable enough to posses guns by the Leftists. Where a careless driving charge will be considered proof of not being responsible enough to possess guns. Let your imagination run wild with how far they can carry that…

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        ^^^^ TRUTH and a sound warning ^^^^

      2. avatar Peegeetwo says:

        All jokes aside Greta, good post. Maybe you’ll come around some day and realize how wrong you’ve been about giving the same government the rights to override your personal health care decisions.

        1. avatar Geoff "Anti-Vaxers need to be shot like the communist scum they really are" PR says:

          You’re welcome to be a disease carrier in a leper’s colony, boy. Until then, inoculation at gunpoint or the leper’s colony for you… 🙂

        2. avatar Geoffneedsdiaperchange says:

          @Geoff, You fantasize about depriving people of their rights behind a government gun, don’t you?. But you wouldn’t, you’re a keyboard coward. I’ve seen far more courage in moms Of vaccine injured children defending their children’s rights against the government and the pharmaceutical industry than any keyboard crybaby warrior like yourself pretends to have.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Hannibal,

      The thought process is… if I issue this order and I’m wrong, nothing really bad happens. But if I refuse to issue it and I’m wrong, someone might die… and I’ll be blamed.

      I agree totally with your characterization. And there is a GINORMOUS problem with that type of thinking where deprivation of rights is no big deal. Well, deprivation of rights IS a HUGE deal.

      A judge who rubber stamps a Red Flag Order is depriving the subject of that order of their inalienable right to self-defense and hence their right to life — which could literally cost them their life if a violent criminal attacks them after they are disarmed. Furthermore, that judge is depriving the subject of that order of their right to the pursuit of happiness because:
      (1) Not being able to have an effective means of self-defense is incredibly unnerving at best and downright terrifying at worst.
      (2) Not being able to have firearms also means not being able to participate in recreational activities such as hunting, target shooting, and competitive shooting — all of which are significant sources of relaxation, enjoyment, and pleasure for the participants.

      Those are ENORMOUS losses for the subject of a Red Flag Order.

      Now imagine if there were a First Amendment Red Flag Order which forbade all speech. Better safe than sorry, right? After all, not being able to speak isn’t such a big deal, right? And the subject of that First Amendment Red Flag order can have their ability to speak restored in a few weeks after a hearing. (Never mind the fact that said subject is not able to communicate and therefore cannot work, conduct business, nor petition government for redress of grievances, such as grievous errors on their property taxes or other such errors.)

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Judges and prosecutors have unqualified, absolute immunity, and that’s a major problem with the US system. There is a reason for it- if there was no immunity at all judges would be sued for every decision and no one would ever want to be one (or a prosecutor) because eventually you’d go bankrupt defending yourself. But as it stands they can do whatever they want and will never be held civilly liable.

        Many talk about the problem with police having qualified immunity but at least that immunity is broken if a cop acts sufficiently recklessly or with malice. A judge make whatever decision he wants without having to worry about being sued, even if it’s clearly against settled law and no reasonable jurist could come to it.

  8. avatar Roger J says:

    The result will be more lying and more passionate lying.

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

      I remember being told no woman would ever lie about being raped…

      1. avatar Lt Gov Justin Fairfax says:

        This is TRUE! #METOO

        Oh wait…

        1. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Wry, very wry.

          Nicely done.

  9. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    If anyone believes that they won’t be signed en masse I have a FISA warrant with your name on it.

  10. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    So how exactly do the police go about serving these ‘extreme risk protection orders’? Do two cops come and knock on your door at 3:30 in the afternoon and politely serve the order or do 20 cops bust your door in at 3:30am in full SWAT gear, throwing flash-bangs around to wake you up? Any LEOs around here care to enlighten me as to how they’d prefer to serve such a warrant in which a person is ruled by a court of law to be a dangerous person with guns?

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Won’t be the last time.

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

          Probably pull someone over away from home would be safest for the cops…

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Problem with that is it requires the cops to stake out the house until the person leaves which could take days. I’m thinking most cops would rather suit up, lock and load and bust some doors down.

      2. avatar LifeSavor says:

        So, it seems that when the LEO’s show up at your door to enforce one of these unconstitutional red flag orders, your options are:

        1. Give them your guns.
        2. Resist: which could end in your death or the death of the LEOs.

        The media will use Option 2 to proclaim how dangerous you were and to justify the red flag action.
        Option 1 keeps everyone alive but reinforces the unconstitutional action.

        The only good outcome will be in fighting the red flag laws until they are abolished.

        1. avatar Geoff "Anti-Vaxers need to be shot like the communist scum they really are" PR says:

          Option 3 – Never store all your defensive weapons at home…

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Depends on what they feel like doing. They can send you a letter to turn in your guns to the local PD or they can come to your house in the manner they want to take them. They are likely to send you a letter and wait to see if you turn them in before the due date. If you don’t turn them in you are now in violation of the law and they will come to get you or the guns. If you get access to guns after the order was served you will be charged with a crime and imprisoned. Then you won’t have a chance getting back your rights. Depending on the law you may also lose your voting rights and get a strike on your record.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Depends on the department and if someone in a leadership position really wants to play commando instead of acting prudently. We saw how that worked out at Waco.

  11. avatar Peegeetwo says:

    This story deserves a good “I don’t always break the Oath to follow the Constitution that I I swore to Abide by, but when I do I…..” meme.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      PeeGeeTwo,

      I like it! Have been trying to come up with some ideas, but I am not gifted with being funny. Perhaps some of our more creative TTAG contributors….

      1. avatar Peegeetwo says:

        Lol, same, I mostly come here for the humor, some of it being intentional, much of it not intentional, making it all the more priceless!!

        1. avatar LifeSavor says:

          PeeGeeTwo,

          You planning to attend Autism One this year? We skipped last year due to work conflicts; we usually attend.

        2. avatar Peegeetwo says:

          No. Don’t know anything about it?

        3. avatar LifeSavor says:

          http://www.autismone.org/

          This is where we met and got to speak with:

          Dr. Suzanne Humphries
          Polly Tommy
          Dr. Andy Wakefield
          Dr. Brian Hooker
          Dr. Marco Ruggiero
          Dr. Chris Shade
          Del Bigtree

          And many more researchers and advocates. Always the most current research.
          Has been a great help in bringing our daughter to full recovery (with a few residual boo-boos).

        4. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Very sad, painful.
          I’ve met too many families like that.

        5. avatar LifeSavor says:

          The path to a cure for my daughter is what led me to understand that I can only rely on myself to defend my family and, hence, my embrace of the 2A.

        6. avatar Peegeetwo says:

          Chelation?

        7. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Several chelation protocols, alternating. Elimination of ALL allergens, curing gut disbiosys, clear detox pathways, much more. Complex. Hired a few pioneering medical folk to help. Took years, but it worked; no one who know her would believe she had ever been profoundly autistic

          My “LifeSavor” handle is on Linkedin if you would like details.

  12. avatar possum, and the "Coons of Doom" says:

    I don’t think a judge could turn down a red flag request. If he did and it all went to shit that judge could be in trouble. Is what I think

  13. avatar David Bradford says:

    Red Flag laws scare the crap out of me because you are instantly guilty and without recourse by a simple accusation. I know from personal experience that false accusations will be made as long as there is no real downside to making them.

    35 years ago, while going through the divorce from my first wife, I was to have custody of our daughter for the summer. My estranged wife and daughter were living at my parents home at the time . When I arrived to collect my child my parents were not home and my daughter was not packed to leave. While alone with my daughter in her room packing her bag for the summer stay I was interrupted by 2 police officers and placed in handcuffs. The soon to be ex-wife had decided that she did not like the custody arrangement and had called the police and told them that I had raped her. The cops told her that they would not hold me unless she went to the hospital and had a rape test done. So she called an ambulance to take her and my daughter off to the hospital. Once they had left the officers let me out of the cruiser and removed the cuffs. They told me not to show up at the hospital or return alone again or I would be arrested. Although it was all a lie and nothing had happened , to save face she went through with the rape testing. No charges were ever filed (because nothing had happened) and I eventually got my summer visitation with my daughter. There were NO repercussions for the false accusation, and to add insult to injury, I had to pay out of my pocket for the ambulance and hospital bills.

    This kind of shit goes on every day and Red Flags will just be another tool in the arsenal for vindictive people. The real problem is that there is no way to fight this. You will be punished, guilty or not and no amount of legal battle will remove the mark and restore your good name. You will forever be suspect even if you do win your rights back.

    1. avatar Thomas says:

      Can the Red Flag Law be used against a Radical Socialist / Communist 2nd Amendment hating Democrat such as the authors of the law? Probably not. The Red Flag Law is the easiest way to have firearms confiscated from a law abiding citizen I know of. Anyone that wants to settle an old score with you can call authorities and make accusations that you threatened them while waving a firearm. Your word against him or her. Just to be on the safe side your guns will be confiscated until investigation is over. Sort of like Guilty until proven innocent.

  14. avatar Anthony Thomas says:

    A lot of arguments about ERPOs/Red Flag Laws come up because of the Parkland shooting and that Cruz kid.

    The point to the fact that he threw up so many red flags that people should have had the means to act before he could have done what he did.

    From what I understand, he had already broken several laws well before that (documented), and if the school district and local LEOs actually prosecuted him for the crimes he had already committed at that point, he would be probably locked up or receiving mental help or something by then and at least had some level of appropriate due-process allowing the removal of his rights.

    But, ya know, enforcing existing laws and living up to the standards they outline is just so hard, especially when you don’t want to hurt the school district’s bottom line by skewing the statistics.

    1. avatar Robert Messmer says:

      You are right since it occurred in Florida. Florida has and has had for many years the Baker Act which allows for the involuntary commitment for mental observation/treatment.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      It started out as a failure on part of the police and school district and morphed into more gun laws and a brand new way to disarm the ones you don’t like.

  15. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    Quote: “…not inclined to question because they worry about the potentially deadly consequences of rejecting petitions.” Total nonsense! Judges never consider the potentially deadly consequences of any thing they do. If they did, fewer rapists, murderers, and terrorists would be running free in our country. When is the last time you heard of a judge sent to jail for allowing someone free who then committed a murder?

    1. avatar Hush says:

      Relative to red flag laws:
      Might be a good idea to carry concealed, so others don’t know you carry. Don’t even talk about guna to friends or family. Buy a cheap boat and park it where all can see it. In short, be quiet about what you have, they don’t need to know anyway and what they do know could hurt You!

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        At last, someone gets it.

        This should have been POTG‘s MO from the very beginning.

  16. avatar strych9 says:

    I think it’s going to depend heavily on exact location.

    Judges in places like Boulder and Denver counties will sign these orders like Bruce Lee, with a quickness. Other areas, like Weld, Las Animas, Larimer or Logan will almost certainly be far, far more circumspect about issuing the order in the first place.

    The kind of place that would scare me is a place like Jefferson or Arapahoe county which are kinda on the same wavelength but on opposite ends of the spectrum.

    JeffCo is a place where they’d probably be less apt to sign the order in the first place but based on the way the county operates it’s LE, well, once it’s actually is signed the enforcement will probably be ruthless and disturbingly effective.

    Arapahoe might be the most frightening. They will probably not be particularly circumspect about issuing the orders and they will try to enforce them like Jeffco but probably with notably less efficiency/competence. The problem is that Arapahoe doesn’t have the funding or, really, the level of professional LE that Jeffco produces. Arapahoe will rely heavily on Aurora PD, one of the most unprofessional LE organizations I’ve ever come across. That’s not going to end well. That’s going to be a bunch of idiots with high-end tactical gear kicking doors simply because they can.

    Overall I don’t expect the law to last *that long*. Certain localities and counties will allow blatant abuse that violates the State Constitution and the courts here are actually pretty good about keeping the state in line about things like this.

    I therefore predict that in the next 18-24 months the ERPO law dies in court alongside the Boulder AWB.

  17. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    If you’re going to abuse it do it to gun owning anti-2nd amendment politicians.

  18. avatar Sam Hill says:

    The shame of it is, the how many people get screwed, in that 18 to 24 months.
    There must be some way under the constitution and/or legal system an unconstitutional law can be resisted without it becoming a life or death situation for le’s or the resister.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “There must be some way under the constitution and/or legal system an unconstitutional law can be resisted without it becoming a life or death situation for le’s or the resister.”

      That would be “A educated and restrained electorate”. Good luck with that.

  19. avatar Chuck says:

    As one of those Coloradoans now under the onus of this Unconstitutional Legislation, I’ve spent the last few months removing myself from any and all social media accounts. I’ll most likely refrain from commenting much here on this site from here on out, lest something I say be misconstrued as a threat to myself or others. I’m sure my opinions count for naught, but I did enjoy reading other’s comments and occasionaly comenting myself. Alas, this to must pass as all things eventually do. The SociaCommunoFascistDemocrats have the State and it will soon be just another Branch Office of the People’s Republic of California. Whether we survive the coming onslaught remains to be seen, but if my life must end, I pray it’s in a pile of spent brass. Sic Semper Tyrannus and God Bless you all.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      1/5/2020 could be the day you admitted defeat and went home with your tail between your legs. Don’t let it be so.

      Buck up, brother. I’m at UCB, yes, BOULDER every day and I assure you of the following: The sky is still above us and the Earth still below. The world has not ended and the time for retreat is not at hand.

      “In every battle there comes a time when both sides consider themselves beaten; then he who continues the attack wins.”
      – General Ulysses S. Grant

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      You could just continue to comment anonymously. If you aren’t using a VPN and other basic web security tools, you probably should be. One of them is to separate your personal life from online activities like this such that people from one cannot identify you in the other.

      My name isn’t actually Hannibal, for example.

  20. avatar HoundDogDave says:

    It has been quite some time since I talked about how I plan to deal with having my weapons and ammo confiscated. I have yet to complete all the steps (clerical tasks) required but most has been done.

    If you have at least one person that does not live under the same roof as you, that you would fully trust to hold your guns for you if you ever found yourself the victim of an ERPO or otherwise deemed a prohibited person, you can make sure that this person will end up with all your property. Put everything into a “GUN TRUST” and add that person as a Trustee. The Trust then owns the items and not you personally. Any trustee has the right to take possession, If at any point you are no longer allowed to own or posses guns the possession transfers to the other member(s) of the Trust. It won’t protect you from being victimized but it will save you property from being confiscated. They may be successful in removing your guns from you, but they won’t be able to keep them from their legal owner.

    Here is a bit of info on the ins and outs.
    https://nfalawyers.com/two-years-after-41f-are-gun-trusts-still-worth-it/

  21. avatar Phil Wilson says:

    I guess if 2nd, 3rd, or even higher order hearsay is now considered more credible than direct observation, then laws with less protection for individuals protect individuals better than laws with more protections.

    And neither proposition even comes close to the top 5 absurdities I’ve heard over the last year.

    Screw you, leftists. I’m immune to your pathetic attempts at gaslighting.

    1. avatar Sam Hill says:

      If I asked you what equals 4 you’d probably answer 2 plus 2. Ask the same of a new age politician the answers would be ; 5 minus 1, 2plus3minus1,6minus2, never the simplest, straightforward way. But they get elected, don’t say much about the voters, in mho.

  22. avatar Robert Wyman says:

    The fact that The Constitution is completely ignored and The Bill of Rights is a part of that Constitution is enough to make this article pointless and every word in it useless.
    Those in government right now should not be near an elected office let alone in one. There is not much more they can do until things disintegrate and America is finished. Militaristic police and most have M16s in their vehicles with SWAT teams everywhere, and over 2 million citizens in prisons, the DOJ has been corrupt since at least George Bush, The Colorado State Patrol is corrupt and they all have M16s as well plus they can carry concealed after retirement without permit. Courts are tyrannical and have qualified immunity and only the wealthy get justice.
    If you are Red Flagged then that stigma will haunt you for life, no matter what the outcome you will not get your weapons back. This is a law that the Framers would not have even considered for a minute. The Bill of Rights is all you had and you people let it all slip away, it is gone and only a miracle or re-seating of government will bring it back. You are in more danger now than ever and not from criminals on the street but those in government.

Leave a Reply to Prndll Cancel reply

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

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