Colorado passes bill to seize guns from people deemed threat to self, others

Colorado passes bill to seize guns from people deemed threat to self, others | Reuters

DENVER (Reuters) - The Colorado legislature on Monday passed a “red flag” bill that would allow those deemed a threat to have their firearms seized, despite opposition by most of the state’s sheriffs and threats of legal challenges.

Both chambers of the Democratic-controlled General Assembly approved the measure, sending it to the desk of Governor Jared Polis, also a Democrat, who has indicated his support for the measure.
=====================================
If signed into law as expected, CO becomes the 15th state to adopt what are known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders. Legal challenges to this new law are expected.

If this were just left to the cops I would have a problem with it. But it requires the courts to get involved so there is at least some level of due process involved. I’ll have to wait and see how it is actually executed before deciding how I feel about it.

Skeptic Bob said:

If this were just left to the cops I would have a problem with it. But it requires the courts to get involved so there is at least some level of due process involved. I’ll have to wait and see how it is actually executed before deciding how I feel about it.

Click to expand...

There is no due process with this law.

Under the legislation, a family member or law enforcement officer could petition a judge to seize firearms from a person they think is a threat to themselves or others. The judge could then hold a hearing without the targeted person being present and grant a temporary order for 14 days.

Click to expand...

If targeted, you have no way to present any kind of defense to this arbitrary action.

Skeptic Bob said:

If this were just left to the cops I would have a problem with it. But it requires the courts to get involved so there is at least some level of due process involved. I’ll have to wait and see how it is actually executed before deciding how I feel about it.

Click to expand...

I don't see due process when the judge can hold a hearing WITHOUT the person being present, therefore, not heard from.


Under the legislation, a family member or law enforcement officer could petition a judge to seize firearms from a person they think is a threat to themselves or others. The judge could then hold a hearing without the targeted person being present and grant a temporary order for 14 days.

After the two-week order, both the petitioner and the gun owner could then try to persuade a judge why the firearms should or should not be returned.

Skeptic Bob said:

If this were just left to the cops I would have a problem with it. But it requires the courts to get involved so there is at least some level of due process involved. I’ll have to wait and see how it is actually executed before deciding how I feel about it.

Click to expand...

When the sentence precedes the trial/hearing then it violates due process. This amounts to civil asset forfeiture and the total lack of any criminal charge, much less any criminal conviction.

Just as was the case with the Lautenberg Amendment, this will be a potent weapon used by spouses in nasty domestic relation disputes.

Moon said:

There is no due process with this law.



If targeted, you have no way to present any kind of defense to this arbitrary action.

Click to expand...

holbritter said:

I don't see due process when the judge can hold a hearing WITHOUT the person being present, therefore, not heard from.


Under the legislation, a family member or law enforcement officer could petition a judge to seize firearms from a person they think is a threat to themselves or others. The judge could then hold a hearing without the targeted person being present and grant a temporary order for 14 days.

After the two-week order, both the petitioner and the gun owner could then try to persuade a judge why the firearms should or should not be returned.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

When the sentence precedes the trial/hearing then it violates due process. This amounts to civil asset forfeiture and the total lack of any criminal charge, much less any criminal conviction.

Click to expand...

That is a fair point...that you all bombarded me with.

Skeptic Bob said:

That is a fair point...that you all bombarded me with.

Click to expand...

Ha! I think we almost posted at the same time.