|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 14, 2019, 10:08 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
|
Colorado Enacts Red Flag Law
Colorado is now the latest state to enact red flag laws that allows guns to be seized without due process.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/she...emed-dangerous |
April 14, 2019, 02:27 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,992
|
Interesting that the Attorney General of Colorado stated, in the article, that LEOs who weren't willing to enforce the law should resign. But it's not that he, as the Attorney General is stating an opinion that LEOs should evenly enforce all laws on the books--this is the same person (Phil Weiser) who spoke out in favor of intentionally failing to enforce immigration laws.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
April 14, 2019, 02:54 PM | #3 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
The AG saying that sheriffs who won't enforce the law should resign is more than a little bit ironic. From the Colorado state constitution:
Quote:
|
|
April 14, 2019, 03:45 PM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
I am unclear about some things, so, if I'm mistaken, please enlighten me..
I hear people saying the Red Flag laws allow guns to be seized without due process. Is that actually correct, or is it that the new laws reduce the amount of due process required?? Is it that all anyone need do is go to a clerk, pay a fee, sign a "sworn statement" and the judge will automatically order firearms seized? Is the person sworn against also "seized" (ordered held for observation - 72hr hold??) or are they left "free" only with their guns taken??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 14, 2019, 03:57 PM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,992
|
They can't just be seized without any process at all, but the process required is much less restrictive than what would be required for a criminal conviction or involuntary commitment.
It might be more accurate to state that it significantly reduces the state's burden by redefining what "due process" means in terms of what is required for firearm seizure. Firearms could be seized without even needing to arrest the person, let alone having to hold them for observation or charge them criminally. As I understand it, the threshold for seizure is the state's being able to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there's a "red flag". The targeted citizen then has to show clear and convincing evidence that there is no threat before they can retrieve their property and regain their rights.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
April 14, 2019, 03:58 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
So, what about the Police Officers and University Officials that knew ahead of time about the Aurora Movie Theater shooter, but failed to act. Are they being asked to resign? What about the Judge who ruled the VaTech shooter a danger, but then failed to assure his order was implemented? What about Air Force Officials who failed to report the Texas Church shooter to the national database?
Based on recent history it is difficult to imagine that the government will ever implement this fairly, but will simply use this to violate induvial Constitutional Rights.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
April 14, 2019, 06:12 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 15, 2011
Location: Chesterton Ind.
Posts: 822
|
Is there any repercussion for someone that falsely accuses someone and firearms are confiscated ?
|
April 14, 2019, 06:17 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,969
|
|
April 14, 2019, 07:07 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Posts: 2,084
|
Colorado use to be an excellent state, it has now become a one party state and that one party is turning it into a hot mess. I have seven more years here and can’t pack quick enough, the house will probably be put on the market furnished.
|
April 14, 2019, 08:55 PM | #10 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 14, 2019, 10:19 PM | #11 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
Different places have different ways of defining it, but generally. deliberately making a false statement to the police is a crime.
I don't know if a complaint = a "sworn oath or affirmation" or not. Might in some places, might not in others. But the problem is the same, either way. As long as the (false)accuser steadfastly maintains that they believed the accused was a potential threat, what can the authorities do to them?? The other side of the coin is a problem as well. PROOVE you aren't a threat...HOW??? Proving a negative is one of the most difficult of arguments. In today's social climate, it seems if you've ever had hard words with anyone over anything, you could find that used as justification that you are a potential threat. Are you a (formerly) armed time bomb, just waiting for the right combination of events to set you off? Prove you aren't!! Suffering a GROSS injustice (having your guns seized, and as far as you know without any reason) I'd expect one would be more than just a bit "spun up". Just the effort to be calm and rational for court appearance would be considerable, I expect. and your only defense is to prove something no one can prove? If you can justify seizing firearms, because they are "dangerous" how can you ignore all the other dangerous things available? A can of gasoline, hardware store chains, padlock, and some matches can kill a lot of people. Cars can run people down..etc. It is the person who is dangerous, without them their possessions do nothing. If the threat is real, seize THE PERSON, doing anything less does not provide safety. .
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 14, 2019, 10:53 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2008
Location: Northeast Colorado
Posts: 1,993
|
Here are some links to news articles about red flag laws and gun seizures resulting from those laws:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...114-story.html https://www.boston25news.com/news/ma...hts-/922298591 https://everytownresearch.org/red-flag-laws/ Articles that report documented results are few and far between. If anybody finds other sources it might be informative to provide links. I'm curious what these laws have actually accomplished, if anything. |
April 15, 2019, 01:13 AM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
I'm a senior citizen and a widower. Seeing these "red flag laws" and similar legislation enacted where it's so easy for someone with a grudge to make unfounded complaints, and so nearly impossible to defend yourself against such claims ... I keep thinking that I'm glad I'm not young enough to be dating, because you almost have to be crazy to risk having a relationship (or worse, a one night stand) go bad and see yourself on the receiving end of one of these orders. Thanks, but no thanks. |
|
April 15, 2019, 08:01 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
The problem isn't so much that these statutes redefine due process as that they ignore it. Removal of a civil right is ordinarily part of a criminal sanction. But due process in a criminal matter involves a defendant present and able to face an accuser he can cross examine. Without the procedural protections afforded criminal defendants, these laws impose a sentence without trial. That's not consistent with our notions of due process. Three weeks ago, a man files a petition to have his nephews arms seized alleging that the petitioner feared for his life. The judge isn't supposed to oppose a motion, but needed to ask more questions in order to grant or deny. The petitioner's testimony was that the nephews had accused him of stealing money, that his nephews carried guns, and that they sometimes put their hands in their pockets in conversation. The restraining order was denied. and hearing on the petition set last week. Service wasn't good on either nephew, but one of them showed at hearing. He was a municipal PO. The petitioner had decided to use this mechanism to have his nephew removed from his employment as a PO. These laws serve no good end. As petitioners become more adept at exploiting the unbalanced nature of these laws, the abuse will become more common.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 15, 2019, 09:19 AM | #15 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
https://coloradosun.com/2019/02/14/c...lag-bill-2019/
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
||||||
April 15, 2019, 09:48 AM | #16 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
How many of those poll respondents knew that the interrogator had misled them?
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
April 15, 2019, 09:58 AM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
MY point, and anecdotal only, I think many(most) in Colorado would have liked to see people like -Dunlap-1993 -Harris-1999 -Klebold-1999 -Morrison-2006 -Holmes-2012 -Dear-2015 Stopped..all were later identified as 'problems'.. Why not include the 'person of interest' up front when this process is started? In this day and age of lotsa info available on anything or ANYBODY, is there any law, program, plan, idea that 'may' prevent some identified wacko from getting his (put type of weapon here) and creating mayhem? Or is the mayhem the 'price we pay'? Just asking counselor, not arguing...I worry EVERYDAY about by 6yo and 8YO grandkids when they are in school...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” Last edited by USNRet93; April 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM. |
|
April 15, 2019, 10:31 AM | #18 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
That locking up people who might be dangerous is a popular idea amongst people who don't understand the issues involved isn't an argument in favor of such a law. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||
April 15, 2019, 10:35 AM | #19 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
||
April 15, 2019, 10:48 AM | #20 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Quote:
EDIT: question was answered while I was hemming and hawing on it. Not that I have any stake in this as I am not a CO resident, but this is a great injustice because of the bold text below. Restricting a constitutional right under any standard other than beyond reasonable doubt is injust, in my layman opinion. Quote:
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 Last edited by 5whiskey; April 15, 2019 at 10:55 AM. |
||
April 15, 2019, 10:51 AM | #21 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
The lack of due process isn't a problem with Red Flag laws. It's the point. Quote:
In my state, a social worker can initiate the process by which a guardian is appointed and the "wacko" becomes his ward. If he is found to be incompetent, the ward loses several rights, including the right to have a firearm. My guess is that every state has some sort of similar process. Do you know of any that don't?
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||
April 15, 2019, 10:56 AM | #22 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
April 15, 2019, 10:59 AM | #23 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
April 15, 2019, 11:14 AM | #24 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
If we combine information from posts #5, #14, and #23, we can summarize the crux of the issue. It's a two-part issue:
First is that the first hearing is conducted without affording the accused any opportunity to rebut the charges or to confront the accuser. In short, it's a kangaroo court. At that kangaroo court, the burden of proof is a "preponderance of evidence" on the part of the accuser, with no mechanism for any contradictory evidence to be submitted to the court. That's an exceptionally low burden when we consider that the result of the hearing may be to revoke someone's constitutional right. Secondly, at the follow-up hearing, the first opportunity for the accused to defend him/herself, the burden of proof is raised to "clear and convincing evidence" -- on the part of the accused. It doesn't require that the accuser now offer clear and convincing evidence in order for the seizure to be upheld,** it requires that the accused must offer clear and convincing evidence to counter a charge that required only "a preponderance of evidence." It's bad enough that the accused has to prove a negative. It's orders of magnitude worse when the burden of proof for the negative is a higher burden than the burden for the accuser when the complaint was lodged. As zukiphile has commented, it appears that the entire process has been devised specifically and intentionally as a way to bypass what has heretofore been one of the most fundamental principles of our legal system. ** [Edit] See post #26. Zukiphile has pointed out to me that I overlooked the fact that at the first "real" (bi-lateral) hearing the accuser must make his/her case to the higher "clear and convincing" level in order for the emergency order to remain in force.. This is marginally less bad than I had originally thought, but still far from benign or good. |
April 15, 2019, 11:50 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,768
|
We got a phone call stating that you murdered JonBenet Ramsey. We need you to prove you did not or we are arresting you and charging you with murder.
Is this what it is coming to?
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin |
|
|