Red Flag Laws already being abused....

Status
Not open for further replies.
The story is sort of short on details - - but - - it does look like a real teaser.

Let me "fix" the facebook link so people that don't use facebook can read the story:

https://kdvr.com/2020/01/14/using-r...WIJGbhIyWccHRUhFREIiP5eDSyxTm_OFYqf9ZFdl6X7TI

It says in order to file an order of protection, you have to be a relative or living together - which the woman and the campus cop - aren't - - but - it says they have a child in common.....but,,,it doesn't go into any detail.
 
JERRYS. said:
woman files red flag gun confiscation against a police officer involved in a justified shooting of her family member.

https://kdvr.com/2020/01/14/using-r...WIJGbhIyWccHRUhFREIiP5eDSyxTm_OFYqf9ZFdl6X7TI

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...lVXQ-oDVdsmOHPuuGYwSCe_CjP4BMICq6TR0Mj_4PYbwY
Click to expand...
Not sure how this case means the law is being 'abused'..It goes to court tomorrow..Did the CSU LEO lose his duty HG? Considering 'due process', the very law is abusive but I don't think this lady is 'abusing' the law..IMHO..Unless the 'living together' part..doesn't a judge have to first review all this before issuing the RFL? Sounds like the initial judge made a bad call...

Will there be more of this? Undoubtedly..and hopefully the initial judge who orders the removal of guns has his stuff in one sock..
I'm willing to bet that the judge will find for the LEO...

For right below..well said. I'm not a fan of the lack of due process either. I think RFLs could have been designed so it took that into account but....

Sorry, but there are more than a few wackos who probably shouldn't have guns..like the Texas Church shooter..
 
Last edited:
Yeah.... this law is not being abused... clearly anyone reading this would come to that logical conclusion... especially if they were the cop. In fact, how could this cop not take a red flag order out on himself? I guess some people have to see an even dumber example to see that it is being abused.

This law is working exactly as intended... and occasionally, it might be used to take firearms away from someone who presents a danger to themselves and others.
 
The case means the law is being abused because use of a defective law is an abuse.

USNRet93 said:
Not sure how this case means the law is being 'abused'..It goes to court tomorrow..Did the CSU LEO lose his duty HG? Considering 'due process', the very law is abusive but I don't think this lady is 'abusing' the law..IMHO..Unless the 'living together' part..doesn't a judge have to first review all this before issuing the RFL? Sounds like the initial judge made a bad call...
Click to expand...

Where a petition results in an ex parte hearing where the petition must be granted if the petitioner is entitled to an order by meeting a preponderance of evidence standard, what is the court supposed to review?

In the initial hearing, the court is obligated to take the petitioner's testimony as evidence.
 
Last edited:
In any case.the bottom line is its bad law It should have never been passed into law,and the Governor should have never signed it.
A number of Sheriffs did all they could to advise it was bad law,they were ignored.

This case is n my county. My city. The judge accepted the woman's testimony she shares a child with the officer. Its sold evidence of an abuse that was predicted. The law would be used for vendetta purposes. In fact,it has,in the first 10 days or so of it being in effect.

Fortunately, the Larimer County Sheriff has the integrity to refuse to play along.

There is another example f a failure of this law in the local news. A 32 yr old person who was threatening mass shootings. and revealed his thoughts to his father. The father reported it.

So far,so good. The Sheriff went for a 72 hour mental health hold. This Red Flag law lacks mental health hold provisions.Its not about mental health.
Its about seizing guns.
I'll find and post a link to the story I don't want to get it wrong.Bottom line,the 72 hour mental health hold has enough holes in it it was not useful.

IMO,its the person with the will to kill who needs to be addressed,not the gun. Maybe its a mental health issue before its a criminal issue.

Provisions for addressing the mental health issue before a crime is committed are lacking.

Correcting the mental health hold shortcomings can protect not only the potential victims,but the troubled person who ,with intervention.might not ever harm anyone,....

Colorado's Red Flag law does not address this

https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2020/01/14/red-flag-law-colorado-mass-shootings/2844383001/

https://www.coloradoan.com/story/ne...orado-csu-police-second-amendment/4476796002/
 
Last edited:
HiBC said:
In any case.the bottom line is its bad law It should have never been passed into law,and the Governor should have never signed it.
A number of Sheriffs did all they could to advise it was bad law,they were ignored.

This case is n my county. My city. The judge accepted the woman's testimony she shares a child with the officer. Its sold evidence of an abuse that was predicted. The law would be used for vendetta purposes. In fact,it has,in the first 10 days or so of it being in effect.

Fortunately, the Larimer County Sheriff has the integrity to refuse to play along.
Click to expand...

Where a judge is compelled to issue an order based on a petitioner's testimony, a sheriff should also be obligated to observe a court's order. At a political level, a sheriff who disregards a court's order to disarm a person is going to have a problem if that person shoots someone.

That's part of why it's a bad law -- people within the system who act with due regard for people's right do it at their own risk.

HiBC said:
There is another example f a failure of this law in the local news. A 32 yr old person who was threatening mass shootings. and revealed his thoughts to his father. The father reported it.

So far,so good. The Sheriff went for a 72 hour mental health hold. This Red Flag law lacks mental health hold provisions.Its not about mental health.
Its about seizing guns.
I'll find and post a link to the story I don't want to get it wrong.Bottom line,the 72 hour mental health hold has enough holes in it it was not useful.
Click to expand...

The ability to hold a person beyond a couple of days on grounds of defective "mental health" in the states about which I've read require an professional assessment and a hearing before a judge or magistrate. If that review doesn't disclose a "mental health" issue that merits involuntary detention, letting the fellow go isn't really a hole in that system.

In many states, threatening people can be the crime of menacing, and preparing to hurt people might support a prosecution for an attempted harm or possession of "criminal tools". Full disclosures: I have misgivings about how a prosecutor can misuse those as well.
 
I'm not a lawyer.

There is something about a Sheriff elected by constituents to protect the Constitutional Rights of the constituents. Sheriffs are beholding to the Citizen who elected them. Police Chiefs are beholding to the politician that hired them.

As the Red Flag warrant the Sheriff would be asked to carry out is a civil matter ,not a criminal matter,

As the person being served the warrant has not been accused of committing a crime (yet)…

The Sheriff has cause to question the Constitutionality of this case.
Hopefully,this is the perfect test case to have the law declared unconstitutional.

The Sheriff of neighboring Weld county has stated Weld County is a 2A Sanctuary County,and he will accept being placed in his own jail before he will violate a person's rights with the Red Flag law.
Why is this any less acceptable than sanctuary cities for people not lawfully in the USA?

A substantial number of Colorado Sheriffs have taken similar positions.

I'm grateful for them.
 
Well.....isn't this....interesting....

At this point, with only the very basic information of who, and what, and no shred (yet) of how and why, one cannot get any kind of accurate idea what is actually going on.

Based on what the report said, and seemed to infer, it seems the law is not being abused, so much as tested, at this point.

Let us consider for a moment the basis of the law, and what it allows, in general. First, at the root, it is a protection order. So, there must be testimony that there is some level of threat the court (judge) can find credible.

Now, that "threat" may only be "your Honor, he HAS guns and he's mad at me!..." IF the court decides it is enough, then it issues the order. Depends on the Judge, doesn't it??

Next this law is an "enhanced (or extended??) order, and so defines those people who have standing to file as a larger group than the "traditional" protection order.

Now, here's where we get into speculation. What we know, assuming it is fact, from the very brief report is;
Woman had filed for the order against a man.
The man is a police officer.
That police officer shot and killed the woman's son in 2017.

2017

The law give you standing to file if you "have a child in common"
IT seems, based on what the reporter said the woman said, that she has her own definition of "child in common" and will argue that before the court.

We don't know anything else, with certainty. Right now all we have is the fact that a request was filed, and the court will hear it. Until more information is released, there is nothing more to be said.
So, this one is being closed. IF/when more information becomes available, it could be reopened, or a new thread started, when there is actually something that can be discussed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top