Dems want Colorado Red Flag Law

[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” Jedi

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

[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

[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.