No, it was thrown out by the judge..the ? is whether or not she will be prosecuted for perjury.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Red Flag Law Case thrown out (Colorado)-abuse of the law?
- Thread starter DaleA
- Start date
Colorado Redneck
New member
There is an arrest warrent for the woman that filed a "red flag" on the policeman in Colorado.
"Perjury charge filed against woman who tried to have CSU officer’s weapons confiscated – FOX31 Denver" https://kdvr.com/2020/01/30/perjury...to-have-csu-officers-weapons-confiscated/amp/
"Perjury charge filed against woman who tried to have CSU officer’s weapons confiscated – FOX31 Denver" https://kdvr.com/2020/01/30/perjury...to-have-csu-officers-weapons-confiscated/amp/
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It's about time.Colorado Redneck said:There is an arrest warrent for the woman that filed a "red flag" on the policeman in Colorado.
She's gone to ground tho..hope they find her..There is an arrest warrent for the woman that filed a "red flag" on the policeman in Colorado.
"Perjury charge filed against woman who tried to have CSU officer’s weapons confiscated – FOX31 Denver" https://kdvr.com/2020/01/30/perjury...to-have-csu-officers-weapons-confiscated/amp/
pre-passage, my wife and I discussed this option. Proponents of the law pitched that "the RF law hasn't been abused anywhere." I told my wife that it's inevitable and gonna happen.
I hate being right about bad choices.
edit: I think that I'm most curious to know "will perjury in RF laws get the same forceful response when the victim isn't LEO?"
I hate being right about bad choices.
edit: I think that I'm most curious to know "will perjury in RF laws get the same forceful response when the victim isn't LEO?"
Aguila Blanca
Staff
And will a non-LEO victim have two assistant attorneys general representing him or her?doofus47 said:edit: I think that I'm most curious to know "will perjury in RF laws get the same forceful response when the victim isn't LEO?"
And will a non-LEO victim have two assistant attorneys general representing him or her?
If someone pays for them.
Something to keep in mind here, the person she filed false statements against was a cop. And, I think, still is. So its not just 2nd amendment civil rights she's messing with, its his JOB she's threatening, and unions take that kind of thing fairly seriously.
Not just because he's a member and being wronged, but because EVERY member is at risk from similar BS. So, yeah they're going to support him as much as he needs.
You, or I, or anyone else without a deep pockets friend or 3rd party with a compelling interest, we're pretty much on our own.
Laws are abused everywhere, everyday..was this RF law 'abused'? Yes, AND it was it thrown out by the judge.pre-passage, my wife and I discussed this option. Proponents of the law pitched that "the RF law hasn't been abused anywhere." I told my wife that it's inevitable and gonna happen.
I hate being right about bad choices.
edit: I think that I'm most curious to know "will perjury in RF laws get the same forceful response when the victim isn't LEO?"
Is there a warrant out for her arrest? Yes there is..
Sounds like the 'system' worked as it should.
Sounds like the 'system' worked as it should.
Baloney. It cost time money and effort in a feckless exercise.
Sounds like "infringed" to me and the only folks it worked for are the ones aren't the ones wanting to protect the 2nd Amendment.
You, or I, or anyone else without a deep pockets friend or 3rd party with a compelling interest, we're pretty much on our own.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner. Don't piss your girlfriend or a neighbor off.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
USNRet93 said:Sounds like the 'system' worked as it should.
I agree with davidsog. You can say the system worked "as intended" and perhaps not be too far from the truth, but "as it should" IMHO is quite a stretch. In fact, the proponents of the law are proclaiming that this case proves the law works "as it should," but that completely ignores the facts of the case, and the unconstitutional nature of the law itself.davidsog said:Baloney. It cost time money and effort in a feckless exercise.
Remember, what the law says is that the "respondent" (the person against whom the order will be issued) is NOT notified of the petition or of the initial, ex parte hearing. In my opinion, shared by some attorneys I know, that's a constitutional problem right off the bat, because a respondent's first knowledge of the action against him/her would be when the police show up with an order to seize his/her firearms. There's no due process under these "red flag" laws until after the fact of the initial seizure.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But, in the case under discussion, there was no initial, ex parte hearing. The petitioner, Mrs. Holmes, "found a loophole" that allowed her to skip over that initial hearing and move directly to the stage where/when the respondent had to ... respond. You could say, "Good -- then his guns weren't seized." But that also meant that the stage at which the judge would have seen that there was no basis for an order and tossed the case never happened. As a result, the officer was notified of a hearing and did have to appear in court (which he did through representation by two defense attorneys).
I have read the entire text of the Colorado law multiple times, and I have discussed it with an attorney who has read it multiple times. We cannot find any "loophole" in the law that in any way provides for the case to have proceeded as it did. So, if we are correct, the law (the "system") did NOT work as it should. It caused an innocent person to be served and to have to appear in court where "the system" should have made that unnecessary if it ("the system") had worked as it should.
BUT the 'feckless exercise' was initiated by the women, not members of the 'system'. It's not like a LEO started one cuz her boyfriend was screwing around or a judge cuz their partner was stepping out. Or a LEO single handedly confiscating firearms w/o a judge's ruling..Baloney. It cost time money and effort in a feckless exercise.
Sounds like "infringed" to me and the only folks it worked for are the ones aren't the ones wanting to protect the 2nd Amendment.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner. Don't piss your girlfriend or a neighbor off.
I agree with davidsog. You can say the system worked "as intended" and perhaps not be too far from the truth, but "as it should" IMHO is quite a stretch. In fact, the proponents of the law are proclaiming that this case proves the law works "as it should," but that completely ignores the facts of the case, and the unconstitutional nature of the law itself.
RFL are rife with problems but it 'worked' as it was designed, even if the design isn't great, Due Process-wise. The design includes a judge. In this case the judge did his job. It's akin to a judge sentencing a person to death, even if they disagree with the death penalty.
NOT saying the RFL is a great idea, just saying it is on the books and until overturned, will be used...and hopefully the judges involved do their due diligence, like this one did and threw the case out.
Sounds like "infringed" to me and the only folks it worked for are the ones aren't the ones wanting to protect the 2nd Amendment.
USNRet said:RFL are rife with problems but it 'worked' as it was designed, even if the design isn't great, Due Process-wise. The design includes a judge. In this case the judge did his job. It's akin to a judge sentencing a person to death, even if they disagree with the death penalty.
There is no indication from any of the coverage that this law worked as designed.
As designed, the petitioner should be before a judge within 24 hours, and before notice is given to the respondent. As designed, if the petitioner, presents testimony that supports the immediate order, that order should issue and the respondents arms taken. As designed, the respondent should be afforded a hearing with a couple of weeks.
None of that happened here.
There was no initial hearing for the first, exigent order; it isn't clear whether the clerk incorrectly acceded to a petitioner's request to dispense with that hearing. The sheriff refused to serve process, the respondent kept his arms, and the State's counsel defended the respondent while the magistrate tried to figure out the law by reading it from the bench.
One might conclude that all is well that ends well, but that isn't a conclusion about the design of this law.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
We'll have to agree to disagree. When a system designed and intended to hold an emergency, ex parte hearing within 24 hours allows a petitioner to skip over the initial, emergency hearing and move directly to the step that requires the respondent to appear in court and defend him/herself, I don't think it's correct to say that the system worked either as designed or as intended. If you can find where in the law there is any provision for a case to proceed as this one did, please let us know.USNRet93 said:RFL are rife with problems but it 'worked' as it was designed, even if the design isn't great, Due Process-wise.
2ndsojourn
New member
What stops a person who has his/her guns confiscated under red flag law from going to a gun shop and buying another one/more. Is NICS instantly updated?
What stops a person who has his/her guns confiscated under red flag law from going to a gun shop and buying another one/more. Is NICS instantly updated?
Just as a guess, mind you, I'd say the same thing that stops them from going to an illegal dealer and buying a gun. Physically, NOTHING. Except, of course, violating the court order that seized their guns in the first place.
The whole point to the seizure is that "you may not possess..." and I'm pretty sure that would cover going out and buying a replacement for the seized gun(s).
If they serve you and seize your guns at 10:30AM and a 4pm you're in a gunshop buying more, the system may not be updated to flag you. BUT YOU ARE. Knowingly and willfully committing multiple felonies. For one thing, you'll have to lie on the 4473 form, which is a separate crime in itself.
I don't see any way to claim ignorance, and I'd think any attempt to buy a gun when there is a court order against you doing so, moves you clearly out of the "innocent victim" class.
As to the particular case in this thread, i'd say the law did not work as written, because part of it simply did not happen, but the PROCESS did work as intended, in that when a judge DID get to see the petition, he ruled it without merit and dismissed it. AND that since charges have been filed against the petitioner for perjury, that the process is still working, in this case.
We'll have to agree to disagree. When a system designed and intended to hold an emergency, ex parte hearing within 24 hours allows a petitioner to skip over the initial, emergency hearing and move directly to the step that requires the respondent to appear in court and defend him/herself, I don't think it's correct to say that the system worked either as designed or as intended. If you can find where in the law there is any provision for a case to proceed as this one did, please let us know.
it isn't clear whether the clerk incorrectly acceded to a petitioner's request to dispense with that hearing.
That's what it looks like from this member of the peanut galley..She and the clerk did it 'wrong'..
AND before 'some' get their nighty in a twist..I AGREE, due process is sorely lacking for RFL..but until overturned...as they say, it is what it is. You can argue RFL unconstitutionality all day, everyday..but these laws are going to be used. Hopefully, until overturned, they are supervised by decent judges.