Dems want Colorado Red Flag Law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoGirl303

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thedave1164

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

(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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buffalobo

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?