Red Flag Law Case thrown out (Colorado)-abuse of the law?

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by davidsog

Baloney. It cost time money and effort in a feckless exercise.
Sounds like "infringed" to me and the only folks it worked for are the ones aren't the ones wanting to protect the 2nd Amendment.



Winner Winner Chicken Dinner. Don't piss your girlfriend or a neighbor off.

BUT the 'feckless exercise' was initiated by the women, not members of the 'system'. It's not like a LEO started one cuz her boyfriend was screwing around or a judge cuz their partner was stepping out. Or a LEO single handedly confiscating firearms w/o a judge's ruling..

I agree with davidsog. You can say the system worked "as intended" and perhaps not be too far from the truth, but "as it should" IMHO is quite a stretch. In fact, the proponents of the law are proclaiming that this case proves the law works "as it should," but that completely ignores the facts of the case, and the unconstitutional nature of the law itself.

RFL are rife with problems but it 'worked' as it was designed, even if the design isn't great, Due Process-wise. The design includes a judge. In this case the judge did his job. It's akin to a judge sentencing a person to death, even if they disagree with the death penalty.

NOT saying the RFL is a great idea, just saying it is on the books and until overturned, will be used...and hopefully the judges involved do their due diligence, like this one did and threw the case out.

Sounds like "infringed" to me and the only folks it worked for are the ones aren't the ones wanting to protect the 2nd Amendment.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet

RFL are rife with problems but it 'worked' as it was designed, even if the design isn't great, Due Process-wise. The design includes a judge. In this case the judge did his job. It's akin to a judge sentencing a person to death, even if they disagree with the death penalty.

There is no indication from any of the coverage that this law worked as designed.

As designed, the petitioner should be before a judge within 24 hours, and before notice is given to the respondent. As designed, if the petitioner, presents testimony that supports the immediate order, that order should issue and the respondents arms taken. As designed, the respondent should be afforded a hearing with a couple of weeks.

None of that happened here.

There was no initial hearing for the first, exigent order; it isn't clear whether the clerk incorrectly acceded to a petitioner's request to dispense with that hearing. The sheriff refused to serve process, the respondent kept his arms, and the State's counsel defended the respondent while the magistrate tried to figure out the law by reading it from the bench.

One might conclude that all is well that ends well, but that isn't a conclusion about the design of this law.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

RFL are rife with problems but it 'worked' as it was designed, even if the design isn't great, Due Process-wise.

We'll have to agree to disagree. When a system designed and intended to hold an emergency, ex parte hearing within 24 hours allows a petitioner to skip over the initial, emergency hearing and move directly to the step that requires the respondent to appear in court and defend him/herself, I don't think it's correct to say that the system worked either as designed or as intended. If you can find where in the law there is any provision for a case to proceed as this one did, please let us know.

[2ndsojourn]

What stops a person who has his/her guns confiscated under red flag law from going to a gun shop and buying another one/more. Is NICS instantly updated?

[44 AMP]

What stops a person who has his/her guns confiscated under red flag law from going to a gun shop and buying another one/more. Is NICS instantly updated?

Just as a guess, mind you, I'd say the same thing that stops them from going to an illegal dealer and buying a gun. Physically, NOTHING. Except, of course, violating the court order that seized their guns in the first place.

The whole point to the seizure is that "you may not possess..." and I'm pretty sure that would cover going out and buying a replacement for the seized gun(s).

If they serve you and seize your guns at 10:30AM and a 4pm you're in a gunshop buying more, the system may not be updated to flag you. BUT YOU ARE. Knowingly and willfully committing multiple felonies. For one thing, you'll have to lie on the 4473 form, which is a separate crime in itself.

I don't see any way to claim ignorance, and I'd think any attempt to buy a gun when there is a court order against you doing so, moves you clearly out of the "innocent victim" class.

As to the particular case in this thread, i'd say the law did not work as written, because part of it simply did not happen, but the PROCESS did work as intended, in that when a judge DID get to see the petition, he ruled it without merit and dismissed it. AND that since charges have been filed against the petitioner for perjury, that the process is still working, in this case.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

We'll have to agree to disagree. When a system designed and intended to hold an emergency, ex parte hearing within 24 hours allows a petitioner to skip over the initial, emergency hearing and move directly to the step that requires the respondent to appear in court and defend him/herself, I don't think it's correct to say that the system worked either as designed or as intended. If you can find where in the law there is any provision for a case to proceed as this one did, please let us know.

it isn't clear whether the clerk incorrectly acceded to a petitioner's request to dispense with that hearing.

That's what it looks like from this member of the peanut galley..She and the clerk did it 'wrong'..

AND before 'some' get their nighty in a twist..I AGREE, due process is sorely lacking for RFL..but until overturned...as they say, it is what it is. You can argue RFL unconstitutionality all day, everyday..but these laws are going to be used. Hopefully, until overturned, they are supervised by decent judges.