Dems want Colorado Red Flag Law

[CoGirl303]

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/12/colorado-red-flag-law-bill/


A series of recent fatal shootings in Colorado and nationwide is leading Gov. John Hickenlooper and state Democratic lawmakers to push for a “red flag law” that would allow judges to temporarily seize guns from people they consider to be a threat.

The late effort is part of a nationwide discussion about the intersection of mental health and the Second Amendment after the February massacre at a South Florida high school and the fatal shooting of a Douglas County sheriff’s deputy almost two months earlier — sparking what could be one of the largest policy pushes this year at the state Capitol.

Major firearm legislation has not been passed in Colorado since 2013, when two Democrats were recalled over their support for measures expanding background check requirements and outlawing high-capacity magazines.

“This is an appropriate step for states to take,” said Assistant House Majority Leader Alec Garnett, a Denver Democrat who is among those leading the legislative effort. “I’m trying hard to create a Colorado solution that can be signed by the governor.”

Hickenlooper, a term-limited Democrat, supports a “red flag” law, but he is deferring to the General Assembly to draft a bill. Though if no action is taken, the governor acknowledged Thursday, he would consider executive action on the issue.

“We’ve always said that we want to make sure people’s civil rights are completely protected,” he said. “The goal is to get some sort of a collaborative compromise so that all parties feel that those civil rights are protected, and at the same time, we are doing a better job of making sure there is less risk to the community.”

The discussions at the Colorado Capitol are taking place behind the scenes, as lawmakers attempt to develop a proposal that can win bipartisan support in the split chambers. The prospect of such a bill has been circulating in the Capitol for weeks, mainly since the deadly February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

It’s unclear how the effort will be met by Republican lawmakers, who control the state Senate, despite support from some of the party’s candidates for governor and other GOP leaders across the nation. It also remains to be seen if there is enough time left in the legislative session that ends May 9 to debate and pass what could become a contentious bill, especially since specific policy points have not been seen by lawmakers.

“I would have to see language before I make any kind of commitment whatsoever,” said Senate President Pro Tem Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling. “I struggle with giving judges that type of authority.”

The legislation is expected to align with red flag laws in a handful of other states that allow family members and law enforcement officers to petition a judge to issue a protective order for the removal of firearms from people they consider a potential threat to themselves or others. More than 20 states are considering similar legislation, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control advocacy organization.

Garnett says he has been working on the issue since before the shooting in Parkland. His interest in legislation began after a Douglas County sheriff’s deputy was killed and several others wounded in late December by a man with documented mental health concerns.
“It would have protected that deputy in Douglas County,” Garnett said. “It could have been used in the Parkland shooting. It could have been used, likely, in the Aurora theater shooting.”

Lt. Gov. Donna Lynne, a candidate to replace Hickenlooper, said the conversations include the administration. “We are actually working right now on the red flag law itself, and even if we can’t get it through the legislature — and that could be political — we are looking at whether or not the administration can implement a red flag law,” she said Wednesday during a campaign debate.

Colorado Ceasefire, a group seeking stricter gun regulations, has for weeks been pushing constituents to urge their legislators to back a red flag bill, along with Mental Health Colorado, a leading advocacy organization.
“This is a matter of life or death,” said Andrew Romanoff, Mental Health Colorado’s president and a former Colorado House speaker.

“Proposals are often described that way — this one actually deserves that description.”
In his mind, any legislation would be designed more to prevent suicides than to stop mass shootings. And he wants to keep the conversation from becoming just another vitriolic gun debate that divides the political parties at the Capitol.

“I know that because this debate involves the word ‘gun,’ it’s easy to make comparisons to past debates Colorado has had and the politics around those debates,” he said. “But if we want to take a more responsible view of this proposal, we would view it as a means to reduce the number of suicides.”

So far this session, Republican lawmakers have attempted — unsuccessfully — to roll back some of Colorado’s gun laws and loosen restrictions on where, when and how people can use firearms. There are concerns among Republican lawmakers about due process and infringing on people’s rights.

“I know discussion have been taking place,” said Senate Majority Leader Chris Holbert, R-Castle Rock.

Sen. Tim Neville, R-Littleton, said he’s concerned a red flag bill would overlap with Colorado laws already in place to keep people who experience distress from hurting themselves or others, saying they need to be enforced first before new laws are sought. He pointed to the warning signs exhibited by the Parkland shooting gunman that weren’t followed up on by law enforcement.

“Your right to keep and bear arms, your right to protect yourself and your family — it is a right,” he said. “It’s not something that is granted just by statute. Your right to due process is also important. The question is: What are the due process safeguards to anything that is recommended to be put into a statute?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DenverGP]

I don't hate the general concept, except that I'm sure it'll be written so shitty that it'll get abused.

As a general concept, its one of the few new laws proposed that actually could have had an impact on several of the mass shootings.

Maybe the R's could agree to vote for a version of this with appropriate safeguards / limitations in exchange for ditching the mag ban. That would sound like some of that compromise the dems are always claiming they want us to do.

[Gman]

As a general concept, its one of the few new laws proposed that actually could have had an impact on several of the mass shootings.
If they would have enforced the laws that were already on the books, then they wouldn't need a new law.

There are mountains of laws related to firearms. Enforce the laws on the books before you come back looking for more.

[Zundfolge]

If it passes its yet another reason to cut every liberal you know out of your life ... thus further balkanizing our society into two separate and distinct Americas. That won't have any sort of negative consequences at all, will it?

[buffalobo]

Only one part missing, due process. Homey don't play dat. Don't care what kind of safeguards they may or may not include. No due process no compliance.

[buffalobo]

“It would have protected that deputy in Douglas County,” Garnett said. “It could have been used in the Parkland shooting. It could have been used, likely, in the Aurora theater shooting.”

What a crock of shit. There was plenty of evidence to petition court before these nut cases cracked and killed. More smoke and mirrors.

[roberth]

Opposed for the reasons listed.

We don't need more laws especially laws that will be abused on a massive scale.

[Great-Kazoo]

Will this be like the No Fly List.

I'm in favor of something regarding mental health issues. However Until the medical community and feds can show the public how ANY medical info can be given w/out violating ones rights. Or abuse of those rights with the medical community's (in general) blatant public stance against guns, I don't see it happening.

[Rumline]

This exact crap passed in California several years ago. Hope you never piss off any liberal, because they can take your guns away with no due process and no penalty for a false accusation. Good luck getting them back afterwards too.

"Just say no" to Californication.

[.455_Hunter]

This is one of those laws that theoretically could have some benefit, but there are too many ways for it to be abused without rigorous checks/balances, due process, restitution and false claim liability. If all it takes is one snowflake to say you make them feel "unsafe", its a NO GO.

[CoGirl303]

I love how Dickinhispooper says if nothing is done he will consider an executive action. [emoji849]

So basically this lame duck is giving the G.A. an ultimatum to either do something or he will.

Typical liberal trying to strong arm people to get what they want.




Hickenlooper, a term-limited Democrat, supports a “red flag” law, but he is deferring to the General Assembly to draft a bill. Though if no action is taken, the governor acknowledged Thursday, he would consider executive action on the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[XJ]

The only way to achieve compliance is with registration :|

[pickenup]

There are already 20,000 UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws now.

[Rucker61]

Sometimes we get help from strange bedfellows:

"The ACLU analysis notes that the court order authorized by the legislation could be issued without any indication that the person poses an imminent threat to others, and without any evidence that he or she ever committed, or has even threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm. Further, the court decision would be made at a hearing where the person would not be entitled to appointed counsel. Under the legislation, a court order would require the confiscation for at least a year of any firearms lawfully owned by the person, place the burden on him or her to prove that they should be returned after that time, potentially subject him or her to a coerced mental health evaluation, and give police broad authority to search their property for firearms.

Among the other points raised by the ACLU’s analysis:

The standard for seeking and issuing an order is so broad it could routinely be used against people who engage in “overblown political rhetoric” on social media or against alleged gang members when police want to find a shortcut to seize lawfully-owned weapons from them.
Even before a court hearing is held, and a decision is made, on a petition for an ERPO, police could be required to warn potentially hundreds of people that the individual might pose a significant danger to them.
Without the presence of counsel, individuals who have no intent to commit violent crimes could nonetheless unwittingly incriminate themselves for lesser offenses."

http://www.riaclu.org/news/post/aclu-of-rhode-island-raises-red-flags-over-red-flag-gun-legislation

[Irving]

Those warning that liberals would abuse this law and don't think that conservatives would do the very same are living in la la land.

[Great-Kazoo]

Those warning that liberals would abuse this law and don't think that conservatives would do the very same are living in la la land.

Patriot Act and R.I.C.O

No political party is beyond abusing their power.

[Irving]

I'm not talking about parties, I'm talking about individual people.

[Eric P]

Reporters should be held accountable for false and/or harassing reports. Should be able to be sued for damages and emotional distress over losing one's rights for self protection and legal process.

Reporting should not be anonymous, and shall be forced to appear to testify under oath.

But the whole law is bull.

[thedave1164]

JUST SAY NO!

[Irving]

Reporters should be held accountable for false and/or harassing reports. Should be able to be sued for damages and emotional distress over losing one's rights for self protection and legal process.

Reporting should not be anonymous, and shall be forced to appear to testify under oath.

But the whole law is bull.

Like filing a restraining order.

[roberth]

Like filing a restraining order.


Yup, absolutely useless.

[Irving]

Yup, absolutely useless.

That's not at all what I meant. If you file a restraining order against someone, it affects you as well.

[roberth]

That's not at all what I meant. If you file a restraining order against someone, it affects you as well.

O I C

I haven't filed one or had one filed on me so please forgive my ignorance.

Does the filer have constraints to abide by as well?

[Irving]

Yeah, if you file a restraining order against someone, you can't have guns either. Or so I thought.

[roberth]

Those warning that liberals would abuse this law and don't think that conservatives would do the very same are living in la la land.


I'm not talking about parties, I'm talking about individual people.

Really? You think people on the right would use this law to harass people on the left? I find that preposterous but maybe our definitions of conservative are different, unless you're talking about nazis which alot of people think are right-wing but nazis are actually left-wing.

While it is true that the modern day liberal is a mental defective I'd be hard-pressed to prove that in a court of law but there I go again with due process and such.

[Irving]

No, I think people on the right would use this law to harass anyone that they didn't like; just the same as anyone else would. I've seen it before first hand. The idea that a voting record or a set of beliefs makes a person more or less moral is batshit crazy and I can't believe that any adults that have experienced the world would believe that for one second.

[CS1983]

Yeah, if you file a restraining order against someone, you can't have guns either. Or so I thought.

That makes no sense.

[Irving]

That makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense. Like roberth, I've never filed a restraining order either (a large reason being what I posted about), so I don't know 100%. I remember a lot of talk about it on here several years ago and that is where I've gotten that impression.

[CS1983]

It doesn't make sense. Like roberth, I've never filed a restraining order either (a large reason being what I posted about), so I don't know 100%. I remember a lot of talk about it on here several years ago and that is where I've gotten that impression.

The form for it explains clearly what a TRO does.

Now, of course, there is an onus on the Petitioner to not violate the order themselves by seeking to contact or otherwise cause a violation on the part of the Respondent, but the Petitioner is not otherwise impacted according to the form itself:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/Forms/PDF/JDF%20398%20Temporary%20Protection%20Order.pdf

If I'm wrong, I'd like someone to point to the law as such in black and white. Otherwise, it seems ridiculous even for this very ridiculous state.

[Rumline]

Those warning that liberals would abuse this law and don't think that conservatives would do the very same are living in la la land.
Yeah but I doubt that a conservative would have enough of a problem with me to abuse it against me. I imagine a decent percent of liberals would want to disarm me as soon as they found out I'm an NRA/GOA/SAF member.

Besides, most liberals don't own guns, or if they do, don't see them as important. So what would be the point of slapping them with an ex parte gun grab order?

[roberth]

Yeah, if you file a restraining order against someone, you can't have guns either. Or so I thought.


That makes no sense.


It doesn't make sense. Like roberth, I've never filed a restraining order either (a large reason being what I posted about), so I don't know 100%. I remember a lot of talk about it on here several years ago and that is where I've gotten that impression.

I didn't find anything pertaining to the rights of the TRO/PRO filer which leads me to believe they can buy and possess firearms. The recipient of the TRO/PRO cannot possess firearms but that is normal in a DV case. A DV judgement will result in the defendent being prohibited from buying and posessing firearms, in CO I think it is a lifetime ban.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Self_Help/FAQ's/Protection%20orders%20FAQs%20%20.pdf

[Irving]

Yeah but I doubt that a conservative would have enough of a problem with me to abuse it against me. I imagine a decent percent of liberals would want to disarm me as soon as they found out I'm an NRA/GOA/SAF member.

Besides, most liberals don't own guns, or if they do, don't see them as important. So what would be the point of slapping them with an ex parte gun grab order?

I imagine you'd be incorrect to assume that a significant amount of liberals would want you disarmed just because they found out that you have a gun. Also, I agree that it'd be easiest to use this law against someone who owns guns, and more likely than not people who actually have guns would be the ones to know about the law in the first place.

As to the TRO, I hope that I'm wrong, I always thought that was stupid.

[Great-Kazoo]

If there's a TRO you put out. When a 4473 bgc is called in it doesn't show who pulled it and or it's against. Just that your name is on it, making you contact in writing CBI for clarification for that or next purchase.

[roberth]

No, I think people on the right would use this law to harass anyone that they didn't like; just the same as anyone else would. I've seen it before first hand. The idea that a voting record or a set of beliefs makes a person more or less moral is batshit crazy and I can't believe that any adults that have experienced the world would believe that for one second.

I know what you mean about morals. My family is "Christian" but some of uncles fucked my father over on work at least twice that I know of, they were "COSO", Christian on Sunday Only. They are all dead now so it doesn't matter that I write this.

Voting record, how can I tie that to morals. That is pretty difficult since there are members of all parties that are adulterers or thieves or liars, just that in my experience these people are in the (R) but they don't dominate the (R) like they do the (D).

Of course nowadays the lines are really blurred since the (R) are socialists and the (D) are communists.

[Irving]

I think that it is disingenuous to assume that the majority of the people in the party that you're not in are morally corrupt. It's easy to lap up our own propaganda that people who don't feel the same on most issues are just mentally defective, but if that were anywhere near the truth, we wouldn't have survived as a species long enough to get where we are today.

[roberth]

I think that it is disingenuous to assume that the majority of the people in the party that you're not in are morally corrupt. It's easy to lap up our own propaganda that people who don't feel the same on most issues are just mentally defective, but if that were anywhere near the truth, we wouldn't have survived as a species long enough to get where we are today.

I am biased towards my team but I'm not disingenuous in the case of communism, communism has 100 years of amoral corruption and murder to back up my statement and the (D) party has embraced a very large part of that amoral corruption.

[Irving]

Yep, Communism and Marxism are terrible. Great way to convince people that they are marginalized and they better do something about it so that they'll even have a chance in this world. The thing is, it's used today in this country on dumb students who haven't even entered the world and had the chance to become a failure yet. They are so scared they yell about changing the world before they even enter it. We've seen that more and more as college enrollment increases.

[Unsuccessful]

Crap like this makes me feel like we have completely lost are once great state of Colorado. The fact that people can't see just how ignorant this idea of giving so much power to every single individual without any checks or balances boggles my mind. Is like taking advise from kids who eat tide pods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irving]

Guess what bro? I just one-sided restrictioned your face!



Thank you for clearing that up. I definitely was under the impression that it was two ways from reading about them on here. Guess I'll just trust everything I read on here less *from now on.












*Or four years, whichever comes first.

[Gman]

Got a notification from the NRA-ILA that this legislation (HB 1436) is being rushed through the House Judiciary Committee today.

[DenverGP]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180501/colorado-gun-control-legislation-being-rushed-through-legislative-process

[TFOGGER]

Just sent email to Dafna Whatshername, for all the good it will do...

[Great-Kazoo]

supposedly it sunsets in 1 year. Then has to be reviewed.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

So I saw that CA had one like this, what is the worst that has happened. These things give me the willies since it seems that we can't take care of people who are obviously trouble, like the Parkland shooter. A new tool that won't be used?

This is where we could get real compromise. 30 round mags back, CCW for SBRs- something. Hell, 30 rounders for CCW holders would be a sweet add, since it would get them 'back on the shelves' and let people be responsible for their own compliance.

And then go back for more when it comes time to review..... ;)

[Gman]

I don't see where we're getting anything out of this.

[Joe_K]

Saw Tony “Two Faced” Spurlock on 9 News this morning holding a press conference telling Colorado legislators that if they don’t vote for this they don’t care enough, and that they don’t want to take anyone’s guns!

The worst part of this is they are attaching a dead Deputy’s name to this. Parrish would still be dead if this law had passed, all that would have changed is the responding officers would have had a piece of paper with them. Patrol officers should NOT be the ones entering an armed, mentally disturbed, barricaded suspects domicile to enforce ANY type of court ordered action, those types of calls should be reserved for SWAT.

[bellavite1]

Not good.
So, because of my beliefs, somebody could say that I am a public risk and my firearms (and my job at the range) are gone...

[Rucker61]

Fuck. Compromise.





Okay, so let me spell this out for any of you that have any doubts. A family member (even if not residing with you for years, say your in-laws, your ex-wife, estranged family) or household member (roommates, etc.) or a law enforcement officer (broadly defined) can file a document with the court - without your knowledge- alleging you are a threat. Anything in the document has to be presumed true by the court, because it is ex-parte. The petitioner risks "perjury" if they lie. It's presumed true as an ex-parte application, your firearms are immediately revoked without an investigation, your carry permit is immediately revoked, and we worry about due process later, in fact you have to FIGHT to obtain a hearing. The risk of perjury sounds like a safeguard right? But how many of you have any court experience?

I have NEVER EVER, FUCKING EVER, SEEN EVEN A CITATION FOR PERJURY even on the MOST FUCKING OUTLANDISH EX PARTE APPLICATION on this state. Attorneys and parties routinely forge documents outright in court, and there are no ramifications even when caught red handed. People make false affiants all the time, there are no ramifications even when caught red handed. I have dozens in my file that would blow. your. fucking. mind. This bill is the single biggest risk to your firearm rights within this state.

Bear in mind that this places your lifetime access to your firearm rights in the control of two people 1) Pretty much every vindictive person you've ever known in your life COUPLED with 2) A very biased judge appointed by one of the most liberal governors in the country. [becoming more and more true as we go forward].

This crap is an outright blank check to frivolously and without due process deprive people of the most important constitutional right; usually at a time when they need it the most. For every legitimate red flag, there will be a thousand that are abused. The magazine ban has NOTHING on this. The potential for future abuse is outstanding.

I am withholding my true thoughts on this bullshit movement. If any of you think "well there's some pros and cons to this" get the fuck off the site.

What does this mean? "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." Does this hearing have to include the respondent? What evidence support would a law enforcement officer have to present as a petitioner?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Someone said that this type of thing passed in CA- or which one is worse? What kind of court cases around it have there been? I would think if CA is like this, pretty much every divorce would start with one of these. So much for grounding your teenagers if you have guns...

It seems pretty unconstitutional to me in light of McDonald. Heck, you might as well have it that you can turn people in for suspecting that they are illegal aliens and they get deported.

Did the ACLU weigh in that like on the Social security financial thing back when Trump got into office?

Hell, if we can get something back for it and then get this part thrown out - but that is a high-risk poker hand.

What exactly was Chickenlooper going to do by exec action???

I do wish that the NRA would do something to address mental health and guns. Some kind of buddy program or something. Something to show that they are doing something- which is the left's definition of success [fail] . The left is great about trotting out gun victims as trying to extrapolate from there. Get a NRA program that some guys can say saved their lives and tout those stories. Call it 'NRA for Life', as in the NRA saved their lives, the NRA is a lifetime loyalty.

Otherwise, stupid, forced things like this are going to come.

This would be a complete shit show if the Sheriff shows up all tac'd out and has to use a uhaul to take stuff. Plus rummaging through all your mags for date stamps, counting all your rounds to see if you are breaking fire code- and who doesn't keep their best porn locked in the gun safe- the Swedish stuff.

ETA: The LEO path is a complete sham because all it takes is anyone to report to the local PD and they'll take it from there. You think the Denver police won't take that opportunity to go on a fishing expedition?

ETA: How do you prove that you aren't a threat?

ETA: It's not a 'Red Flag' law (outside of communist Russia connotations), it is a "Red Cape" law. What do you expect out of people that don't understand guns or violence, or frankly the rule of law.

[Irving]

CPR had an interview with the guy who introduced the law. There seems to be a lot of information that isn't being posted here. None that will really change anyone's mind about it, but still a lot of missing information if you're just getting info from this site.

[DavieD55]

Fuck. Compromise.





Okay, so let me spell this out for any of you that have any doubts. A family member (even if not residing with you for years, say your in-laws, your ex-wife, estranged family) or household member (roommates, etc.) or a law enforcement officer (broadly defined) can file a document with the court - without your knowledge- alleging you are a threat. Anything in the document has to be presumed true by the court, because it is ex-parte. The petitioner risks "perjury" if they lie. It's presumed true as an ex-parte application, your firearms are immediately revoked without an investigation, your carry permit is immediately revoked, and we worry about due process later, in fact you have to FIGHT to obtain a hearing. The risk of perjury sounds like a safeguard right? But how many of you have any court experience?

I have NEVER EVER, FUCKING EVER, SEEN EVEN A CITATION FOR PERJURY even on the MOST FUCKING OUTLANDISH EX PARTE APPLICATION on this state. Attorneys and parties routinely forge documents outright in court, and there are no ramifications even when caught red handed. People make false affiants all the time, there are no ramifications even when caught red handed. I have dozens in my file that would blow. your. fucking. mind. This bill is the single biggest risk to your firearm rights within this state.

Bear in mind that this places your lifetime access to your firearm rights in the control of two people 1) Pretty much every vindictive person you've ever known in your life COUPLED with 2) A very biased judge appointed by one of the most liberal governors in the country. .

[B]This crap is an outright blank check to frivolously and without due process deprive people of the most important constitutional right; usually at a time when they need it the most. For every legitimate red flag, there will be a thousand that are abused. The magazine ban has NOTHING on this. The potential for future abuse is outstanding.

I am withholding my true thoughts on this bullshit movement. If any of you think "well there's some pros and cons to this" get the fuck off the site.


This ^


This is communism folks.

[Martinjmpr]

Yeah, this looks like a bad deal all around.

So if weapons are surrendered, what happens to them? Do they get stored in the local LE agencies evidence room? Suppose that priceless heirloom firearm ends up going "missing" or damaged?

Presumably, sovereign immunity would shield the LE Agency from any and all liability which would mean you'd be SOL.[Mad]

[Irving]

I'm not saying there is any good part of the law at all. It's interesting to hear the guy pitching it talk about it, because of course he doesn't get into the nitty gritty of the law or how the law works at all. Only throwing out figures about other states' usage and other unrelated stuff like, "I've never heard anyone who completely lost their rights be very upset about it." Uhh, what?

[Doc45]

Heard Tony Spurlock, DCSO Sheriff, earlier today on the radio saying how he’s a big 2A guy, owns lots of guns and thinks this bill is a good idea. Great, thanks for nothing.

[DenverGP]

Wonder how the law would handle it if someone red-flagged me, but all the guns in the safe at my house belonged to my wife, or to my son (he doesn't have a safe, so he stores them all in my safe)?

[Great-Kazoo]

Wonder how the law would handle it if someone red-flagged me, but all the guns in the safe at my house belonged to my wife, or to my son (he doesn't have a safe, so he stores them all in my safe)?

Based on CA, NY and other states. Not on premises. You'd have less rights than a former felon, which is interesting as anyone can buy a black powder kit. Or propane, gasoline etc.

[DenverGP]

But if they came to take them, and they weren't mine, would the owner be able to take them / relocate them?

[crays]

Heard Tony Spurlock, DCSO Sheriff, earlier today on the radio saying how he’s a big 2A guy, owns lots of guns and thinks this bill is a good idea. Great, thanks for nothing.

Maybe someone should red flag him since he's bragging about having a lot of guns... See if his supportive attitude changes any...

[hurley842002]

Maybe someone should red flag him since he's bragging about having a lot of guns... See if his supportive attitude changes any...FTW!

[MrAK]

This scares the crap outta me as someone with an estranged and sociopathic sister :/

[CoGirl303]

This scares the crap outta me as someone with an estranged and sociopathic sister :/

this crap scares me with the last whacko landlord/roommate I had.

bf/gf, gf/gf, bf/bf, brothers, sisters, parents, etc...just way too much room for abuse and wrongdoing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[motoboy]

Maybe someone should red flag him since he's bragging about having a lot of guns... See if his supportive attitude changes any...

[rockon]

[Irving]

Maybe someone should red flag him since he's bragging about having a lot of guns... See if his supportive attitude changes any...

It would be a good way to investigate how difficult this is to use. I wouldn't want to be harassed by the police for the rest of my life though.

[Eric P]

So if your guns are in a trust, would they need to be surrendered?

Possible loophole we should all use to defy silly laws?

[CS1983]

So if your guns are in a trust, would they need to be surrendered?

Possible loophole we should all use to defy silly laws?

Interesting workaround... look fwd to reading a "not legal advice" answer.

-----

All you folks who mess with / troll NextDoor... might want to stop trolling.

[Martinjmpr]

So if your guns are in a trust, would they need to be surrendered?

Possible loophole we should all use to defy silly laws?

No, that wouldn't work for the reasons Foxtrot stated above: "Constructive possession." IOW it would be no different than if you said "I don't own these, they all belong to my wife." If you live in the house and you have unfettered access to them then it's the same as if they're yours.

Now, if the cops show up and you don't have any guns in your home, they are stored elsewhere, I'm not sure what they could do. They could compel you to surrender your guns under threat of prosecution, perhaps.

A warrant from a judge generally allows the police to do whatever is necessary to execute the warrant. I'm just guessing here but the warrant would probably read something like "The sheriff or his designated appointee is authorized to go to Joe Respondent's house at 123 Fake Street in Springfield and remove all firearms pursuant to CRS xx-xx-xxxx.x" That gives them the authority to go into YOUR house.

But it would be an interesting case if, for example, you told the cops that all your guns were at your brother Jim's house. Could they seize them without a warrant from the judge specifically authorizing them to go into Jim's house to do it? And what if Jim lives in a different jurisdiction? Is the warrant state-wide?

Better yet, what if Jim lives in a county with a pro-gun sheriff (yes they exist) and that sheriff orders his deputies not to enforce the order?

Here's another: What if a judge signs the order and the Sheriff says "I'm not going to enforce that?" I suppose the judge could hold the sheriff in contempt but how is he going to arrest him?

(I'm thinking of that memorable scene in the movie "Tombstone": Right after the gunfight at the OK corral when Sheriff Behan belatedly approaches the Earp party and says "Your'e all under arrest!" and Kurt Russel's Wyatt Earp replies "No, Sheriff, I don't think I'm going to let you arrest me today." and walks off.)

Lots of problems with this proposed law....

[DavieD55]

https://youtu.be/7hmoKPz-eQ0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hmoKPz-eQ0

[DavieD55]

It might be very wise for people with any risk (related to manipulative family members, ex spouses, in laws, dating partners, roommates, etc.) to go away from the large family safe in the garage, and instead think of security through strict obscurity. You also might want to consider owning only a single firearm, your carry piece.



This ^

If you haven't had this in mind you're at least ten years behind. Even if this law does not pass, it should still be taken into consideration ASAP.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

this crap scares me with the last whacko landlord/roommate I had.

bf/gf, gf/gf, bf/bf, brothers, sisters, parents, etc...just way too much room for abuse and wrongdoing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It allows LEOs to also come to the court. So someone that you aren't even related to you drops in to talk to the local PD, hell, sends a tweet, and viola- the process is started.

[Vic Tory]

Heard Tony Spurlock, DCSO Sheriff, earlier today on the radio saying how he’s a big 2A guy, owns lots of guns and thinks this bill is a good idea. Great, thanks for nothing.

I lived in Douglas Country when Tony was "elected". What a mess that county is!

We all knew Tony wasn't the 2A supporter he claimed to be. That he likes this bill is more evidence.

[Vic Tory]

Until a friend alerted me to this (this morning) I knew nothing about it. I'm caught-up on this discussion ... I think.

Maybe I missed it, but what organization is actively opposing this ERPO [fertilizer] and how do we support them?

[Vic Tory]

Crap like this makes me feel like we have completely lost are once great state of Colorado. The fact that people can't see just how ignorant this idea of giving so much power to every single individual without any checks or balances boggles my mind. Is like taking advise from kids who eat tide pods.

You expressed my thoughts pretty much on-the-money.

[Irving]

Here are some examples of this being implemented in other states if anyone is interested in real cases, instead of theoretical scenarios.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-guns-seized-lighthouse-point-20180316-story.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-ar-15-arrested-new-fla-risk-protection-law-article-1.3926669

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/04/06/under-states-new-gun-law-tpd-seeks-seize-mans-guns/493898002/

http://www.valleyrecord.com/news/man-arrested-in-snoqualmie-for-threatening-seattle-church-is-charged/

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411346-Complaint-McKenzie.html

[Joe_K]

This entire law will only create hundreds of situations similar to what Deputy Parrish faced on his last night on earth. Except some of those facing forcible gun confiscation will not be crazy, just ready. And it will only take one such incident to give the left all the ammo they need to declare all gun owners in Colorado as a risk to the state.


“Don’t go slow, be careful” Jedi

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I have looked all over for the quote. I swear I thought it was "On War" by Clausewitz, or a Russian General. It was something like- there is a sign on the displays in the Paris Zoo that says "Warning- This animal is very dangerous! It will defend itself vigorously if provoked."

The whole Progressive gun grabbing plan is based on two things: One is that none of this costs them anything- in convenience or in dollars from the budget. The other is that it is meant to provoke us. The reverse idea that we only need guns to protect ourselves from the govt when the govt is coming for our guns is lost on them.

They are trying to start a civil war, or more precisely, a French Revolution type conflict.

[DavieD55]

Here are some examples of this being implemented in other states if anyone is interested in real cases, instead of theoretical scenarios.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-guns-seized-lighthouse-point-20180316-story.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-ar-15-arrested-new-fla-risk-protection-law-article-1.3926669

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/04/06/under-states-new-gun-law-tpd-seeks-seize-mans-guns/493898002/

http://www.valleyrecord.com/news/man-arrested-in-snoqualmie-for-threatening-seattle-church-is-charged/

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411346-Complaint-McKenzie.html


We all know the establishment media is corrupt and we know they're going to float the establishment agenda on everything from gun control to globalism and everything else. Do you honestly believe they will report on all the abuses of these unconstitutional laws? Of course they're not going to report on that because they have an agenda of gun control and they will try to portray this as huge success to the unsuspecting public who don't understand that what they are reading is propaganda BS.

[Irving]

Haha, oh my gosh.

[thedave1164]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do some people not understand?

There are plenty of unconstitutional laws on the books already to "protect" without adding another

[Rucker61]

I've been thinking about this and the "red flag" EPRO could be used as advanced level "swatting" in two ways:

1) From departments receiving the ex-parte red-flag order that portrays you as a mass shooter, unaware of the system these orders are issued, doing no-knock raids on law abiding people. [You think it was a hostile forcible entry] putting your life in great jeopardy, and again, the LEO agency would probably be immune from liability if they kill you [they lawfully acted under the order and had to presume a threat]



The only reason to own or want to own an "assault weapon" is if you're a mass shooter, so if you own one, or are on this site, you need a red flag stat! It's for the kids.

[Zundfolge]

My initial thought was that its time to scrape the NRA and other gun related stickers off my car because an obnoxious leftist behind me in traffic might just decide he's justified in ruining the lives of anyone that owns a gun out of spite.

And I realized THAT is the purpose of these laws, to push gun owners into the shadows for fear of being turned in and turned upside down by total strangers for no reason.

[Gman]

This entire law will only create hundreds of situations similar to what Deputy Parrish faced on his last night on earth. Except some of those facing forcible gun confiscation will not be crazy, just ready. And it will only take one such incident to give the left all the ammo they need to declare all gun owners in Colorado as a risk to the state.


“Don’t go slow, be careful” JediThe wife and I were discussing this the other day. LEOs coming to seize someone's natural right to self-preservation/guns might just be enough to push someone over the edge. Yet, Sheriff Tony Spurlock wants to prevent these types of encounters?

It's just a hypothetical, but it also isn't from the realm of fantasy.

Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk

[CS1983]

The wife and I were discussing this the other day. LEOs coming to seize someone's natural right to self-preservation/guns might just be enough to push someone over the edge. Yet, Sheriff Tony Spurlock wants to prevent these types of encounters?

It's just a hypothetical, but it also isn't from the realm of fantasy.

Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk



The CLEO's got their MRAPs and all manner of militaria with the GWOT and its subsequent spending fervor coming home stateside, but they apparently didn't get the memo written in the blood of many Americans, Iraqis, etc.: the common man will have no choice but to become an enemy when you make him one.

It starts with individuals, but eventually will spread to society at large.

When one is pushed into the shadows, they adjust to the dark. That's not a place any competent authority wants a person to be. In the dark, lines get blurred and what was legal yesterday is illegal today. Well, if you're gonna be a criminal, then just be a criminal.


As a young Specialist, I was once tasked with observing an interrogation of an individual whose yard contained a buried cache of weapons and explosives. Under Saddam he was probably a nobody. Just another lower-middle class Iraqi. But then the Americans came. By our very presence and the propaganda opportunity that afforded AQI, we made an enemy. The interrogator was following the script: presenting the evidence against him, asking for names and locations of resistance leadership and members, etc. He wouldn't give a single name. The interrogator took a break and told me he knew for a fact that the guy was guilty, because everyone in Samarra knew at least some of the local resistance leadership -- they were named repeatedly on the radio, on posters, etc. They reconvened. Interrogator started listing known names. Dude's eyes got wide. And then, the script continued, "Tell us everything you know, or we will send you to Abu Ghraib or maybe even Guantanamo." And the prisoner replied in Arabic. The interpreter, who had been rather macho until this point sat back with a look of almost shock. Interrogator asks what he said, and the terp says, "He said that 'when you are already wet, you aren't afraid of the rain'." In other words: I'm caught. You'll do what you want, but I'm not going down like a clothesline in a tornado.

That line, 'when you are already wet, you aren't afraid of the rain', has stuck with me since that night.

The problem is those currently "in charge" don't understand that they are creating a city, state, and a nation of people who can only have so many water balloons, buckets, and hoses aimed at them before they no longer care about getting wet. The rain will be nothing. In fact, they will thrive in it because they're now used to the dark, the cold, and the wet.

This law is a hose to aim at whomever -- sure, some are lit fuses that need to be put out, but many will be kleenex: flammable in potential, but with no intention to be aflame. When they dry out, God help anyone who tries to wet them again. Pretty soon TPTB will find they have done at least the following once all these "safety" measures come to a conjoined bearing of fruit:

* Created a subset of society that, otherwise, would never have been a criminal element.
* Accidentally facilitated, encouraged, and lost the war on the black market (which will expand).
* The encouragement of analog, old school methods of communication that no NSA server farm in Utah can EVER penetrate because you cannot wiretap a hushed face to face conversation.
* The good ole boy network will thrive, and the black market gun trade will take on a "cell" character that is impossible to penetrate with undercover agents. They will instead have to turn brother on brother, cousin on cousin, and childhood friend on childhood friend. And they have no idea where to start looking.
* The opening of entry for foreign elements, be they foreign .gov or cartels, or whatever, to supply a need which hurts a now-common enemy: TPTB.
* Etc. -- just look at history and connect the dots. "[9] What is it that hath been? the same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? the same that shall be done. [10] Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. " - Ecclesiastes 1

Will the sky fall from the false dome which TPTB intend to tell us is reality in a year or 5? Not likely. Probably would take a significant event to shift such things up that quickly. But in 10, 15, 20 years? Probably more likely.

There's only two ways to stop it that I can see:

1) Don't do the dumb. Recognize that one cannot legislate away man's fallen nature. Bad people will do bad things, regardless of the law(s). It's no reason to punish the innocent. Simply punish the guilty when they present themselves.

2) Lull the populace bit by bit. Have step-by-step "compromise" that today's generation would see as a grab and tomorrow's generation will see as a win. In other words, boil the frog slowly.

They're too stupid to see the brilliance in #1. They'll go for #2. And then they will find out how utterly retarded that was.

[DavieD55]

If this passes here as it has in so many other states, the Constitution is truly dead - murdered by overwhelming socialistic philosophies which have infested our nation.

Make no mistake about it, laws such as these ignore the 14th to eliminate the 2nd. PERIOD.

Setting legal precedence to ignore the 14th for this cause opens further abuse for any other cause they see fit to administer. Once the 2nd is no longer a concern because every threat to the socialistic agenda has been disarmed, who is to stop them from further abuses? No one, because no one will have the means to resist.

Just look at the whole deal with the Federal FISA warrants issued without due process and falsified evidence to see how easy it will be to obtain an ERPO against someone; especially when the claimed need is "for the children".

As time continues on it will only become more and more blatantly corrupt. Next is the freedom of speech (which they have been working on for a while now) and then it is onto all the private property and assets. If you have something the government wants, they'll just label you a nutjob, disarm you, and then take whatever they want. That is what this is all about. They've been going willy nilly stealing private property from the public without just compensation for a long while now... this happens everyday all across "our" country. This will only make it much easier for them to get away with their corruption.


This is NOT about public safety. I repeat, this is NOT about public safety.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

What would a law look like that we would accept that addresses the problem of truly crazy and delusional people should not be able to get guns and shouldn't have guns?

Why are we only looking at guns? It seems that with France, German, Canada and even here in the US it is clear that the issue is crazy and terrorism and can come from something ubiquitous as a panel van.

Let's say you take guns of Loughner or Cruz, you really think that you have eliminated the threat? You might have actually set it off for the truly crazy.

Why the concentration on guns and crazy, when we should be looking at the dangerously crazy. Yes it manifests itself often as threats with guns- but as some have pointed out, some bike locks and cans of gas could be even more deadly.

What would our law look like? There has to be some mechanism to remover the threat of the dangerously insane.

[Irving]

What would a law look like that we would accept that addresses the problem of truly crazy and delusional people should not be able to get guns and shouldn't have guns?

Why are we only looking at guns? It seems that with France, German, Canada and even here in the US it is clear that the issue is crazy and terrorism and can come from something ubiquitous as a panel van.

Let's say you take guns of Loughner or Cruz, you really think that you have eliminated the threat? You might have actually set it off for the truly crazy.

Why the concentration on guns and crazy, when we should be looking at the dangerously crazy. Yes it manifests itself often as threats with guns- but as some have pointed out, some bike locks and cans of gas could be even more deadly.

What would our law look like? There has to be some mechanism to remover the threat of the dangerously insane.

Glad someone stopped crying about what victims we all are long enough to bring this up. I don't think most of the intent of these laws are directed at gun owners like all the chicken littles are crying about. HOWEVER, with the way it's implemented, the end result will put everyone in the same place, so I'm not exactly sure how I feel about people missing the intention and doing their best to make this about them when it isn't. That's my opinion anyway.

Anyway, to answer your question, this seems to be the answer that was come up with in lieu of asylums. Those are long gone, gun owners complained that mental health was a big issue, and people actually listened, so here we are. What's the right answer? I don't know. Asylums were likely effective, but are gone for a reason. It'd be difficult complain about your gun rights if you're forcefully locked away and have had ALL your rights removed. I'm sure plenty of members here would still put the focus on their guns though.

[DavieD55]

What would a law look like that we would accept that addresses the problem of truly crazy and delusional people should not be able to get guns and shouldn't have guns?

Why are we only looking at guns? It seems that with France, German, Canada and even here in the US it is clear that the issue is crazy and terrorism and can come from something ubiquitous as a panel van.

Let's say you take guns of Loughner or Cruz, you really think that you have eliminated the threat? You might have actually set it off for the truly crazy.

Why the concentration on guns and crazy, when we should be looking at the dangerously crazy. Yes it manifests itself often as threats with guns- but as some have pointed out, some bike locks and cans of gas could be even more deadly.

What would our law look like? There has to be some mechanism to remover the threat of the dangerously insane.

So you're willing to give all kinds of unaccountable not to mention completely and blatantly unconstitutional authority to absolute shitbag officials? Are you feeling ok?

Since you mentioned Europe... Here's what is going on over there. Lots of dreamers and refugees. Pretty awesome huh.. it's so diverse and multicultural. Not to go off the original topic but, People throughout Europe are being arrested and jailed by the thought police for typing anything negative, offensive, or insensitive about the precious migrants on the internet and or facebook of whom are literally burning down their cities, raping their women, and pillaging the country side.

https://youtu.be/J04Ej1DYO4o


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J04Ej1DYO4o

[pickenup]

Just a couple of ways they have already PROVEN their intentions. There are MANY more.

United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

An ex post facto law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences, of actions that were committed, before the enactment of the law. Which means you can not change the punishment for a crime AFTER a sentence has been handed down.

Yet this is EXACTLY what they did with cases of domestic violence. People who YEARS before pleaded guilty to a charge of domestic violence knowing what the penalties were at that time. Then YEARS later an ex post facto law was passed which made it illegal for them to own firearms. BLATANTLY against our constitution.


Attacks on the 5th Amendment...?
No person shall be.....deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law.....
Have they abused this already?

This from the Washington Post....many without ever being CHARGED with a crime.

Since 2008, thousands of police agencies had made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion under a Justice Department civil asset forfeiture program, which allowed local and state police to make seizures and then share the proceeds with federal agencies.

A Washington Post investigation in 2014 found that state and local police had seized almost $2.5 billion from motorists and others without search warrants or indictments since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The Post series revealed that police routinely stopped drivers for minor traffic infractions, pressed them to agree to searches without warrants and seized large amounts of cash when there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

Now they AGAIN want to violate the 5th Amendment (due process) with this "red flag" BS?

Why would we have any reason to doubt their intentions?

We have been conditioned to ACCEPT these violations without even a whimper.

[Irving]

I'll have to respond later. In short, I'm not doing a great job expressing what I'm taking about here. I'm not in support of this proposed law. I'm also not a fan of the way people are reacting about this proposed law. Regardless of the intention of the law, the end result will be the things people are afraid of as stated. I think that acting like the world is out to get gun owners is drawing undue negative attention to gun owners and they will unwittingly force their darkest nightmares about the future of gun ownership to materialize even faster. So, while I think people are acting ridiculous, I fail to suggest any other way to act. Something should be done to halt this steamroller, I just don't think throwing ourselves in front of it is the best option.

[Great-Kazoo]

Bottom line (for the layperson is) ANYONE, if this is passed. Could contact a LE agency and say I believe / fear/ know X person is a threat AND they have a firearm. That's all it takes as of now in CA & N.Y.

[MrAK]

Foxtrot, I don’t know you, but I like you :)


I'll also add: It shouldn't be a blank check. Fuck perjury, of which prosecutions never happen (and in the ultra, ultra rare event they do, are a wrist slap). "At risk of..." never results in a prosecution in the Courts, as the discretion to advance it is the Courts. They see lies and fabrications and forgeries all the time, all which are ignored (because it's a lot of extra work to pay attention and punish it...) why should they direct prosecution of this and not others?

It needs to be legislated that any person whom brings a complaint frivolously, vexatiously, or groundlessly, or in bad faith, shall have all attorneys fees and costs awarded against them (such as C.R.C.P. 12(b) would), the liability of which shall be non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

In order to really mitigate the misuse of a red-flag bill, you need to give the dog teeth on both ends, so that someone has to feel very sure of the situation before risking their own hide, as opposed to perhaps, simply wanting to cause pain and suffering upon another, or having fleeting beliefs based in nothing more than their own hostilities.

It might even be wise to require a criminal proceeding for perjury be initiated in any complaint brought (friv/vex/groun/bad faith) with bright-line declared sentencing standards applied for anyone found guilty.

[Irving]

Just heard more interviews about this and the Republican supporter was saying that the accuser can face purjury charges if found lying. A politician said that though, so I don't know how much I believe it.

[Great-Kazoo]

Just heard more interviews about this and the Republican supporter was saying that the accuser can face purjury charges if found lying. A politician said that though, so I don't know how much I believe it.

Face charges the same way a felon in possession, gets the gun charged dropped.

Until there's written guarantees that protects a gun owner with due process. Before a firearm is confiscated,i might consider supporting it. However this is another knee jerk reaction filled with a lot of maybe's, possibly and we'll judge each case on it's merits.

Judging someone a threat w/out actual a hearing is meaningless. This is what the LE's in FLA said. There was no law broken that warranted an arrest or confiscation. Even with the numerous "redflags" that were present.


IMO this is one more way gun control, abolishing/ banning "evil assault weapons" will happen. Not by state and federal law, but by backdoor, someone is a potential threat, distractions.

[theGinsue]

Just heard more interviews about this and the Republican supporter was saying that the accuser can face purjury charges if found lying. A politician said that though, so I don't know how much I believe it.

I agree with Foxtrot wholeheartedly that the "can face" purjury charges would absolutely need to be changed to "will face".

[theGinsue]

Face charges the same way a felon in possession, gets the gun charged dropped.

Until there's written guarantees that protects a gun owner with due process. Before a firearm is confiscated,i might consider supporting it. However this is another knee jerk reaction filled with a lot of maybe's, possibly and we'll judge each case on it's merits.

Judging someone a threat w/out actual a hearing is meaningless. This is what the LE's in FLA said. There was no law broken that warranted an arrest or confiscation. Even with the numerous "redflags" that were present.


IMO this is one more way gun control, abolishing/ banning "evil assault weapons" will happen. Not by state and federal law, but by backdoor, someone is a potential threat, distractions.

Agreed.

[O2HeN2]

I agree with Foxtrot wholeheartedly that the "can face" purjury charges would absolutely need to be changed to "will face".
Not purjury, but felony charges. "Willful depravation of someone's rights" or somesuch. Let them lose their rights.

O3

[Little Dutch]

Anyone know the legalities of Ol' Hickenlooper writing this into law through executive action if it doesn't reach his desk? I know they've made statements that they are considering it, I'm wondering if that's a simple signature for him or if it takes an actual effort.

[Delfuego]

This pile of shit is sponsored and written by this clown http://colewist.com/ 2nd highest ranking "republican" in the house. Just heard an interview with him. One rational of his was "they are doing it in Indiana" (I'm paraphrasing). What a bunch fucking jackasses we have in political office. Bet this guy runs for Governor...

[nogaroheli]

This just passed the Colorado house 37 to 23. This is insane. Now on to the senate.

Does anyone else feel like our efforts only fall on deaf ears in the Colorado gov when it comes to 2a topics?

[CS1983]

This pile of shit is sponsored and written by this clown http://colewist.com/ 2nd highest ranking "republican" in the house. Just heard an interview with him. One rational of his was "they are doing it in Indiana" (I'm paraphrasing). What a bunch fucking jackasses we have in political office. Bet this guy runs for Governor...

Dude's official pic looks like Butthead from Beavis and Butthead, but with shorter hair.

https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators/cole-wist

[Irving]

This pile of shit is sponsored and written by this clown http://colewist.com/ 2nd highest ranking "republican" in the house. Just heard an interview with him. One rational of his was "they are doing it in Indiana" (I'm paraphrasing). What a bunch fucking jackasses we have in political office. Bet this guy runs for Governor...

Yeah, he's the one I keep hearing interviews with. He's really hitting hard on how many other states have the law and how infrequently they're using it.

My point about chicken littling this is the balance of drawing attention to a bad law, without also drawing attention to yourself and potentially beginning a target yourself.

[Delfuego]

Does anyone else feel like our efforts only fall on deaf ears in the Colorado govOn all of it

[Great-Kazoo]

It's less to do with guns, and more to do with gov't coming in and seizing peoples personal property on nothing but a one sided promise.




R.I.C.O was promised to be "The Law" Law Enforcement would use to target Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. Them and them only, nothing would be utilized to do anything but.

Ask those caught in the web of forfeiture w/out due process how that worked out.

[MrAK]

+1



If anyone is aware of any public input / open session during this give me a heads up. I know it's getting steamrolled through though.

To other replies:
1) I'm also not worried about drawing attention to myself. I have no qualms about suing the State of Colorado and may have experience in it. If they want to blame me for the next shooting they can feel free. I can also blame them for not passing something that complied with any legal process at all and made an open door for malicious actors while ignoring every Supreme Court opinion ever issued. E.g., not on me for them intentionally breaking law. It's a little hard to portray me as a reactionary "Dey gunna get my guns!" when my legal case doesn't even reach the 2A issues.

2) If we're scared to attack even the biggest constitutional rights issues, then we might as well slap on the handcuffs now and turn over our assets and private property to the State for annual inspection, recording, seizure and distribution.If we should keep our head down "because it's not likely to affect us personally, just other poor saps" then we are not, like I previously explained, good people. A lot of germans had the same thoughts in the 40's. A lot of Americans did too.

[wctriumph]

Friends,

HB18-1436 passed on third reading this evening. The vote was 37-23. Because I was one of only two Republicans to vote yes, and because this is an important issue, I wanted to give you a report right away.

Here is my thinking:

HB18-1436, to create Extreme Risk Protection Orders. This bill provides our law enforcement critical public safety support while fully safeguarding our 2nd Amendment rights.

The idea HB 1436 presents is this: close family members and law enforcement officers would be able to temporarily prevent a person with a mental illness who is clearly a danger to him- or herself and others from accessing a deadly weapon. The burden of proof rests on the person seeking the restraining order, who must prove to a judge that the person in question poses a significant risk. The court then must hold a second hearing within a week, with a higher standard of evidence (clear and convincing). After 182 days, the respondent can petition for the order to end – and at that hearing, the burden of proof still rests with the person who brought the order.

This is not a new idea. Many other states, like Florida and conservative Indiana, have laws very similar to HB 1436.

This bill has broad support among our Colorado law enforcement community. This support includes the Colorado Department of Public Safety whose Executive Director is Stan Hilkey, our former Mesa County Sherriff and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation which is headed by John Camper, former Grand Junction Police Chief.

This was not an easy decision by any means. These are tough constitutional issues we’re wrestling with in this bill, and protecting human life and securing our rights and liberties are responsibilities I take extremely seriously.

Ultimately, public safety is a core function of government, one that we should be acting on here at the Legislature. I believe this bill will give law enforcement the tools it needs to successfully protect our lives, while ensuring our constitutional liberties are preserved as well.

I have received more email and phone calls on this issue than any other during the session. I appreciate the feedback. I know you won’t all agree with this vote. Rest assured I worked hard to understand the issue in depth. Thank you for the opportunity to do this job.

Best,

Dan

P.S. - REMEMBER!

You can contribute using the button below, or send a check to:

Dan Thurlow Senate 7
733 Centauri Court
Grand Junction, CO 81506

Let’s do something different.

[Bitter Clinger]

Friends,

HB18-1436 passed on third reading this evening. The vote was 37-23. Because I was one of only two Republicans to vote yes, and because this is an important issue, I wanted to give you a report right away.

Here is my thinking:

HB18-1436, to create Extreme Risk Protection Orders. This bill provides our law enforcement critical public safety support while fully safeguarding our 2nd Amendment rights.

The idea HB 1436 presents is this: close family members and law enforcement officers would be able to temporarily prevent a person with a mental illness who is clearly a danger to him- or herself and others from accessing a deadly weapon. The burden of proof rests on the person seeking the restraining order, who must prove to a judge that the person in question poses a significant risk. The court then must hold a second hearing within a week, with a higher standard of evidence (clear and convincing). After 182 days, the respondent can petition for the order to end – and at that hearing, the burden of proof still rests with the person who brought the order.

This is not a new idea. Many other states, like Florida and conservative Indiana, have laws very similar to HB 1436.

This bill has broad support among our Colorado law enforcement community. This support includes the Colorado Department of Public Safety whose Executive Director is Stan Hilkey, our former Mesa County Sherriff and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation which is headed by John Camper, former Grand Junction Police Chief.

This was not an easy decision by any means. These are tough constitutional issues we’re wrestling with in this bill, and protecting human life and securing our rights and liberties are responsibilities I take extremely seriously.

Ultimately, public safety is a core function of government, one that we should be acting on here at the Legislature. I believe this bill will give law enforcement the tools it needs to successfully protect our lives, while ensuring our constitutional liberties are preserved as well.

I have received more email and phone calls on this issue than any other during the session. I appreciate the feedback. I know you won’t all agree with this vote. Rest assured I worked hard to understand the issue in depth. Thank you for the opportunity to do this job.

Best,

Dan

P.S. - REMEMBER!

You can contribute using the button below, or send a check to:

Dan Thurlow Senate 7
733 Centauri Court
Grand Junction, CO 81506

Let’s do something different.
I don't live in your district, but I have family that does. I will forward this to them so they know who to vote against.

[thedave1164]

Thurlow is well known to be a rino

[kidicarus13]

...so they know who to vote against.

Yes please.

[Bitter Clinger]

Yes please.

Already done!

[CoGirl303]

This just passed the Colorado house 37 to 23. This is insane. Now on to the senate.

Does anyone else feel like our efforts only fall on deaf ears in the Colorado gov when it comes to 2a topics?

It has a pretty dim future in the Senate.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/colorado-red-flag-bill-passes-democratic-controlled-house-faces-dim-future-as-it-heads-to-senate


Let's hope it dies there as it should. [emoji1317]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CS1983]

Why do you believe that it will go on party lines, or a few D "no" votes and all R no, and not full D support with a few RINOs to push it ahead to Hick's desk?

[Great-Kazoo]

I believe Hick as a last hurrah will EO this if not enough votes for passage.

[buffalobo]

It has a pretty dim future in the Senate.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/colorado-red-flag-bill-passes-democratic-controlled-house-faces-dim-future-as-it-heads-to-senate


Let's hope it dies there as it should. [emoji1317]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkDon't count on it. One of the sponsors was Rep Cole Wist, a supposed Republican(Rino). I believe other R's in the house also voted for it. Several Republican talking heads(read Rino attys) have been supporting and promoting it.

[CoGirl303]

hope you're all wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CS1983]

hope you're all wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We do too!

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

How long to the first time that the guy getting served goes postal? How long till someone who is truly deranged has their guns taken away and decides to show us all and drives through a crowd of people.

If someone is so dangerous that they shouldn't have guns, why would we want them driving around, having access to things like gasoline?

[Joe_K]

Ok, so here are some ways to help and not just gripe.

https://leg.colorado.gov/find-my-legislator

Type in your address, click on the link to your Senators website, they will have all of their contact information listed.

On my phone it took me about 5 minutes to send off a well worded, spell checked email to my district’s Senator.

It also might be nice to reach out to your Colorado House Representative and attempt to figure out how voted on HB 18-1436, if they voted in favor of the bill maybe send them some old dog poop, if they voted against maybe a gift card to one of the industry partners on this forum.


“Don’t go slow, be careful” Jedi

[kidicarus13]

"I don't think it's any secret where the three members stand on that particular subject when it comes to the potential for gun confiscation without the proper due pricess." said Senate President Kevin Grantham.

"So I don't think it should be any surprise what happens to the bill once it goes through committre", Grantham added.

[nogaroheli]

I used the RMGO link they sent and emailed all the republican and all the democrat senators. I got two canned "thanks for your email" responses from the republicans and then this from Angela Williams:

Thank you for reaching out regarding HB18-1436. While I know there have been concerns about infringing on 2nd Amendment rights and due process, I assure you that we have had a productive bipartisan Stakeholder process. The bill puts in necessary safeguards. That is why I will be supporting this piece of legislation.

Sincerely,

--
Angela Williams
Colorado State Senator
Senate District 33
Committee Member: Business, Labor & Technology,
Joint Technology
Chair: Black Democratic Legislative Caucus

I didn't expect a reply, but I'm more annoyed that I got one with flat out lies in it- there are no necessary safeguards in this law.

**Update**
I just got this one from Owen Hill:

Dear friends,
Thank you for reaching out over the past week to share your thoughts on the Red Flag Bill, also knows as HB18-1436 Emergency Risk Protection Orders.

I have serious concerns about this bill, ranging from constitutionality and due process, to search warrants and protections for our veterans.

But I need your help.

During my vote, I would like to be able to share the thoughts of those who are opposed to this bill. Will you please forward this bill around and ask your friends and family to email me their thoughts so that I can share them?

My personal email address is owenjhill@gmail.com

This is time sensitive, because I expect the vote will occur in a few hours.

Thank you for your vigilance.

Warmly,
Owen

So email him your thoughts and give him some ammo!

[newracer]

The bill is essentially dead.

It has been sent to the state affairs committee and all three GOP members have said they will vote no.

[Eric P]

The bill is essentially dead.

It has been sent to the state affairs committee and all three GOP members have said they will vote no.

Good, until next year. Or shitinpooper EOs it in.

[thedave1164]

3 days left........

[Great-Kazoo]

3 days left........

Thank you, Ted Koppel ;)

[Joe_K]

I'll email Owen, as well.

Same.


“Don’t go slow, be careful” Jedi

[DavieD55]

3 days left........

It will be back next year.

[CoGirl303]

I'm glad that's dead for now.

Here's to hoping Dickinhispooper doesn't EO it in.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joe_K]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180508/d6071c4b90f470bd8c3c91acfde2aa7a.jpg


“Don’t go slow, be careful” Jedi

[thedave1164]

I'm glad that's dead for now.

Here's to hoping Dickinhispooper doesn't EO it in.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

chickenpooper can't write a law, he can only sign one.

[OneGuy67]

chickenpooper can't write a law, he can only sign one.

Thanks for answering this. I get tired of attempting to explain to people basic government functions.

[10x]

I am glad the bill is dead. Too much opportunity for abuse.

[Irving]

I'm honestly surprised it got killed.

[DenverGP]

chickenpooper can't write a law, he can only sign one.


Like that ever stopped obama from using executive orders.... The constitution is no problem for dems.

[buffalobo]

Kill committee finally worked in our favor for once.

[buffalobo]

chickenpooper can't write a law, he can only sign one.
Thanks for answering this. I get tired of attempting to explain to people basic government functions.He can issue executive orders. Which is what the poster was refering to. Never referred to legislation.

[CoGirl303]

He can issue executive orders. Which is what the poster was refering to. Never referred to legislation.

reading is fundamental.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CoGirl303]

If only understanding of government was fundamental. The topic was on point; Hick is not going to pass an EO because he lacks the ability to pass such an EO, he cannot pass this (bill) as an EO "law". Much like a congressmen declaring a defendant "guilty" on behalf of a jurist; there are some lines that can't be crossed even if you want to get fuzzy.
Yes, executive overreaches, but their arm presently only reaches so far.

he already said in the initial article in the first post that he'd consider an EO if it didn't pass.

Rules seem not to apply to Liberals for whatever reason.

I wouldn't put it past him to do it anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thedave1164]

he already said in the initial article in the first post that he'd consider an EO if it didn't pass.

Rules seem not to apply to Liberals for whatever reason.

I wouldn't put it past him to do it anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He can spout all he wants, he can not make a law with an EO.

He can not make a red flag law with an EO

[DenverGP]

He can spout all he wants, he can not make a law with an EO.


He can not make a red flag law with an EO


Would you put it past him to direct CBI to deny anyone on a super-secret liberal judge controlled watch list?

[Gman]

(I did expect passage, and I was serious. But now, you all will never know...)

"Never" will likely come around next year. [Coffee]

Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

What would a law that keep guns out of the hands of people like Cruz and Holmes look like? I think the major thing would be that we decide who is just crazy dangerous and irrespective of guns have a way to commit them. The focus is not on gun ownership, but the threat to the community. I’m not talking ‘Pre-crime’ here since it isn’t the threat or the crazy, it the threat and the crazy together. There has to be the right thing between throwing your hands in the air and saying nothing works and screaming that something has to be done.

If this plays out again after the fall elections, I doubt we can depend on a committee kill to stop the ‘something’ and then there will be ‘nothing’ we can do.

[D_F]

I've already seen $20 an hour, signature collector jobs advertised that allude to a gun referendum of some sort. Long way from over.

[Gman]

What would a law that keep guns out of the hands of people like Cruz and Holmes look like?

If Cruz had been on record for his many acts requiring a police presence, he wouldn't have been able to buy the guns he used. Everything was in place to be effective, yet the local sheriff had an arrangement with the school district to prevent Cruz from having a record. The FBI also dropped the ball.

With Holmes, it was primarily his shrink that had information about his intent, yet I recall there was an issue with doctor/patient privilege that prevented any reporting prior to the act.

If someone breaks and hours off the deep end, it could very well be their first and last act, and there's no effective way to make that determination.

Instead of trying to solve the unknowable, I'd rather see focus on what we know. We know these acts usually take place in gun free/kill zones. Let's fix that first. Let's get rid of arrangements between school districts and law enforcement that hides criminal behavior.

There are probably other issues to address, but the left's Pavlovian response is to blame the tool, and that's the fight we're in.

Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk

[OneGuy67]

He can issue executive orders. Which is what the poster was refering to. Never referred to legislation.

Yes he can, but an EO cannot make what we are discussing happen. Think of the Governor as the CEO of the Colorado corporation (the employees of the corporation). He can EO decisions that affect the corporation such as times buildings open, what priorities should be considered, who is going to run what division, etc. He cannot EO anything that can affect anything outside his scope. That includes how the judicial branch operates and what they should review or how any Law Enforcement agency other than those employed by the state operate or prioritize. He can order the CSP to drive around with their emergency lights on, but cannot order DPD to do the same. Understand?

[Great-Kazoo]

I've already seen $20 an hour, signature collector jobs advertised that allude to a gun referendum of some sort. Long way from over.

Be interesting to see if any of them not CO residents get their petition signature forms tossed, like Lamborn did.

[CS1983]

If Cruz had been on record for his many acts requiring a police presence, he wouldn't have been able to buy the guns he used. Everything was in place to be effective, yet the local sheriff had an arrangement with the school district to prevent Cruz from having a record. The FBI also dropped the ball.

With Holmes, it was primarily his shrink that had information about his intent, yet I recall there was an issue with doctor/patient privilege that prevented any reporting prior to the act.

If someone breaks and hours off the deep end, it could very well be their first and last act, and there's no effective way to make that determination.

Instead of trying to solve the unknowable, I'd rather see focus on what we know. We know these acts usually take place in gun free/kill zones. Let's fix that first. Let's get rid of arrangements between school districts and law enforcement that hides criminal behavior.

There are probably other issues to address, but the left's Pavlovian response is to blame the tool, and that's the fight we're in.

Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk

Re: Holmes, I was under the impression that if someone says they are going to harm themselves or others, there is no doc/patient priv?

[Great-Kazoo]

Re: Holmes, I was under the impression that if someone says they are going to harm themselves or others, there is no doc/patient priv?

Only if you're a light skinned Veteran, known gun owner AND have a political opinion different than the Dr, medical provider, LE.

[Eric P]

No law will prevent senseless killings. All laws infringe on our rights with next to no benefit in public safety.

[Martinjmpr]

Re: Holmes, I was under the impression that if someone says they are going to harm themselves or others, there is no doc/patient priv?

Not quite. In some jurisdictions, a doctor is ALLOWED to break privilege if the doctor reasonably believes the patient is likely to harm someone. But the only circumstance where a doctor is REQUIRED to break the privilege and notify someone is if the patient expresses an intent to harm a SPECIFIC PERSON and in that case the duty is only to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON. Tarasoff v. Regents of California. 551 P.2d 334 (1976.)

Note the word "allowed" in the above example though. Except for a very narrow exception in Tarasoff, there is no duty or legal requirement to notify. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any criminal or civil penalty that can be levied against a doctor who knows a patient is about to commit a crime and CHOOSES not to notify the authorities if the victim is not specifically identified.

Put more simply, if I tell my shrink "I'm going to murder Joe Schmoe who lives at 123 Fake Street in Springfield", Tarasoff requires that, at minimum, the shrink warn Joe Schmoe that I made threats against him.

But if I tell my shrink "I'm going to get a gun and kill as many random people as I can" there is, to my knowledge, no specific legal requirement that the shrink notify anyone.

Now, that may be wrong because I've been out of school for a long time, and it may be that there have since been some laws passed that require doctors, under some circumstances, to notify the authorities, I don't know. Doctors, like lawyers, have their own ethics boards that write Rules of Professional Conduct that govern what they may or may not disclose to the authorities and under what circumstances.

As I said, I think there are a lot of places where doctors are ALLOWED to break privilege, but there are very few (that I am aware of) where they are REQUIRED to do so.

[CS1983]

All that is fascinating, but I never said required. You read that into what I said. :D

[Irving]

Aren't there some states that requires hairdressers to turn people in if they think they are talking about domestic violence issues?

[Martinjmpr]

All that is fascinating, but I never said required. You read that into what I said. :D

[Dunno] What you said was "no doctor/patient privilege." But that's not correct, the privilege is still there - it's always there - but under some circumstances the doctor is allowed or required to 'break' the privilege.

[Martinjmpr]

Aren't there some states that requires hairdressers to turn people in if they think they are talking about domestic violence issues?

Never heard of hairdressers being "required" to do anything other than dress hair. ;) Some professions are what they call "mandatory reporters" for things like child abuse (teachers, counselors, child welfare workers, etc) and they can be disciplined or in some cases even prosecuted for failing to report suspected abuse.

I have heard of people in some professions being encouraged to report suspected abuse (and being educated in what to listen for.) But required? It's a very small category of people that are "required" to report things to the authorities.

[CS1983]

[Dunno] What you said was "no doctor/patient privilege." But that's not correct, the privilege is still there - it's always there - but under some circumstances the doctor is allowed or required to 'break' the privilege.

Not in the context of the info being discussed. Either privilege is a thing, or it isn't, in context. Yes, if patient X said he is going to kill himself, or another/others, I understand that the doctor cannot also add, "And by the way, they have herpes." That would be a violation of the privilege in context. And there is still a difference between required and lack of force of law therein. I never said required.

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/confidentiality

The lesson is KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. Psychologists and Doctors are not anyone's friend and thinking one is "blowing off steam" is a good way to get hemmed up.

[Martinjmpr]

The lesson is KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. Psychologists and Doctors are not anyone's friend and thinking one is "blowing off steam" is a good way to get hemmed up.

If you can't communicate honestly with your psychiatrist, what is the point of seeing one? That's the whole reason for the privilege in the first place.

[newracer]

Aren't there some states that requires hairdressers to turn people in if they think they are talking about domestic violence issues?

I think domestic abuse recognition training has become required in some states for hair dressers, no requirement for reporting.

[Irving]

Thank you.

[Great-Kazoo]

Not quite. In some jurisdictions, a doctor is ALLOWED to break privilege if the doctor reasonably believes the patient is likely to harm someone. But the only circumstance where a doctor is REQUIRED to break the privilege and notify someone is if the patient expresses an intent to harm a SPECIFIC PERSON and in that case the duty is only to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON. Tarasoff v. Regents of California. 551 P.2d 334 (1976.)

Note the word "allowed" in the above example though. Except for a very narrow exception in Tarasoff, there is no duty or legal requirement to notify. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any criminal or civil penalty that can be levied against a doctor who knows a patient is about to commit a crime and CHOOSES not to notify the authorities if the victim is not specifically identified.

Put more simply, if I tell my shrink "I'm going to murder Joe Schmoe who lives at 123 Fake Street in Springfield", Tarasoff requires that, at minimum, the shrink warn Joe Schmoe that I made threats against him.

But if I tell my shrink "I'm going to get a gun and kill as many random people as I can" there is, to my knowledge, no specific legal requirement that the shrink notify anyone.

Now, that may be wrong because I've been out of school for a long time, and it may be that there have since been some laws passed that require doctors, under some circumstances, to notify the authorities, I don't know. Doctors, like lawyers, have their own ethics boards that write Rules of Professional Conduct that govern what they may or may not disclose to the authorities and under what circumstances.

As I said, I think there are a lot of places where doctors are ALLOWED to break privilege, but there are very few (that I am aware of) where they are REQUIRED to do so.

Holmes shrink did say she contacted local LE, or was going to but.............something more important distracted her. There was a lot of discussion on line and the media (the DP) questioning why she attempted to but never followed up based on her "concerns"

[CS1983]

If you can't communicate honestly with your psychiatrist, what is the point of seeing one? That's the whole reason for the privilege in the first place.

People often say things that they do not mean, thinking they are in a situation where that cannot come back to bite them. Communicating honestly is one thing, but saying something heated, which is not truly intended as anything other than blowing off steam, is another.

A person might use hyperbole in a conversation with a professional, e.g., "I just want to kill him", not intending to actually kill a person. Well, if the professional doesn't understand that, adios guns.

[Zundfolge]

If you can't communicate honestly with your psychiatrist, what is the point of seeing one? That's the whole reason for the privilege in the first place.

To be fair, the vast majority of psychiatrists are not worth seeing anyway. For that matter i'd be hesitant to even socialize with psychiatric professionals.

The days of our doctors' (especially psychiatrists) primary function being that of state informants is soon upon us (assuming its not here already).

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I think domestic abuse recognition training has become required in some states for hair dressers, no requirement for reporting.

Flight attendants are supposedly trained to look for human traffickers..... Or at least some of them think they are...

There is all kinds of violence out there. The left focuses on the guns. There are all kinds of gun violence out there. Most driven by suicides and gang violence. The left focuses on the unicorns (who can ignore a unicorn) of white kids shot up at school. A distant second is general active shooters. Almost all of these active shooters have a screw loose, and someone at school, at a doctors office or a LEO interaction have tried to nail down that screw- and people end up dead.

I could fit in suitcase all the rifles and ammo that have been used in these mass shootings that the left uses as evidence for grabbing 15 million guns. Considering that the LV shooter (who is so odd he has a Oliver Stone script written all over him) is about the only one that wasn't known to people, there has to be way to address that.

We have to get off the paradigm of bad leftist ideas ramming into the right do nothing- because eventually their offense wins over our defense. We never get anything. My point was how do we shift the focus from the tool to the operator- with out the BS that this law entailed?

We also have to understand that there is a difference between Libertarianism and just being an anti-social ass-hole. Colorado has way to many of the later that claim to be the former. Not playing well with others is head-trash, not a viable governing policy. Get rid of crappy laws and only put in place efficient and effective laws. If you don't do that, you get crappy pols writing worse laws.

[SG1]

Flight attendants are supposedly trained to look for human traffickers..... Or at least some of them think they are...

There is all kinds of violence out there. The left focuses on the guns. There are all kinds of gun violence out there. Most driven by suicides and gang violence. The left focuses on the unicorns (who can ignore a unicorn) of white kids shot up at school. A distant second is general active shooters. Almost all of these active shooters have a screw loose, and someone at school, at a doctors office or a LEO interaction have tried to nail down that screw- and people end up dead.

I could fit in suitcase all the rifles and ammo that have been used in these mass shootings that the left uses as evidence for grabbing 15 million guns. Considering that the LV shooter (who is so odd he has a Oliver Stone script written all over him) is about the only one that wasn't known to people, there has to be way to address that.

We have to get off the paradigm of bad leftist ideas ramming into the right do nothing- because eventually their offense wins over our defense. We never get anything. My point was how do we shift the focus from the tool to the operator- with out the BS that this law entailed?

We also have to understand that there is a difference between Libertarianism and just being an anti-social ass-hole. Colorado has way to many of the later that claim to be the former. Not playing well with others is head-trash, not a viable governing policy. Get rid of crappy laws and only put in place efficient and effective laws. If you don't do that, you get crappy pols writing worse laws.

This...Defensive does nothing but push back the date you lose, if we want to win the fight we must wield power when we have it, and if those in office (local/state/Fed) will not do so for what ever reason they are to be hounded until they comply or primaries out.

[Irving]

I know this already failed, but I'm sure it'll be back. Here is a perfect example of the problem that I, and I'm sure many others, had with this law.

This guy went to lunch with his family, got up from the table in a way that everyone thought he was going to the bathroom, but he went outside and drove his car through the wall right into the table where his family was sitting and killed his two daughters. He was battling mental health issues and had communicated as much to his family. He even had someone take all his guns from his house. Yet tragedy still happened. Sure, he didn't shoot a bunch of strangers, but does it matter? He still killed people in a public venue with zero disregard for others. All this to point out that if someone is that dangerous, then just removing some guns is not even a shadow of a solution. If the person is the problem, then that person shouldn't be in society. It's still a slippery slope, but at least it's focusing on the real issue, the person.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/north-carolina-man-rams-car-restaurant-killing-2-family-members-n875996


It was supposed to be a chance for them to get together as a family — a relaxing lunch at a local seafood restaurant after Sunday's church service.

Appetizers had just been ordered at the Surf and Turf Lodge in Bessemer City, North Carolina, when patriarch Roger Self got up from the table without saying a word, according to the family's pastor. Moments later, they noticed him in his white Jeep outside, circling the parking lot several times.

Then, without warning, the SUV burst through the wood-framed restaurant and smashed into the family's table. Self's daughter and daughter-in-law were killed, while his wife, son and 13-year-old granddaughter were injured, authorities said.

Police say it was no accident. Self, 62, faces two first-degree murder charges for the crash.


In the past couple of months, Self had stopped working, and divulged to friends and family that he felt like he was sliding deeper and deeper into depression, Rammell said. Self had asked Rammell to take away his guns from him, the pastor said, which he did.

In the last few days, "it went from bad to really bad," Rammell added. He said he had spoken with Self on Saturday afternoon and texted with him and feared he might commit suicide, but was unsure how to help him.

"At the end of the day, we were all unable to help our friend," he said, "and the result was his mental health carried him to an act that the Roger Self we all knew would have, without a doubt, called insane and evil."