Sample Letter to Legislators on HB19-1177
February 22, 2019
Colorado General Assembly
200 E Colfax RM 307
Denver, CO 80203
Dear Representative [ ]:
Please consider the costs of individual liberty when government suspends the rights of individuals.
HB19-1177 (Extreme Risk Protection Orders) seeks to suspend the liberty and seize the property of
individuals who have committed no crime without even offering the respondent the same due process
guaranteed to indicted criminals. HB19-1177 is a violation of the sacrosanct natural right of keeping and
bearing arms as enumerated in the US Constitution and violates protections and guarantees also
enumerated in the Constitution. As a legislator, you have taken an oath to support and defend the
Constitution. I urge you to commit to upholding that oath and rejecting this bill in today’s House vote.
HB19-1177 will set precedent for any number of future encroachments on citizen rights and it has
alarmed many friends, neighbors, colleagues and even those who don’t normally share political points of
view. The violations of the Second, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments are clear and obvious.
That an individual could be deprived of rights under the Constitution without ANY conviction or even
indictment of a crime is unconscionable. Furthermore, this bill turns the presumption of innocence as
ensconced in the due process guarantees laid out in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments on its head.
Why should a citizen—not convicted of any crime—have the burden of proof in opposing a government
confiscation of his/her personal property and a government-backed suspension of his/her Constitutional
rights and liberty to defend himself/herself? The Fifth Amendment states that no citizen may “be
deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment clearly
precludes “any State [to] deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
HB19-1177 fails to provide even the same due process to an induvial who has committed no crime to
that of an indicted criminal. The bill allows government to deprive an individual from his/her liberty to
keep and bear arms and his/her property. And it does so based on the accusations, not of a grand jury or
a prosecutor, but on the potentially hearsay evidence of any number of individuals with potential axes
to grind. This bill also requires the LEAST stringent evidentiary rules in any civil court for a government
action that suspends multiple rights and guarantees of the US Constitution for a YEAR. If this bill is
justified to “prevent something that might happen” from somebody who has committed no crime, what
is the next step? Can individuals who represent certain demographic classifications or who live in certain
geographic areas have their rights suspended because there’s a potential they might commit a crime?
What is a credible threat? What is a reasonable feeling of being threatened? What constitutes
“corroborated evidence of the abuse of alcohol?” These justifications in the bill for an emergency
confiscation are enormously subjective evaluations from individual points of view. In the bill’s language,
it is clear the author intended to encourage petitioners to come forward by protecting them from
specific prosecution for wrongful intent and even provides an amount of immunity for petitioners whose
petitions were declined if pursued in “good faith.” Just what is “good faith?” No similar protection is
offered for the respondent. The “Emergency Risk Protection Order” can have law enforcement at a
respondent’s door demanding their property with no other due process for two weeks, also leaving
them no means to protect themselves as is their right given by God and enumerated in the Second
Amendment. A respondent may not have even known they were being accused or who accused them or
what evidence was being alleged nor have had any opportunity to rebut it. The bill allows a telephone
hearing without the presence of the respondent to rebut the allegations of the petitioner. The Sixth
Amendment guarantees a public trial and requires a defendant to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence [sic].” None of the
process described in HB19-1177 complies with this standard which the founders laid out in black and
white. In fact, the “accused” may very well be asleep in the middle of the night as a telephone hearing is
being conducted that leads to the suspension of their rights. Furthermore, in the process described in
HB19-1177, the respondent has one and only one attempt at appealing the administrative decision to
suspend his rights and confiscate his property for a YEAR. During such one-and-only-one hearing, the
respondent bears the responsibility to PROVE he/she is fit to possess a firearm. He/She must also
expend time and money defending what is already guaranteed in the Constitution unless the court
determines him/her as indigent. To some, the mere possession of a firearm by anybody is something to
be feared. To some individuals, any person with a firearm has a high likelihood of being a “danger to
themselves or others.” Under HB19-1177, even estranged lovers (with no statute of limitation on
timeline) can petition the government to deprive a former intimate partner of property and God-given
rights and the hearing to do so can be done initially over the telephone!
Please reject this this bill. Our Constitution provides protections to the liberty of all Americans. Good
intentions don’t make good laws. Suspending the Constitutional rights and liberty of individuals who
have committed no crime in an attempt to “stop something that might happen” is not a road that a
government truly “by, for and of the people” should go down. What is the next step down this slippery
slope? When will government determine that certain driving behaviors, spending habits, affinities for
certain types of music, 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?” Rather than brushing off consideration of
where this type of law might directly lead with similar justifications, I ask you to really consider it.
History is replete with examples of dictatorships that started down such slippery slopes.
A vote for this bill is a vote to violate the sacred and God-given rights enumerated in the US
Constitution—the same Constitution hundreds of thousands have sacrificed their lives to defend; the
same Constitution you have taken an oath as a legislator to support and defend. Vote No. I will be
monitoring closely your votes on this bill for wide dissemination and hope to report your rejection of
this bill which would clearly violate citizen rights.
Thank you for your commitment to the Constitution and for your fervor in upholding your oath to it.
John Q. Public
Colorado Springs
Colorado General Assembly
200 E Colfax RM 307
Denver, CO 80203
Dear Representative [ ]:
Please consider the costs of individual liberty when government suspends the rights of individuals.
HB19-1177 (Extreme Risk Protection Orders) seeks to suspend the liberty and seize the property of
individuals who have committed no crime without even offering the respondent the same due process
guaranteed to indicted criminals. HB19-1177 is a violation of the sacrosanct natural right of keeping and
bearing arms as enumerated in the US Constitution and violates protections and guarantees also
enumerated in the Constitution. As a legislator, you have taken an oath to support and defend the
Constitution. I urge you to commit to upholding that oath and rejecting this bill in today’s House vote.
HB19-1177 will set precedent for any number of future encroachments on citizen rights and it has
alarmed many friends, neighbors, colleagues and even those who don’t normally share political points of
view. The violations of the Second, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments are clear and obvious.
That an individual could be deprived of rights under the Constitution without ANY conviction or even
indictment of a crime is unconscionable. Furthermore, this bill turns the presumption of innocence as
ensconced in the due process guarantees laid out in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments on its head.
Why should a citizen—not convicted of any crime—have the burden of proof in opposing a government
confiscation of his/her personal property and a government-backed suspension of his/her Constitutional
rights and liberty to defend himself/herself? The Fifth Amendment states that no citizen may “be
deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment clearly
precludes “any State [to] deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
HB19-1177 fails to provide even the same due process to an induvial who has committed no crime to
that of an indicted criminal. The bill allows government to deprive an individual from his/her liberty to
keep and bear arms and his/her property. And it does so based on the accusations, not of a grand jury or
a prosecutor, but on the potentially hearsay evidence of any number of individuals with potential axes
to grind. This bill also requires the LEAST stringent evidentiary rules in any civil court for a government
action that suspends multiple rights and guarantees of the US Constitution for a YEAR. If this bill is
justified to “prevent something that might happen” from somebody who has committed no crime, what
is the next step? Can individuals who represent certain demographic classifications or who live in certain
geographic areas have their rights suspended because there’s a potential they might commit a crime?
What is a credible threat? What is a reasonable feeling of being threatened? What constitutes
“corroborated evidence of the abuse of alcohol?” These justifications in the bill for an emergency
confiscation are enormously subjective evaluations from individual points of view. In the bill’s language,
it is clear the author intended to encourage petitioners to come forward by protecting them from
specific prosecution for wrongful intent and even provides an amount of immunity for petitioners whose
petitions were declined if pursued in “good faith.” Just what is “good faith?” No similar protection is
offered for the respondent. The “Emergency Risk Protection Order” can have law enforcement at a
respondent’s door demanding their property with no other due process for two weeks, also leaving
them no means to protect themselves as is their right given by God and enumerated in the Second
Amendment. A respondent may not have even known they were being accused or who accused them or
what evidence was being alleged nor have had any opportunity to rebut it. The bill allows a telephone
hearing without the presence of the respondent to rebut the allegations of the petitioner. The Sixth
Amendment guarantees a public trial and requires a defendant to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence [sic].” None of the
process described in HB19-1177 complies with this standard which the founders laid out in black and
white. In fact, the “accused” may very well be asleep in the middle of the night as a telephone hearing is
being conducted that leads to the suspension of their rights. Furthermore, in the process described in
HB19-1177, the respondent has one and only one attempt at appealing the administrative decision to
suspend his rights and confiscate his property for a YEAR. During such one-and-only-one hearing, the
respondent bears the responsibility to PROVE he/she is fit to possess a firearm. He/She must also
expend time and money defending what is already guaranteed in the Constitution unless the court
determines him/her as indigent. To some, the mere possession of a firearm by anybody is something to
be feared. To some individuals, any person with a firearm has a high likelihood of being a “danger to
themselves or others.” Under HB19-1177, even estranged lovers (with no statute of limitation on
timeline) can petition the government to deprive a former intimate partner of property and God-given
rights and the hearing to do so can be done initially over the telephone!
Please reject this this bill. Our Constitution provides protections to the liberty of all Americans. Good
intentions don’t make good laws. Suspending the Constitutional rights and liberty of individuals who
have committed no crime in an attempt to “stop something that might happen” is not a road that a
government truly “by, for and of the people” should go down. What is the next step down this slippery
slope? When will government determine that certain driving behaviors, spending habits, affinities for
certain types of music, 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?” Rather than brushing off consideration of
where this type of law might directly lead with similar justifications, I ask you to really consider it.
History is replete with examples of dictatorships that started down such slippery slopes.
A vote for this bill is a vote to violate the sacred and God-given rights enumerated in the US
Constitution—the same Constitution hundreds of thousands have sacrificed their lives to defend; the
same Constitution you have taken an oath as a legislator to support and defend. Vote No. I will be
monitoring closely your votes on this bill for wide dissemination and hope to report your rejection of
this bill which would clearly violate citizen rights.
Thank you for your commitment to the Constitution and for your fervor in upholding your oath to it.
John Q. Public
Colorado Springs