Colorado gun confiscation about to be passed

[98valk]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/31/us/colorado-red-flag-gun-law/index.html


so somebody who doesn't like u for any reason can have the commies take your guns.

[scooperhsd]

Doesn't want to run on my computer.

[Farside]

Yikes   It's coming. I hope the sheriff sticks to his guns! Hopefully this will get shot down as it moves thru the process. 

[Bighead]

Civil war is coming.

[MarkT]

Yikes  It's coming. I hope the sheriff sticks to his guns! Hopefully this will get shot down as it moves thru the process.  

No it won't.  The crazies are running the asylum. All 3 houses with our new gay lefty governor, voted in by the californicators, who will sign it.   (BTW she-he has just introduced our new state logo - pretty, rainbow colorful.)  Pushed by the sheriff of my county.  Who has me listed, his signature is on my CCW.  I'd move if I didn't love other aspects of our beautiful state and my neighborhood and ranch.  I'm getting old anyway.  Come and take em - if they think they can.  I'm sure they can - they have SWAT - but there will be a cost.

Molon Labe.

[Rams]

I can see this getting a lot of people killed.

Rams

[Robert]

NZ Confiscations Begin: Police Going to Gun Owners’ Homes, Jobs…One Gun Owner Dead

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/03/luis-valdes/nz-confiscations-begin-police-going-to-gun-owners-homes-jobs-one-gun-owner-dead/

[Pappy!]

I hope the New Zealanders get their act together and band together to put a stop to the insanity.

[old2soon]

         Yup duz kinda bear repeating. When guns are outlawed Only outlaws will have guns. Had I still been a resident of Colorado the "law" would have turned me into an outlaw or what I actually have become-Former Colorado resident.
         When I moved to Texas couple old boys told me-and It Has stuck-we don't give a crap HOW ya did it in Illinois-This Is TEXAS. 
         I've only been here in Missouri comin up on 21 year but I tell new residents here from other states-I do Not care how you did it in-their state-this is MISSOURI. Had a doofus from the left coast saw my pistol in my retention holster when I inadvertently moved my shirt and asked me WHY I had that pistol. Cuz I jumped thru all the hoops and I Am LEGALLY able to carry my pistol according to the U S Constitution and the Laws of Missouri. He started to ask-well did ask-another question and the guy behind him told him-doofus-in no uncertain terms just go back to the left coast. By that time I chose to ignore doofus. To All my Brothers and Sisters in Colorado I hope cooler and Smarter heads prevail. RIDE SAFE.

[Jess from VA]

Colorado's "extreme risk protection order" bill would allow a family member, a roommate, or law enforcement to petition a judge to take someone's firearms if they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

This is an ex parte law allowing only one side to be heard (the side against you), before ordering confiscation.  The bill does require a second hearing with the gun owner present to be held within 14 days, where the owner could make a case to keep the weapons -- but if the owner is unsuccessful, a judge could order the guns seized for as long as a year.

The devil is in the details in this type of situation.  It clearly seems to invite abuse by complainants who have a grievance, revenge, or pay back on their mind.  A lot then rests with any individual judge to weed out such cases, from honest and objective risks (and IMHO, the principle risk to worry about should be to others, not to self.  If you want to do yourself in, that is your choice, so long as you have no intention of taking others with you).  Suicide may be sad and often for stupid reasons, but it should never be included in gun crime statistics, even if suicide is still a crime in some places.  Gun haters have always used gun suicide numbers to bolster and inflate their ridiculous assertions.

Perhaps the single biggest problem with this law is that the burden of proof on the moving party is only a preponderance of the evidence, the usual civil law standard.  And since no one is representing the gun owner in these ex parte hearings, it seems too easy of a standard to meet.  Beyond any reasonable doubt (as in criminal cases) would be difficult to ever meet.  The legal burden of proof most often used which falls between these two is.. to prove your case by clear and convincing evidence.  Considering we are talking about depriving people of a fundamental constitutional right (with no representation), that should have been the standard of proof in the statute.

But even without this law (or others like it), your wife, family, relatives, neighbors or the cops could always seek a temporary commitment order for a period of confinement to a (mental) hospital for your evaluation as a risk to self or others under existing laws everywhere.  Except you would have a right to be heard and represented at such hearing before a decision, unlike this ex parte law.

I am in no way supporting the law, rather I'm just saying that if you have friends, family, neighbors or cops who don't like you, they could always make trouble for you if you allow yourself to get caught up in running disputes or feuds, or become too much of a keyboard commando with violent language, or get up on the soap box in public and rant loud and long on controversial subjects...  any of which with violent overtones.  This has always been a bad idea, and with with laws like this, it's even a worse idea.

It's always been important to choose wives and friends carefully, and exercise discretion when dealing with neighbors, relatives, cops, coworkers, yada.   And to avoid certain types of statements in any public arena.

And, as usual, the lefty politicians always manage to arrange things so the police have to do their dirty work for them, as their inherent moral cowardice would prevent them from doing any of that work themselves.   Thus, all these good sherrif's objections.

Having said that..... Molon Labe.

I do wish someone had petitioned to take away the guns of Adam Lanza's mother, who raised a monster (despite her best efforts) who would murder babies (and his mother, and 6 more adults) because she lacked the common sense to keep her guns locked up in the same house with him in Sandy Hook.  But everyone liked her, and she was a nice lady with only good intentions.  She also made a big mistake telling him she was going to need to commit him.

With 20/20 hindsight, a good many humans should have been drowned at birth.  Notice I recommend using water, not firearms.  But please don't turn my water off.

[Valker]

If I was a crook there, it seems like the perfect way to ensure that the house I was casing has no weapons on site before my attack.

[Medina]

After being in the gun business for about 25 years, I DO believe some shouldn't own guns..a few..
however, almost on a daily basis, I would get behind cops showing up and taking some citizens drivers licences, and cell phones

[Skinhead]

I just watched The American Experience - Ruby Ridge on Netflix last night.  I see this law and governmental overreach causing history to repeat itself.  I wonder how many snowflakes today know about Ruby Ridge, Waco, And the Oklahoma City bombing?  All occurred on the Dems watch, 2 of the events were due to government agencies trying to "Do what is best for us", I see it as tring to further the new world order.  Those 2 events it what prompted McVey to commit his heinous act and murder innocents.  GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES!

[MarkT]

Agree with your comments, Jess.  However I'm recalling seeing a report that Lanza's mother did have her AR in a safe - and Adam being who he was, hacked it.  That means little; news reports are USUALLY wrong in their facts.  The wife is the only other one with the combo to my safe, and she knows not to write it down anywhere.  If there was anyone else in my house they would not have the safe combo - and that was true when my kids stayed here as teens.  This safe can't be reprogrammed to my knowledge - it's a dial combo not digital - once that cat's out of the bag, it can't be put back.

[Jess from VA]

I do not remember it that way Mark.  But if so, it wasn't a real safe.  Or she may have had it... on the notch.  (closed, and moving the dial only an inch to the right)

[DarkSideR]

Before this latest Bill, here in Colorado the Court system has been able to take firearms away from an individual if the Court deems that person a danger to themselves or others. For this to take happen though you must already be in the Court System having charges against you.

This new Bill bypasses that. Now all it takes is for someone close to you to make a claim that you are a danger to yourself or others.

My question is how do they prove that you are a danger? Would they first have to filter you through a psychologist? Either way it could take weeks before anything was to happen. So is this new Bill going to actually do anything to make anything more safe? Or is it another Bill that will just further bog down the already overrun Court System?

[Jess from VA]

The way I see it, this is to run completely around letting the gun owner know what's going on at all.  So I don't see a judge ordering a psych eval.  If the laymen cannot carry the day (by a preponderance of the evidence), the case should be dismissed. 

The complainants are going to be pure laymen (not licensed shrinks) for the most part.  Cops should have more credibility than pissed off wives or neighbors, but I really doubt these complaints are going to be brought by cops for the most part.  More likely a cop's wife.

In any event, it was always a bad idea to let people know you are a firearm owner (beyond a very well trusted few).  It seems that the few are the ones to worry about. 

I can still remember the long list of things I advised my divorce clients to do.  (cancel all joint accounts and cards, hide your valuables, lock up or remove your guns, take the edge off all knives, sleep with one eye open...... and so on).

Don't forget what domestic assault charges convictions do to your 2d Amend rights either.

[Jess from VA]

Agree with your comments, Jess.  However I'm recalling seeing a report that Lanza's mother did have her AR in a safe - and Adam being who he was, hacked it.  That means little; news reports are USUALLY wrong in their facts.  The wife is the only other one with the combo to my safe, and she knows not to write it down anywhere.  If there was anyone else in my house they would not have the safe combo - and that was true when my kids stayed here as teens.  This safe can't be reprogrammed to my knowledge - it's a dial combo not digital - once that cat's out of the bag, it can't be put back.

Mine is a dial too Mark (wouldn't have an electronic), but the combo can be changed in almost any of them.  It's only been 35 years since I bought mine and they showed me how, but I'd probably have to go to a lock and safe company for help today (it involves a little specialty allen-like wrench from the inside).  No one has ever known the combo but me (though it is written down far away with a trusted family member if I am found dead or stroked out) (what happens if you and the wife perish together in a motor vehicle accident?).

The wife never knew, and only became interested when she left me.  Not happening.

[czuch]

Not all the eggs in one basket.
I have a particularily evil viscious ex-wife who would probably love this.
BTW, she got that way after meeting some cross dresser wonk that she's with now.

[scooperhsd]

Not all the eggs in one basket.
I have a particularily evil viscious ex-wife who would probably love this.
BTW, she got that way after meeting some cross dresser wonk that she's with now.

In view of things like that - there should be a provision to put the accuser in jail if it is shown that the accused is not the threat they are accused to be.

[Jess from VA]

Not all the eggs in one basket.
I have a particularily evil viscious ex-wife who would probably love this.
BTW, she got that way after meeting some cross dresser wonk that she's with now.

In view of things like that - there should be a provision to put the accuser in jail if it is shown that the accused is not the threat they are accused to be.

It's already a crime to make a false official statement with authorities.  Course, if you live in Chicago you can get off easy.

There are also a civil torts called abuse of process and malicious prosecution.  

[98valk]

pittsburgh pa just passed a similar measure, going to mayors office. will go to court since its against state law for a town/city to do that.

[Bighead]

All I can say is keep Your powder Dry Purcahsed 300 rounds today just to keep stock up

[JimC]

In Wisconsin anyone that is considered a threat to themselves, or others, has to be locked up. Period... for up to 72 hours.

During that 72 hours they are given a hearing in front of a judge or court commissioner. If the judge or commissioner decide their is credibility in the charges, they then order all weapons to be confiscated. This system was in place when I got hired at the PD in 1980 and to my knowledge it is still in effect and working the same way. The cops here take situations like that seriously because it could cost them their job if they looked the other way and someone was to get injured or killed. At the same time, they do their due diligence to try and make sure the threat is not fabricated.

Once the person is locked up, there is no immediate reason to take their weapons, the cops and social workers do that after the hearing. SURE, someone can still get hold of weapons once released,  but they will be able to do so In Colorado after confiscation also.

I agree, we are starting to slide down that slippery slope.

Jim

[98valk]

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/04/oregon-may-expand-gun-free-zones-raise-gun-buying-age.html


most of this was being proposed yrs ago. one communist law - so will police have to go door to door to make sure your guns are locked up?

keep voting democrat and rino. 

[Bighead]

In Wisconsin anyone that is considered a threat to themselves, or others, has to be locked up. Period... for up to 72 hours.

During that 72 hours they are given a hearing in front of a judge or court commissioner. If the judge or commissioner decide their is credibility in the charges, they then order all weapons to be confiscated. This system was in place when I got hired at the PD in 1980 and to my knowledge it is still in effect and working the same way. The cops here take situations like that seriously because it could cost them their job if they looked the other way and someone was to get injured or killed. At the same time, they do their due diligence to try and make sure the threat is not fabricated.

Once the person is locked up, there is no immediate reason to take their weapons, the cops and social workers do that after the hearing. SURE, someone can still get hold of weapons once released,  but they will be able to do so In Colorado after confiscation also.

I agree, we are starting to slide down that slippery slope.

Jim

So as a LEO do you think you should uphold a local law or uphold the constitution? Inquiring minds and the like.

[98valk]

In Wisconsin anyone that is considered a threat to themselves, or others, has to be locked up. Period... for up to 72 hours.

During that 72 hours they are given a hearing in front of a judge or court commissioner. If the judge or commissioner decide their is credibility in the charges, they then order all weapons to be confiscated. This system was in place when I got hired at the PD in 1980 and to my knowledge it is still in effect and working the same way. The cops here take situations like that seriously because it could cost them their job if they looked the other way and someone was to get injured or killed. At the same time, they do their due diligence to try and make sure the threat is not fabricated.

Once the person is locked up, there is no immediate reason to take their weapons, the cops and social workers do that after the hearing. SURE, someone can still get hold of weapons once released,  but they will be able to do so In Colorado after confiscation also.

I agree, we are starting to slide down that slippery slope.

Jim

So as a LEO do you think you should uphold a local law or uphold the constitution? Inquiring minds and the like.

hate to say it, but far too many will uphold their paycheck, their union bosses and their personal protection and their families first. I know I will get slammed by some but lets be real this is reality.
Here in NJ police sergeants avg 130k/yr and that is before overtime and this isn't always in large towns or cities either. one reason why NJ has the highest property taxes in the country.

[JimC]

So as a LEO do you think you should uphold a local law or uphold the constitution? Inquiring minds and the like.

hate to say it, but far too many will uphold their paycheck, their union bosses and their personal protection and their families first. I know I will get slammed by some but lets be real this is reality.
Here in NJ police sergeants avg 130k/yr and that is before overtime and this isn't always in large towns or cities either. one reason why NJ has the highest property taxes in the country.

Bighead, I like to think that I would go with the constitution. I retired about 10 years ago so I will never have to make that choice.

98valk, After reading your posts over the years, It is no secret that you hold some contempt for you local law enforcement. I know nothing about law enforcement in your area so I will not judge you, or them. My gut feeling is that the vast majority of them would lean toward the constitution side also.

I hesitated about putting that post up, but felt that I would do so in order to show that the situation can be handled differently, and have the same basic outcome, and not violate a person's Rights while doing so.

I will not get in a pissing match about law enforcement, so this is the last I will type on this subject...
Believe what you want, but the average cop is not your enemy.

Jim

[Jess from VA]

With or without a big salary, it's hard to expect rank and file career policemen to forfeit their jobs for a principle (even a good constitutional one).  Men with mortgages and families and pensions.... it's really a lot to ask.

Doing a real sh!tty job at enforcing a bad law is another thing.

If a police chief says his people won't do it (with department solidarity), that may be a plan.  Unless the chief can be fired or put on administrative leave (even if elected) and replaced with a yes man.  

But if a judge issues a firearm pickup order, and you are assigned to go do it by your boss, if you refuse, you are probably history.  And the next couple guys assigned to do it are probably going to follow orders.  Then the first guys are lone martyrs, with no jobs (and maybe real trouble ever getting on another department anywhere).  So who's first to refuse orders?  Or will everyone on the dept refuse?

And don't forget, that as rotten a this law may be, you cannot know if the guy on your particular pickup order is at that very moment planning to arm up and shoot up the neighborhood or local school.

And you refused, and he does.

You can't just assume a poorly written law that seems ripe for abuse, will actually be abused in every case.

If I was a police chief, I'd want one of my best men at every one of these ex parte hearings.  At least as an observer, if not a player.  As the guys responsible for enforcing a pickup order (at the pointy end of the stick), do you think a senior policeman might have relevant and practical questions for the moving party(s)?

The biggest problem in this whole plan remains in taking judicial (and police) action to confiscate (temporarily or not) lawfully purchased and owned firearms, with no right to be heard (and represented) by the firearm owner.  A right to a hearing within 14 days does not fix this problem; your home has already been broken into and your guns are gone, and there is already one ruling against you to overcome, from the start.  For a constitutional right, I think this is a clear violation of procedural and substantive due process of law.

2d Amend: The right of the people to keep and bear arms... shall not be infringed.    

5th & 14th Amends:  No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

[Skinhead]

Why don't they confiscate the vehicles of drunks and alcoholics before they drive drunk and kill someone?  Owning a motor vehicle isn't even a constitutionally guaranteed right (yet, give the FSA some time, it will be).  It makes more sense than confiscating guns, a right that shall not be infringed (yeah, right!).
 

[F6Dave]

Why don't they confiscate the vehicles of drunks and alcoholics before they drive drunk and kill someone?  Owning a motor vehicle isn't even a constitutionally guaranteed right (yet, give the FSA some time, it will be).  It makes more sense than confiscating guns, a right that shall not be infringed (yeah, right!).
 

They were already doing that with civil asset forfeiture.  Thankfully the Supreme Court recently reined them in.  I read that one DA testified they should be able to take a car if the driver was speeding by 5 MPH over the limit.

[98valk]

So as a LEO do you think you should uphold a local law or uphold the constitution? Inquiring minds and the like.

hate to say it, but far too many will uphold their paycheck, their union bosses and their personal protection and their families first. I know I will get slammed by some but lets be real this is reality.
Here in NJ police sergeants avg 130k/yr and that is before overtime and this isn't always in large towns or cities either. one reason why NJ has the highest property taxes in the country.

Bighead, I like to think that I would go with the constitution. I retired about 10 years ago so I will never have to make that choice.

98valk, After reading your posts over the years, It is no secret that you hold some contempt for you local law enforcement. I know nothing about law enforcement in your area so I will not judge you, or them. My gut feeling is that the vast majority of them would lean toward the constitution side also.

I hesitated about putting that post up, but felt that I would do so in order to show that the situation can be handled differently, and have the same basic outcome, and not violate a person's Rights while doing so.

I will not get in a pissing match about law enforcement, so this is the last I will type on this subject...
Believe what you want, but the average cop is not your enemy.

Jim

yep. every police force, state, county, town, operates differently, I've just see too much as others have, police state crap going on in NJ around my area, property taxes have increased almost 60% in the last five yrs, cops salaries have gone up like I stated.  swat teams, armor vehicle battering ram the front door at two o'clock in the morning for a guy who didn't show up in court for stealing at his mall day job, happened on my street, at least 30 cops positioned on everybodys property full gear m-16s pointed at the house, it was crazy. and it has been going on in other areas also. then one would read the police report on their web site, they lie and state something completely different. interesting case a few yrs ago, they pull over a guy on the interstate 2-3am he is a very big guy, he was well known in the area, he didn't listen to the cops as fast as they would like so they let the dog on him, for a traffic stop, the guy flung the dog off his arm the dog went into the hwy and was hit/kill by passing car.  this is a heavy blue state.  have u ever searched for swat team home invasions, many innocents have been killed from their tactics and nothing happens to the swat team, etc.  are there good and very good police Yes, but to much police state is moving in throughout the country and hwy I state most will not follow the USC, since there is a young generation police have lack of knowledge of it as do the liberals and politicians we all see in the news.  Thank you for your service, but times have change and there is new generations out there.