Good question and hopefully the 'investigation' will result in finding frivolous or improper filing but yes, It sure could happen. I think the question to be answered is finding 'some/most' of the predicted 150 or so cases per year to be an effective use of a law that DID prevent serious injury or death(including suicide by the gun owner) vs any abuse by a POed person with a vendetta. I see a lot of laws/programs that are abused but seldom do I think the answer is to just throw it in the trash vs trying to make it better.
Colorado "Red Flag" bill is very bad
- Thread starter HiBC
- Start date
Glad ya got me figured out..??
You would, would ya....
Yes they can. Hire a clown, expect a circus.
Yes they do, on both ends of the spectrum..Milo Yiannopoulos says he's a victim also.
Opposite party disruption of a SCOTUS nominee has been going on as long as there has been a SCOTUS. And some, like Garland, never got a hearing because of McConnell.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/supreme-court-nomination-battles/6/
read post number 21 above..from the good counselor..Zukiohile, an attorney
The audience was pretty 50-50 during this hearing. Sheriffs and legislators on both sides..I guess if they are against this bill, they speak the truth and anti were scum-sucking gun grabbers. Like Sheriff Spurlock..
OBTW-the sky...oh never mind.....
Last edited:
We already have the M-1 mental health 72 hour hold. That can be called for by the same "victims" During the 72 hour hold,existing law already covers disarming people after a professional evaluation determines they are a danger.That more resembles the due process all citizens deserve.
USNRet93 said:
That means that there is no protection against it. That's far from a sufficient safeguard. Of course, if the vengeful girlfriend believe the false information she feeds the court, the bill protects her.
USNRet93 said:
Making this proposed law better would mean scraping it. States already have involuntary commitment procedures and laws against menacing. This proposal is designed as an end run around important existing rights.
I bow to your vastly better knowledge of the law than me..BUT this is going to become law..It'll be interesting how it shakes out.
No bowing is sought.
Criminal defendants have rights to hear the charges against them, and face their accusers.
Real civil TROs and injunctive relief involves a court finding a likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing, a bond for any damage the injunctive relief may do, and documentation that someone at least tried to get notice to the defendant.
This ERPO proposal is a hybrid without the protections of either system. Imagine the most vindictive, shortsighted person with a grudge against you you've ever known, and how they would make you sound to a court without you there to respond, or the most crooked PO you've ever known. That's who this process empowers.
The point is that this new law doesn't solve an existing problem that isn't addressed by the old law.
Criminal defendants have rights to hear the charges against them, and face their accusers.
Real civil TROs and injunctive relief involves a court finding a likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing, a bond for any damage the injunctive relief may do, and documentation that someone at least tried to get notice to the defendant.
This ERPO proposal is a hybrid without the protections of either system. Imagine the most vindictive, shortsighted person with a grudge against you you've ever known, and how they would make you sound to a court without you there to respond, or the most crooked PO you've ever known. That's who this process empowers.
Last edited:
Gotta wonder why these legal arguments were never brought up(maybe they were, I don't know)..Pretty sure the GOP that were against the bill had legal advice.
Mods,I'm the OP. I did not primarily intend this post to be a forum to argue the merits of the bill.although the discussion has served to shed light on the issues.
The way Colorado elections went,this bill will probably pass. The Dems hold both houses and the Dem Governor is from Boulder.
I wrote this thread to find out which organization might be most effective at challenging the Constitutionality in court.
That might be Colorado State Shooters Association,or Rocky Mountain Gun Owners,or ?? .I'm in favor of starting the financial war chest now.
The way Colorado elections went,this bill will probably pass. The Dems hold both houses and the Dem Governor is from Boulder.
I wrote this thread to find out which organization might be most effective at challenging the Constitutionality in court.
That might be Colorado State Shooters Association,or Rocky Mountain Gun Owners,or ?? .I'm in favor of starting the financial war chest now.
Last edited:
USNRet93 said:
Then maybe you don't need to wonder.
That police like laws that give them greater latitude and legislators like to be seen "doing something about x" are both phenomena that can explain why some people would have an interest in seeing this through.
HiBC, while not downplaying the importance of money in anything, I think you are most likely to see a remedy in legal networks devoted to striking these things. In Ohio, the judiciary are aware of the shortcomings and inevitable abuse of these orders, but the first court to issue a ruling invalidating the law is going to be vilified at his next election.
In summary, I live in a gun friendly state that has had a very similar law on the books for many years now. There may be quirks of CO constitutional law that it runs afoul of, but I don't see the SCOTUS or any Federal court taking this up and striking it down as a basic concept. If that were possible, it would likely have been done years ago. Going back to the 1980s. I don't mean to sarcastically say "Good Luck," but good luck.
We have had this discussion numerous times on TFL regarding ex parte orders and red flag laws. Many don't seem to realize that these laws aren't new in many parts of the country. And with that being said, they have been abused. I have personally seen it first hand. I dare say that, in my state at least, the potential for abuse has been seen by virtually all in the Judicial system. Once upon a time, the vast majority of these orders did not survive the following due process hearing. It seems Judges have learned a little reason and it takes a little more now than "he/she has a gun and I'm in fear of my life because he/she is angry at me" to be granted the order in ex parte in the first place. I would still be surprised if more than half of these orders remained in place after the due process hearing, IF THE RESPONDENT HIRES COMPETENT COUNSEL AND FIGHTS THE PROCESS. Unfortunately, there are a lot of cases where someone will believe their guilt as they don't understand technicalities in the law, and plead guilty or not fight an order just to have the whole incident behind them.
You must be served, in person, with any subpoena or court order depriving you of property before it can go into affect. So basically, they aren't going to kick your door in and cut your safe open if you aren't home.
As to complying with questioning in #2... the matter is a civil matter and not a criminal matter. You still are not obligated to answer questions relating to the case, nor do the police (probably Sheriff Deputies, as this is civil law and Sheriff's are usually the only entity that can legally serve civil processes in most states) care to question you related to the case. They're just there to serve the order. The only legal obligation you have is to turn over all property that the order specifies.
And to #3, I have yet to see a SWAT team forced entry to serve a civil process where I'm from, even an ex parte order allowing for the confiscation of firearms. If deputies have a genuine concern that things could get ugly, they will come with more than a couple of guys. They still won't kick in your door and toss your house to take your guns unless you've been evading the service of the order and they prepare a search warrant to force the matter.
This is one of the big problems with the issue. Until a wackjob starts shooting people, they are technically "law abiding gun owners". No matter how twisted, evil, unbalanced or unstable they may seem, until they break EXISTING law, (and get convicted) they have the same rights as everyone else.
Another problem with the "red flag" approach is the difficulty proving a negative. How does one prove they don't have secret plans to commit murder or mass murder?
Prove to us you aren't a witch! OK, you've never been caught casting a spell, all that proves is you've never been caught. And you do have a broom and a black cat...so you must be a witch! and so it goes,...
44 AMP : And so a FREE SOCIETY is not,and never will be,Utopia.
When people are Free, some will do evil.
But a Government that stifles Freedom under the guise of "fighting evil" stifles all people,evil or not.
As a government becomes larger,more controlling,more punitive,it becomes evil itself.
When people are Free, some will do evil.
But a Government that stifles Freedom under the guise of "fighting evil" stifles all people,evil or not.
As a government becomes larger,more controlling,more punitive,it becomes evil itself.