Colorado "Red Flag" bill is very bad

[HiBC]

At this point both houses of the State Legislature and the Governor of Colorado are under the control of the Dems,and they have an aggressive agenda.

Guns are on the agenda. I just searched for updates on this bill and did not find much. I think it has passed House and Senate and is awating Governor Signature,but I can't back that up.I'm not sure. I think it will become law.


It provides the means for any anonymous person to make the case to a judge that you present the undefined criteria of "significant risk" to yourself or others.

Realize a vengeful ex,a political conversation over Thanksgiving,or,consider a person with ill intent wants to disarm a person before an attack..On just that anonymous testimony to a judge,without due process,without investigation,without warning,police will arrive at your home to sieze all of your guns,and your carry permit. Your carry permit is voided, you must re-apply.

Here is source:

http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1177

OK. My question: Likely,once someone is busted and its the right test case,this law will be challenged. The battle will cost money.

Does it make sense to pre-emptively build a war chest of money for the fight? Like a "Legal Defense fund" or Go-Fund Me ?

For a Colorado state law battle I'd like to know which organization can put up the best legal fight specific to this bill in Colorado. I'll send $ but I want to be sure they go to the target.

Thoughts?

 

[Tom Servo]

It provides the means for any anonymous person to make the case to a judge that you present the undefined criteria of "significant risk" to yourself or others.

While I don't like the idea of these, the Colorado bill seems to have *some* safeguards:

The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist.

 

[zukiphile]

These laws are drafted by people who at best don't understand how courts work, and at worst don't care how courts work.

Ohio has these too. The petitioner isn't anonymous, but the initial hearing on the petition is ex parte, meaning that the respondent is not present. The problem comes in the form of the burden of proof.

The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others ...

How does a petitioner appear ex parte and fail to produce a mere proponderence of evidence (50.1% or better evidence in his favor)?

The fear in some parts of the judiciary is that a criminal gang will file for a protective order against a target so the target, perhaps a witness in a criminal case, is defenseless during his assassination.

The form order approved by the Oh Sup Ct contains language that deprives the non-present respondent of his 2d Am. rights, so even if the petition isn't gun related, a judge has to specifically alter the form for each case so as to not deprive those rights.

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

And, of course, when the police arrive to confiscate your guns due to an anonymous complaint from a person with a vendetta they will take your pristine collectors items out of your safe, toss them in a pile like cordwood, toss them in the trunk of a car and then maybe even engrave them with an inventory number (Chicago used to do this). When you get them back their value will be destroyed.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It sometimes is the case that the state organizations are very effective. That is the case in Texas.

 

[USNRet93]

I think a review of the first 2 paragraphs of the actual bill is in order..Not sure where you got the anonymous part and a 'argument over thanksgiving'...'might' be a little more involved than that.

On just that anonymous testimony to a judge,without due process,without investigation

Nope... not accurate at all.

After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 14 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. The court shall appoint counsel to represent the respondent at the hearing. If a family or household member or a law enforcement officer establishes by clear and convincing evidence

The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.

And, of course, when the police arrive to confiscate your guns due to an anonymous complaint

A little research goes a long way..Is it perfect, nope but I don't envision a bunch of black shirts confiscating a bunch of guns either.

http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1177

Look, as a resident of CO and a CCWP holder and gun enthusiast, do I think this, as written, will see some legal bumps and pushback. But starting a go-fund program 'just in case the black shirts come calling', 'might' be a little 'sky is falling' response.

We'll see but this is being driven by

Rep. Tom Sullivan (D), whose son was killed in the Aurora theater shooting

Holmes was identified as a 'problem', as was Cruz and others..NOT justifying anything before 'some' get all agro...but this is where this is coming from. Grief is a powerful motivator..as is anger.

 

[davidsog]

The Tarasoff case established rules and expectations that if a therapist were aware of a patient making serious, imminent threats towards an identifiable individual, the therapist was responsible to notify not only the authorities, but to make an effort to notify that potential victim as well.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201408/the-death-therapeutic-confidentiality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasoff_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California

We need to get better at identifying mental illness without compromising presumption of innocence or due process.

 

[zukiphile]

Nope... not accurate at all.

While the petition is not anonymous, it is ex parte, with no filing fee, no bond, and no information from the respondent. Courts don't investigate, they adduce evidence, and in this same day hearing on the TRO all of the evidence comes from the petitioner. Where immediate revocation of one's rights are the issue, that's pretty thin process.

 

[HiBC]

Quote:
After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 14 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. The court shall appoint counsel to represent the respondent at the hearing. If a family or household member or a law enforcement officer establishes by clear and convincing evidence

The issuance of that initial temporary ERPO means your guns are being seized immediately. You will receive no warning. I would expect the LEO's stuck with this job will use surprise and overwhelming force for their own safety I would. Yur concealed permit is seized and voided.

After 14 days,you may plead your case for the return of the guns,burden of proof on you.If that is denied,after 364 days you can try again.

True,maybe just wearing a MAGA hat might not convince the judge,but if you are naïve enough to think unfounded accusations cannot and will not be fabricated to abuse gun owners,I suggest you review what happened in the United States Senate during the Justice Kavanaugh hearings.

USN ret93:
Wearing a MAGA hat certainly can inspire people to harm you .There are plenty of people who believe everyone shoud be disarmed. They are common in Boulder. Wasn't one of Kavannagh's accusers from Boulder? She recanted her story? All they have to do is make up a story the Judge gives the benefit of the doubt.

Grief is a powerful motivator..as is anger.

I certainly can.and do feel empathy for the grief,pain,and anger a man feels from having his Son murdered.

I have not lost a Son.My Brother's Son was shot in the back of the head,executed,then burned by a couple of urban maggot thugs.

But Grief and Anger write damned poor law. I have not said anything bad about Lawmaker Sullivan. I don't want his law.

 

[44 AMP]

While I understand the desire to remove weapons from dangerous people, isn't the automatic voiding of your CCW permit a vindictive punishment, taking place before any judgement or presentation of evidence on your behalf??

Suspending the permit, pending investigation I could understand, but automatically voiding it?

If you plead and win your case, do you still have to sue to "be made whole"?

Do you sue the state? Or the person who filed the complaint? Both?

If the police, for their own safety, are going to use overwhelming force, and swat raid tactics, on unsuspecting people, I see a huge potential for people getting shot and killed. I fear this would create the very risk the law intends to prevent.

I would point out the recent case where a fellow was "pranked" by an internet enemy, sending swat to his house, who wound up killing him...


There is a significant history of innocent people being accidently killed in these kinds of raids. I don't see any law increasing this kind of thing as a good thing.

 

[riffraff]

A couple things that bug me about these non criminal provisions empowering police in general. ..

#1 what if you aren't home? Do they kick in the door and cut your safes open to search for guns? Who pays for the damages?

#2 what if you are home, you comply and allow them into the house, and then you excercise your right to decline questioning - is that a crime all the sudden?

#3 then just generally - if the police are given authority to force entry, to use force in order to carry out these acts, it is potentially putting everyone involved in danger over what doesn't even amount to a criminal investigation. Even putting aside the situation of police busting down the door at night trying to surprise a gun owner, what if you own a protective dog? Lots of bad things happen when you go breaking into someone's home, even if it's a level headed model citizen.

 

[armoredman]

No matter what "tripwires" or "safeguards" are built in the Red Flag law is designed to do one thing and one thing only - stop law abiding gun owners from being gun owners. Period. Any 'safeguards" they put in can and will be removed later on by "technical correction" legislation if they maintain the majority. Do you have total registration and UBCs yet? You will. We are fighting this same thing down here in what was the safest firearms law state in the Union. These laws, from my non lawyer standpoint, seem to violate the 2nd, 4th, 5th 8th and 14th Amendments all at once.
As for this

The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist.

I know gangs that have "clean" people who would do things like this just to make sure a target was disarmed. They would know the "legals' would be easy, as they wouldn't keep one hidden "just in case".
Next will come the attempt to Red Flag cops, prosecutors and judges - don't think these scumbags won't use every trick they can get - this is a giant toy bag handed over. Then will the law be changed to exempt LE and officers of the court, to lay bare the hypocrisy?
Red Dawn, er, "Flag" laws are the straw that breaks the camels back. I am aware that i sound paranoid, but having dealt with the worst of the worst for years, there is no tol they will not sue, and they will figure out a way to use this one to disarm good people, as well as crooked politicians who will use it for the very same thing.
"It is not what a law is meant to do, but what it may be twisted to do."

 

[USNRet93]

True,maybe just wearing a MAGA hat might not convince the judge,but if you are naïve enough to think unfounded accusations cannot and will not be fabricated to abuse gun owners,I suggest you review what happened in the United States Senate during the Justice Kavanaugh hearings.

Apples and kumquats..I hear Obama isn't a US citizen too...

Wearing a MAGA hat certainly can inspire people to harm you .There are plenty of people who believe everyone should be disarmed. They are common in Boulder. Wasn't one of Kavannagh's accusers from Boulder? She recanted her story? All they have to do is make up a story the Judge gives the benefit of the doubt.

Really? Do you live in Boulder?...as this thing drifts to slamming the place I have lived, with guns, for almost 30 years. Didja know Boulder has easier open carry laws than Denver? Like OpenCarry is legal in Boulder, but not Denver? Do you know how many Boulder County residents have a CCWP? Maybe a little sitdown with a LEO(I know 3, 2 Boulder city and one county deputy) and they don't see Boulder as a center for disarming people. But to drift this thing from the RedFlag law at the state level to this BS about Kavanaugh is laughable. BTW-ONE recanted and probably 6-8 did not.

The issuance of that initial temporary ERPO means your guns are being seized immediately. You will receive no warning. I would expect the LEO's stuck with this job will use surprise and overwhelming force for their own safety I would. Your concealed permit is seized and voided.

Not true and full of 'sky is falling' hysteria.

BUT, for the people above..this WILL become a law in Colorado..and if you feel YUGELY threatened, then make preparations, both legally and financially. For ME, this has no effect on me..and I'll wait until it sees the light of day.

Kavanaugh and Boulder..forehead slap.

 

[zukiphile]

The issuance of that initial temporary ERPO means your guns are being seized immediately. You will receive no warning. I would expect the LEO's stuck with this job will use surprise and overwhelming force for their own safety I would. Your concealed permit is seized and voided.

Not true and full of 'sky is falling' hysteria.

HiBC is correct in noting that the seizure will be immediate and without prior notice to the gun owner. Moreover, even if the petition is ultimately found to lack merit, one's concealed carry permit is not re-instated, but remains revoked. The respondent to a bad petition still has to re-apply for a new permit.

Where the basis of a restraining order is that the respondent is an armed and immediate threat, there is no hysteria in foreseeing POs enforcing these orders as if the respondents are armed threats.

 

[thallub]

It provides the means for any anonymous person to make the case to a judge that you present the undefined criteria of "significant risk" to yourself or others.

Where did that come from?

Realize a vengeful ex,a political conversation over Thanksgiving,or,consider a person with ill intent wants to disarm a person before an attack..On just that anonymous testimony to a judge,without due process,without investigation,without warning,police will arrive at your home to sieze all of your guns,and your carry permit. Your carry permit is voided, you must re-apply.

Malarky!!!

The bill summary states:

The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO).

IMO: sufficient safeguards are built into the proposed legislation.

 

[USNRet93]

While the petition is not anonymous, it is ex parte, with no filing fee, no bond, and no information from the respondent

BUT the way HiBC tells it, I could call in a dime on HIM, anonymously, even tho I don't know him and the SWAT team would arrive, black shirts and all..at 2am the next morning.

Where the basis of a restraining order is that the respondent is an armed and immediate threat, there is no hysteria in foreseeing POs enforcing these orders as if the respondents are armed threats.

That may be true but again, the SWAT team, complete with big black USArmy surplus vehicle, in the middle of the night, destroying the person's home and them slamming him around to be marched away in jammies an handcuffs..=misplaced hysteria, IMHO.

This thing hasn't even come up for a vote.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/02/21/colorado-red-flag-gun-bill-testimony/

 

[HiBC]

I've lived just north of Boulder for over 50 years. It is the epicenter for a certain politic in Colorado.

Your scoffing and ridicule of my reference to the Kavanagh hearings is classic Sol Alynski. I recognize it. I give it no power.It just tells me who I'm dealing with.

I'd like for you to stop with the dismissive comments like "The sky is falling"

Plenty of folks watched that unfortunate circus with their own eyes. They can make up their own minds.

In the news today is the guy who allegedly wrote a check to pay two men to represent themselves as "MAGA",beat him,put a noose around his neck,etc.

People do fabricate "I'm a victim" scenarios to serve their own agendas.

If it can appear in the US Senate to disrupt a SCOTUS nomination,it can happen to you via this bill.

Angry divorces,HOA squabbles,or,as mentioned above,criminals who want to render a residence a gun-free zone are examples of people who will have the power to target and disarm an innocent gun owner.

This bill is being sold as a "mental health bill" .That is a lie. There is not a word about mental health in the bill. Its a gun confiscation bill.

I just listened to a County Sheriff and a State Legislator confirm its the bad bill I say it is

 

[USNRet93]

No matter what "tripwires" or "safeguards" are built in the Red Flag law is designed to do one thing and one thing only - stop law abiding gun owners from being gun owners.

“I have to tell you that this is a strange day for me. Today would have been Zach Parrish’s 31st birthday,” Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock told the House Judiciary Committee during testimony in support of the bill.

Spurlock’s deputy, Zackari Parrish, was shot and killed by Matthew Riehl at a Highlands Ranch apartment complex in December 2017 after trying to negotiate with Riehl, who was in the midst of a mental health crisis. Spurlock told the committee he believes Parrish would be alive today had this law been in effect back in 2017. His deputies knew Riehl was spiraling out of control for weeks.

With or without amendments Kelly Murphy, whose brother is serving a life sentence after he shot his wife and killed his neighbor during what she described as a delusional episode, said this law could have helped her family intervene before that shooting happened.

“We had no way to intervene. His poor wife was waiting until he was crazy enough to call 911 … ,” Murphy said. “I have had talks with my brother in prison. He’s told me he wishes to God there was something someone could have done to have stopped it from happening.”

Not exactly 'one thing and one thing only'...unless you think people like Cruz, Holmes and D. Roof, etc. were the 'law abiding gun owners'...and then the result is the price you pay for 2nd amendment rights(?)...

 

[zukiphile]

Whether the text has come up for a vote doesn't bear on whether it provides notice prior to seizure or sufficiently protects a respondent's rights.

IMO: sufficient safeguards are built into the proposed legislation

What part of the legislation prevents a vengeful girlfriend with whom you've had a child, but resents your continuing marriage to your wife, from filing a petition alleging that you are unstable, dangerous, and armed, then telling the judge that same day everything she needs to allege in order to have the temporary order granted, your arms taken while the order is served on you, and your concealed carry license revoked, not suspended?

 

[zukiphile]

This bill is being sold as a "mental health bill" .That is a lie. There is not a word about mental health in the bill. Its a gun confiscation bill.

There is a portion of the text that requires the court to consider whether the respondent requires evaluation for involuntary commitment. That's worse or better than omitting that, depending on the case. It may mean that a petitioner falsely claims you should be committed so you can suffer through a psychiatric evaluation too.

(7) DURING THE HEARING, THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER ANY20 AVAILABLE MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION OR CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY21 EVALUATION PROVIDED TO THE COURT.22 (8) (a) BEFORE ISSUING AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE23 COURT SHALL CONSIDER WHETHER THE RESPONDENT MEETS THE24 STANDARD FOR A COURT-ORDERED EVALUATION FOR PERSONS WITH25 MENTAL HEALTH DISORDERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-65-106. IF THE26 COURT DETERMINES THAT THE RESPONDENT MEETS THE STANDARD, THEN,27
HB19-1177-13
IN ADDITION TO ISSUING AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE1 COURT SHALL ORDER MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT AND EVALUATION2 AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-65-106 (6).3 (b) BEFORE ISSUING AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE4 COURT SHALL CONSIDER WHETHER THE RESPONDENT MEETS THE5 STANDARD FOR AN EMERGENCY COMMITMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION6 27-81-111 OR 27-82-107. IF THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE7 RESPONDENT MEETS THE STANDARD, THEN, IN ADDITION TO ISSUING AN8 EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE COURT SHALL ORDER AN9 EMERGENCY COMMITMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-81-111 OR10 27-82-107.