|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 24, 2019, 11:19 AM | #26 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
August 24, 2019, 04:58 PM | #27 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||
August 24, 2019, 05:26 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,524
|
Spats, thank you! Exactly as written so only a lawyer can understand it. So now when politicians do not get reelected they all have something to fall back on. Orders of Protection!
So as I understand this if my brother and I are sitting watching Thanksgiving Day football and get in a fight about a call or play they could call police and get an Order of Protection because I may have knocked him on his butt, or hit him with a bowl of Cheetos! I really see nowhere that there are parameters to set forth what constitutes an Order of Protection issuance. Is it as little as a verbal threat? Or as little as my walking around talking to myself? All I know is I'm going to start watching the ball games by myself and no more watching Cable News! |
August 24, 2019, 07:27 PM | #29 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Spats, I follow that. And the Colorado law seems to track pretty closely with my state's red flag law, right down to the requirement for a "real" (my word) hearing within 14 days after the date of the confiscation order. I have a question, and if the answer is that this is a still-evolving area of law, then so be it.
Let's suppose that I live in Colorado, I hold a CO carry license/permit, I own a gun ... and I also own a vacation home in Utah. I also hold a Utah carry permit, and I keep some firearms in the Utah house. The Colorado ERPO says I have to surrender "all firearms in his or her custody, control, or possession and any concealed carry permit issued to Does the Colorado ERPO extend beyond the borders of Colorado? If I spend the two weeks between the service of the ERPO and the "real" hearing in Utah, am I violating the order by having guns in my house? Do I have to give the CO police officer my Utah (and any other non-resident) permits I have, or can the Colorado court only confiscate my Colorado carry permit?
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
August 25, 2019, 04:28 AM | #30 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think CO has any jurisdiction to make you surrender your UT or other CCLs, not unless I missed something, or laws are amended to allow for that seizure.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||
August 25, 2019, 07:21 AM | #31 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
MY point was that some seem to think that the guns are seized..and that's that..no recourse in any way for any person of interest. There is 'due process', after the fact, sort of..when both parties stand before the judge. Quote:
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
|||
August 25, 2019, 07:43 AM | #32 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I realized after posting that I had perhaps misread your post. I see what you mean now.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
August 25, 2019, 11:11 AM | #33 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
And how does this square with the Fourth Amendment? Quote:
The Fourth Amendment says "... upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation ..." If all the order is based on is a jilted lover saying to the judge "He looked at me cross-eyed, and I'm scared," how does that satisfy the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment? I think these EPROs are very questionable on constitutional grounds, but they're so new that there haven't been any (or many) challenges through the courts yet, and none at the Supreme Court level.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
August 25, 2019, 11:27 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,524
|
All very valid points, suspicions and concerns. My only suggestion once again is to start a writing campaign to your US Reps. and Senators but also your State Assembly and State Senators. I have already done so, and not by using a form letter from a website. A personal letter holds much more value.
|
August 25, 2019, 02:12 PM | #35 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
Quote:
Quote:
The red flag, seize guns first figure it out later idea is popular, because it seems to enhance safety. This isn't going away, and while we fight the idea because of the probability of abuse, its already law many places, isn't going away, and is likely to spread. So, how about a compromise, a slight change of tactics. Instead of fighting the law's concept (which seems to be a losing task in our democracy) how about we do as much as we can to ensure protections for innocents caught in the system are built into the law. What if part of the law REQURIED the state to maintain firearms seized under the ERPO "intact, undamaged, and undeteriorated" until all legal proceedings involved with the ERPO are completed, AND had penalties for failure to do so? Personally I'd like to see some kind of penalty, something PERSONAL to the people who store the weapons if they allow them to be damaged BEFORE the owner is convicted of any crime. Along with some kind of penalty to the department, something personal to the individual(s) like making them pay for damages, out of their own pocket. Something like this, IN THE LAW would go a long way to minimizing the financial s damage to the property a false accusation can result in. If you aren't found "guilty" of being a threat, when all is said and done, you deserve to be "made whole" and while nothing can replace the time lost, minimizing the potential for your property being damaged while it is in their custody can't hurt, as I see it. Having something like that in the law would, I think, reduce the need for having to go back to court for restitution due to damage caused by police "negligence". IF somebody, by intent or ignorance, stores my guns in cardboard boxes under a leaky pipe and by the time the legal system finishes and I am vindicated, they are all rusted together, I want to be able to face a Judge and say, look what happened while MY things were in your custody, not only do you owe me, someone should be punished! probably a pipe dream, but if we can get some kind of language into the law requiring them to be responsible with OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY, I don't see that as any kind of loss. Won't stop abuse, but might encourage a bit more consideration...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
August 27, 2019, 08:00 AM | #36 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
If you are a judge, you may have a sense for when someone is misleading you, or you may think the petitioner's fear isn't rational. Yet, unless they testify that they aren't afraid of the respondent or lied on the petition, they will clear the preponderance bar. So, you've a law in which the evidentiary threshold is an illusion. What is the benign motive for incorporating this illusion into law?
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
August 27, 2019, 12:07 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
If there is no guarantee that the person served with a ERPO and 'redflagged' will give up ALL their guns, and that they will not go buy a gun from a private individual, or get one loaned to them by a buddy, the red flag law is useless.
Equivalent to someone convicted of drug possession/trafficing, that is ordered by the court to 'not be around drugs, not to possess drugs, etc etc'. Everyone knows what that person is going to go and do first chance they get.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard |
August 28, 2019, 11:05 AM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,768
|
Quote:
The answer IMO is that red flag laws are feel good "something has to be done" laws and due process be damned. The potential for abuse of them is enormous. I can see where they could be routine in divorces. As red flag cases become more numerous you can bet the it will be brought up that gun registration is needed to make the confiscation part effective.
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin |
|
August 28, 2019, 12:20 PM | #39 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
The Fourth Amendment reads: Quote:
Now look at the start of the Colorado RFL as cited by Spats McGee in post #27: Quote:
What I need to do, but haven't done yet, is to go back and read what the Founders and their contemporaries wrote with respect to the Fourth Amendment. When they wrote "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation," did they mean an oath or affirmation by just anyone, or did they mean an oath or affirmation by some elected or duly appointed official? They did NOT mean a police officer, because police departments were still many years in the future at the time the Bill of Rights was written. So ... whose oath or affirmation, and what kind of oath or affirmation did they consider to be "probable cause" to allow the government to search private property and to seize personal possessions?
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|||
August 29, 2019, 01:46 AM | #40 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
Quote:
The Founders seem pretty consistent, when they refer to government, (such as "Congress shall make no law....) and referring to the states as states, and the people in general as "the people". Another one of the ideas popular at the time was that elected (or appointed) officials were just ordinary folks like the rest of us, they just had a different job. I think if they meant to restrict who could make an oath or affirmation supporting a warrant to certain people, they would have stated it clearly. The only place I can think of, off the top of my head, where "certain public officials" are called out as a special class is in the definition of the militia. (which is not in the Constitution, itself) I could be wrong, of course. Good luck with your research, and do let us know what, if anything you find.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
August 29, 2019, 06:47 AM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
|
|