Proposed "Red Flag" Bill Would Allow for Immediate Firearm Confiscation and Suspension of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms without Due Process
This is one of those all-hands on deck moments for which anyone truly concerned with liberty and government overreach in suspending the rights of individuals must act. This Bill has passed the full House and will soon be rushed through the Senate. PLEASE:
1) Email and call all representatives and senators and urge them to reject HB19-1177.
--Here is a list of House members. (already passed house)
--Here is a list of Senate members.
--Here is a copy of a letter sent to members of the Colorado House on the Bill (feel free to copy, paste or modify as desired).
2) Share this information to your social media contacts, your email contacts, your Colorado friends and neighbors
A murderous rampage from individuals is a tragedy that’s difficult to put one’s arms around--whether by a gun, a vehicle in a crowded street, a knife or an acid attack. Unsuspecting victims falling prey to the evil machinations of a deranged individual wreak havoc on all the things we hold to be important—most especially the security of our communities. When these occurrences involve a firearm, there is frequently a sense by some that “we’ve gotta do SOMETHING to stop it.”
“Red Flag” laws like Colorado’s proposed bill, HB19-1177 (http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1177) , are examples of those ill-advised forced attempts at “doing something” to stop violent individuals. It’s an especially a hazardous walk down a slippery slope when liberty is sacrificed to gain a false sense of security through the dismantling of a several God-given Constitutional rights and fundamental Constitutional guarantees. The Second Amendment guarantees the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no citizen will be deprived of life, liberty (freedom to keep and bear arms) and property (firearms) without due process of law. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a public trial whereby the accused is informed of the charges against him and can confront the accuser and witnesses and present his own witnesses. The Fourteenth Amendment precludes states making laws that deprive individuals of life, liberty and property without due process and requires equal protection under the law.
The “Red Flag” law being considered in Colorado allows any family member, current or former dating partner, recent roommate, or law enforcement officer to allege that an individual is a danger to himself/herself or others in an emergency petition that can lead to confiscation of the individual’s firearms and preclude him/her from possessing or purchasing a firearm for a year, with unlimited renewals subsequently—all without due process protections that are afforded to anyone who is criminally indicted. Note the petition for a confiscation order is not an indictment and the standard for granting it is far lower than that required for an indictment. After the accuser gets a closed-to-the public initial hearing (which is allowed to be conducted over the telephone) without the presence or even the knowledge of the accused, a judge can grant an order for the immediate confiscation of the subject’s firearms and permits to carry one. After two weeks, it’s up to the accused “dangerous person” to prove that he/she is not a danger. That’s right: the burden of proof is on the accused to prove that he/she should be allowed to keep their rights and their property. There is no presumption of innocence. Can general feelings of malice toward an individual lead to forcible suspension of rights guaranteed under the Constitution? Can an unfounded or irrational fear on the part of one lead to a SWAT team confiscation of firearms? Could a bad actor allege that an individual is unfit to possess a firearm and then simultaneously plan an attack on that individual when they know the individual has no means to protect himself/ herself? None of these issues are addressed. If the accused doesn’t show up at the hearing for renewal and PROVE he/she deserves to have his/her liberty and property back, the confiscation order is renewed for another 364 days.
The bill goes out of its way to protect the accuser or “petitioner” and places all burdens on the accused or “respondent.” The only caution to the accuser is that they may be charged with perjury if they level false accusations. Furthermore, the bill specifically does not “pose criminal or civil liability on any person or entity for acts or omissions made in good faith related to obtaining an extreme risk protection order or a temporary extreme risk protection order.” In other words, if the judge determines the attempt to suspend rights and confiscate property was improper or inadequate, there is no opportunity for the respondent to seek any legal remedy.
This bill unveils the attempt by current legislators to circumvent protections in the Constitution for the “belief” that one individual may subjectively hold about “someone who might do something” and resulting in the confiscation of property and liberty without any of the guarantees of due process guaranteed in the Constitution. It is, of course, a very slippery slope: When will government determine that certain driving behaviors, spending habits, affinities for certain types of music, or political leanings indicate a propensity for potential criminal behavior in the future? Will such determinations constitute a means for other government suspensions of other rights for the sake of “safety” from “something that might happen?” History is replete with examples of dictatorships that started down such slippery slopes.
Here is what may be served to you as a SWAT team is at your door (directly from legislation):
TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK
PROTECTION ORDER: THIS ORDER IS VALID UNTIL THE DATE
AND TIME NOTED ABOVE. YOU MAY NOT HAVE IN YOUR
CUSTODY OR CONTROL A FIREARM OR PURCHASE, POSSESS,
RECEIVE, OR ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE OR RECEIVE A FIREARM
WHILE THIS ORDER IS IN EFFECT. YOU MUST IMMEDIATELY
SURRENDER TO THE (INSERT NAME OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE RESPONDENT
RESIDES) ALL FIREARMS IN YOUR CUSTODY, CONTROL, OR
POSSESSION, AND ANY CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT ISSUED
TO YOU. A HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE DATE AND AT
THE TIME NOTED ABOVE TO DETERMINE IF AN EXTREME RISK
PROTECTION ORDER SHOULD BE ISSUED. FAILURE TO APPEAR
AT THAT HEARING MAY RESULT IN A COURT ENTERING AN
ORDER AGAINST YOU THAT IS VALID FOR THREE HUNDRED
SIXTY-FOUR DAYS. YOU MAY SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN
ATTORNEY AS TO ANY MATTER CONNECTED WITH THIS
ORDER.
1) Email and call all representatives and senators and urge them to reject HB19-1177.
--Here is a list of House members. (already passed house)
--Here is a list of Senate members.
--Here is a copy of a letter sent to members of the Colorado House on the Bill (feel free to copy, paste or modify as desired).
2) Share this information to your social media contacts, your email contacts, your Colorado friends and neighbors
A murderous rampage from individuals is a tragedy that’s difficult to put one’s arms around--whether by a gun, a vehicle in a crowded street, a knife or an acid attack. Unsuspecting victims falling prey to the evil machinations of a deranged individual wreak havoc on all the things we hold to be important—most especially the security of our communities. When these occurrences involve a firearm, there is frequently a sense by some that “we’ve gotta do SOMETHING to stop it.”
“Red Flag” laws like Colorado’s proposed bill, HB19-1177 (http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1177) , are examples of those ill-advised forced attempts at “doing something” to stop violent individuals. It’s an especially a hazardous walk down a slippery slope when liberty is sacrificed to gain a false sense of security through the dismantling of a several God-given Constitutional rights and fundamental Constitutional guarantees. The Second Amendment guarantees the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no citizen will be deprived of life, liberty (freedom to keep and bear arms) and property (firearms) without due process of law. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a public trial whereby the accused is informed of the charges against him and can confront the accuser and witnesses and present his own witnesses. The Fourteenth Amendment precludes states making laws that deprive individuals of life, liberty and property without due process and requires equal protection under the law.
The “Red Flag” law being considered in Colorado allows any family member, current or former dating partner, recent roommate, or law enforcement officer to allege that an individual is a danger to himself/herself or others in an emergency petition that can lead to confiscation of the individual’s firearms and preclude him/her from possessing or purchasing a firearm for a year, with unlimited renewals subsequently—all without due process protections that are afforded to anyone who is criminally indicted. Note the petition for a confiscation order is not an indictment and the standard for granting it is far lower than that required for an indictment. After the accuser gets a closed-to-the public initial hearing (which is allowed to be conducted over the telephone) without the presence or even the knowledge of the accused, a judge can grant an order for the immediate confiscation of the subject’s firearms and permits to carry one. After two weeks, it’s up to the accused “dangerous person” to prove that he/she is not a danger. That’s right: the burden of proof is on the accused to prove that he/she should be allowed to keep their rights and their property. There is no presumption of innocence. Can general feelings of malice toward an individual lead to forcible suspension of rights guaranteed under the Constitution? Can an unfounded or irrational fear on the part of one lead to a SWAT team confiscation of firearms? Could a bad actor allege that an individual is unfit to possess a firearm and then simultaneously plan an attack on that individual when they know the individual has no means to protect himself/ herself? None of these issues are addressed. If the accused doesn’t show up at the hearing for renewal and PROVE he/she deserves to have his/her liberty and property back, the confiscation order is renewed for another 364 days.
The bill goes out of its way to protect the accuser or “petitioner” and places all burdens on the accused or “respondent.” The only caution to the accuser is that they may be charged with perjury if they level false accusations. Furthermore, the bill specifically does not “pose criminal or civil liability on any person or entity for acts or omissions made in good faith related to obtaining an extreme risk protection order or a temporary extreme risk protection order.” In other words, if the judge determines the attempt to suspend rights and confiscate property was improper or inadequate, there is no opportunity for the respondent to seek any legal remedy.
This bill unveils the attempt by current legislators to circumvent protections in the Constitution for the “belief” that one individual may subjectively hold about “someone who might do something” and resulting in the confiscation of property and liberty without any of the guarantees of due process guaranteed in the Constitution. It is, of course, a very slippery slope: When will government determine that certain driving behaviors, spending habits, affinities for certain types of music, or political leanings indicate a propensity for potential criminal behavior in the future? Will such determinations constitute a means for other government suspensions of other rights for the sake of “safety” from “something that might happen?” History is replete with examples of dictatorships that started down such slippery slopes.
Here is what may be served to you as a SWAT team is at your door (directly from legislation):
TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK
PROTECTION ORDER: THIS ORDER IS VALID UNTIL THE DATE
AND TIME NOTED ABOVE. YOU MAY NOT HAVE IN YOUR
CUSTODY OR CONTROL A FIREARM OR PURCHASE, POSSESS,
RECEIVE, OR ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE OR RECEIVE A FIREARM
WHILE THIS ORDER IS IN EFFECT. YOU MUST IMMEDIATELY
SURRENDER TO THE (INSERT NAME OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE RESPONDENT
RESIDES) ALL FIREARMS IN YOUR CUSTODY, CONTROL, OR
POSSESSION, AND ANY CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT ISSUED
TO YOU. A HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE DATE AND AT
THE TIME NOTED ABOVE TO DETERMINE IF AN EXTREME RISK
PROTECTION ORDER SHOULD BE ISSUED. FAILURE TO APPEAR
AT THAT HEARING MAY RESULT IN A COURT ENTERING AN
ORDER AGAINST YOU THAT IS VALID FOR THREE HUNDRED
SIXTY-FOUR DAYS. YOU MAY SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN
ATTORNEY AS TO ANY MATTER CONNECTED WITH THIS
ORDER.