Colorado Enacts Red Flag Law

First test of the 'red flag' law in Colorado?
Click to expand...

Possibly.

As far as I can tell, she has broken no laws..although not sure how, as a non CO resident, she bought a shotgun in Littleton(CO)..
Click to expand...

You can legally purchase a long gun out of your home state so long as you abide by the laws of both states. It is probably increasingly rare for many gun shops to conduct ANY out of state sales as keeping track of the myriad of laws in other states is a daunting task.

I've also read several articles and all of them state that she has "made threats and was considered armed and extremely dangerous." Admittedly no article I've read had any specific details of what threats were made. If direct threats were made to a school, I would think that should be covered under law. It's a felony in my state to threaten mass violence on educational property. I would hope every other state had a similar law.
 
Good land. My first (careless) reading of your post led me to believe this happened to you personally. Glad it did not. Still a VERY troubling situation.

I found the following interesting:
The next week he was allowed to recover his property.
Click to expand...

I just found out a few weeks ago that the St. Paul, Minnesota Police routinely held firearms for THREE YEARS if it was found the guns were NOT involved in any criminal activities. If they did have a criminal history then all bets were off.

Because of a law suit the St. Paul Minnesota Police will now only hold guns for six months.

https://www.twincities.com/2019/04/...ermits-say-police-delayed-returning-firearms/
 
5whiskey said:
Possibly.



You can legally purchase a long gun out of your home state so long as you abide by the laws of both states. It is probably increasingly rare for many gun shops to conduct ANY out of state sales as keeping track of the myriad of laws in other states is a daunting task.

I've also read several articles and all of them state that she has "made threats and was considered armed and extremely dangerous." Admittedly no article I've read had any specific details of what threats were made. If direct threats were made to a school, I would think that should be covered under law. It's a felony in my state to threaten mass violence on educational property. I would hope every other state had a similar law.
Click to expand...
Florida law says 21 YO for all gun(and shotgun) purchases..she was 18YO BUT OBE, she was found with a 'self inflicted' wound, presumably a suicide.
 
This 18 yr old would have been born 2 yrs after Columbine,but allegedly demonstrated a fascination with Columbine on social media. When she flew to Colorado for the 20th anniversary of the Columbine shootings and bought a shotgun,this time,for once,the ball did not get dropped.

But I don't see how this case has anything to do with the Red Flag law.


Unofficially,from radio,the best info I have:

She bought the shotgun and got an Uber ride ride to Mount Evans. Drones with thermal imaging found her,then indicated the threat was likely over that night.
She was found in the woods nude with an apparently self inflicted wound,deceased in the morning.

The State and media are trying to pose this sad story as some political victory.

Its just not,and IMO,only someone blinded by political ideology would present this death as a political victory. The Red Flag law accomplished nothing.

Now,consider the wisdom and politics of this. Approximately 1000 schools in the state were closed for the day,with parents given essentially no notice.
A half a million kids had no school to go to.

Essentially the State told all the parents and students "We and our SRO's are powerless to keep you safe from a 5 ft 5 in skinny 18 yr old girl with a shotgun. You are on your own"

Its a massive bunch of political and media BS.


Not a particularly interesting article,but it backs up my claim about 1000 schools and a half million kids.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/...hools/73-1dcd2d07-1559-442f-815a-f1d5b1a13618
 
Last edited:
Please post a link to the text of the law. From what I have read in articles, many posts have the burden of proof backwards. Zukiphile appears to have it right. At the two week hearing, meaning the one at which the gun owner first has an opportunity to be heard, the burden of proof is on the person who petitioned for the seizure (the "Petitioner). The gun owner (the "Respondent") need not prove a thing. , but depending on the facts it would probably be smart to offer evidence to rebut the Petitioner's assertions. The continuing order is not to be granted unless the court finds by "clear and convincing" evidence that the accusations is true.
 
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1177

I have trouble imagining what it would be like for a layman to figure out how this works from reading the text of the bill.

There's a scene in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly in which Eli Wallach makes a pistol from pieces and parts of the other pistols in the gun shop case; he uses existing components to get the product he wants. This law is like Tuco's pistol. The legislature built what they wanted from concepts familiar from other areas of law. It's easy to lose one's way in reading this thing if assimilating lots of new information.

The burden of proof is at all times in this process on the petitioner. Of course, if it's just the petitioner and the judge in the room, we expect the petitioner to carry that burden. If the respondent is in the room and doesn't say a word, does the Petitioner's evidence seem clear and convincing? It very well may, even if the petitioner's testimony is entirely erroneous. Unchallenged testimony can be clear and convincing evidence. Even in a criminal matter, one in which the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense will challenge the state's witnesses.

The respondent has no burden of proof whatsoever. Yet apart from any legal argot, one who has been accused of being a danger to himself and others (crazy and dangerous) and unfit to possess arms has both an interest and a burden to show that the accusation is false.
 
I'll have to dredge up my state's red flag law. I'm fairly certain that at the 2-week, post-seizure hearing here the burden of proof lies with the poor schmuck (or schmuckette) whose guns were taken away to show convincing evidence of why they (the guns) should be returned.
 
Thanks zukiphile. I had that page but didn't see that I could get the actual text by clicking the button at the bottom.

The burden of proof is clearly on the Petitioner. The Respondent gun owner need not offer any evidence or even dispute the evidence offered by the Petitioner, but like zukiphile says that may be unwise.

I know the Colorado law is hard to swallow, but it better than the Red Flag law that California was considering but didn't pass. At your ex parte hearing the court has to find "probable cause" of the existence of a significant risk. The gun haters in California tried to enact one that allowed them to be seized if t merely a "reasonable suspicion" was found.
 
Interesting that Illinois law has some specifics of what might be evidence of respondent being a danger to himself or others.

It is getting to the point where I am wanting to carry a voice recorder on
myself 24/7.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=100-0607

e) In determining whether to issue a firearms restraining
order under this Section, the court shall consider evidence
including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) The unlawful and reckless use, display, or
brandishing of a firearm by the respondent.
(2) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened
use of physical force by the respondent against another
person.
(3) Any prior arrest of the respondent for a felony
offense.
(4) Evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or
alcohol by the respondent.
(5) A recent threat of violence or act of violence by
the respondent directed toward himself, herself, or
another.
(6) A violation of an emergency order of protection
issued under Section 217 of the Illinois Domestic Violence
Act of 1986 or Section 112A-17 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure of 1963 or of an order of protection issued under
Section 214 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986
or Section 112A-14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
1963.
(7) A pattern of violent acts or violent threats,
including, but not limited to, threats of violence or acts
of violence by the respondent directed toward himself,
herself, or another.
(f) At the hearing, the petitioner shall have the burden of
proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent
poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself,
herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control,
purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm.


Section 45. Termination and renewal.
(a) A person subject to a firearms restraining order issued
under this Act may submit one written request at any time
during the effective period of the order for a hearing to
terminate the order.
(1) The respondent shall have the burden of proving by
a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent does
not pose a danger of causing personal injury to himself,
herself, or another in the near future by having in his or
her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or
receiving a firearm.
(2) If the court finds after the hearing that the
respondent has met his or her burden, the court shall
terminate the order.
Click to expand...
 
that seems pretty straightforward, and explained better than many statutes, HOWEVER

(3) Any prior arrest of the respondent for a felony
offense.
Click to expand...

THIS gives me heartburn. An arrest is not proof of anything other than the police arrested you. If the statute said "conviction" that would be different.

So, if you were arrested for felony stupid 25 years ago, and the case was dropped, you're still a risk today?? Seems like the kind of hole innocent people could fall into...
 
THIS gives me heartburn. An arrest is not proof of anything other than the police arrested you. If the statute said "conviction" that would be different.

So, if you were arrested for felony stupid 25 years ago, and the case was dropped, you're still a risk today?? Seems like the kind of hole innocent people could fall into...
Click to expand...
"If it saves ONE life ..."
 
44 AMP said:
that seems pretty straightforward, and explained better than many statutes, HOWEVER



THIS gives me heartburn. An arrest is not proof of anything other than the police arrested you. If the statute said "conviction" that would be different.

So, if you were arrested for felony stupid 25 years ago, and the case was dropped, you're still a risk today?? Seems like the kind of hole innocent people could fall into...
Click to expand...
Great point and one reason why one might want a lawyer with them for their day in court to hopefully prove they are not the threat that they were claimed to be.
 
44_AMP said:
How about
"if it COSTS one life...."
??????
Click to expand...
The liberal, gun grabber attitude encompasses that as collateral damage. If it's a gun owner who gets killed when the SWAT team raids his home with a no-knock warrant at oh-dark-thirty and he gets killed because he thinks he's defending against a home invasion (which, of course, he is) ... well, he's just a redneck deplorable, so no great loss. If he hadn't owned all those icky GUNZ!, it wouldn't have happened.

If it's a police officer who gets killed serving an unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional order ... well, that's what cops get paid for, and he knew the risks when he signed up.

In their twisted minds, the gun grabbers have it all figured out.
 
The confusion as to who has the burden of proof may stem from confusing different hearings. The burden of proof indeed lies with the respondent to establish by clear and convincing that they no longer pose a significant risk in order to terminate a previously issued extreme risk protection order. However, the burden is on the petitioner at the hearing seeking issuance of the order.

Think of it this way.

Hearing 1 is ex parte. Petitioner has burden of proving probable cause for issuance of a temporary order.

Hearing 2. Petitioner has burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence for a one year order. [actually 364 days but who is counting]

Hearing 3. During the term of the order the respondent seeking to terminate the extreme risk protective order the burden shifts to the respondent to show by C&C evidence that they no longer pose a significant risk.

Renewal Hearings. Should the petitioner move to renew an expiring termination order, it will be renewed if there be C&C evidence of a continuing risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top