Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Colorado sheriff says he will not enforce Red Flag law

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I concur,

    I already see the Domestic Violence Protective Order laws abused like crazy when a really nasty divorce is in the offing.

    I have actually called someone at 2230hrs to tell them to go after their ex husband for harassment. Why? Because he had just made his third false report to me of 'child abuse' by his ex wife. A false report so obviously fabricated that it fell apart in the initial interview and this time I didn't even have to go over to her house....which is what he was trying to get me to do on every holiday his kids spent with his ex.

    Considering how laws are weaponized, and law enforcement wielded as a weapon by the manipulative against the meek, I see grave consequences for the rights of law abiding and mentally sound citizens coming from these emotionally charged Red Flag laws. Can we do such things in a more procedurally sound manner that would ensure that a minimum of due process was given before rights were temporarily suspended, and a maximum of due process given before a permanent suspension? Yes, Yes we can. Just stop asking the bloody gun-grabbers and political operatives of any stripe (looking at you NRA) for advice on how to do it and start asking Cops and DAs.....you know, those most intimately familiar with the 4th Amendment and how to not violate it wholesale since figuring out how to get around the 4th without violating it is their bread and butter.......
    Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

    Comment


    • #17
      Exactly, and it won’t take long before the meek party is red flagged for defending themselves and left more vulnerable then ever
      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
        The only thing that worries me is that we're basically relying on the appointed courts to repeatedly save the Constitution from morons and the avaricious. At some point, that reliance is going to bite us in the arse.
        I share your worry.
        I happen to do OPs and am frequently asked to order that the husband's guns be taken from him.
        When I ask "why", the response I usually get is "because he could shoot me" with nothing more. No threats, real or implied.
        I won't go along with requests like that, but there are too many who will (this is Illinois after all)


        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

          I share your worry.
          I happen to do OPs and am frequently asked to order that the husband's guns be taken from him.
          When I ask "why", the response I usually get is "because he could shoot me" with nothing more. No threats, real or implied.
          I won't go along with requests like that, but there are too many who will (this is Illinois after all)

          I can no longer count how many times I've responded to 'civil matters' between neighbors. Neighbor has a problem that could be solved with a conversation. Reason that they didn't have a conversation: "They might shoot me". Sarcastic response under my breath: "Your neighbor doesn't even have a gun.....I pulled up in your yard with 5 of them and about a thousand rounds of ammunition......and you're worried about them?" Also a reason why I liked working the hood.....it's your basic middle class b**** that acts like this.

          And yeah, I've served DVPOs that wanted firearm restrictions for such stupid things as 'they've got guns and they might shoot me' with no evidence of the person even having so much as a single threat uttered ever. I've seen them granted, and I've seen them denied.

          A proper framework for a Red Flag law would go this way IMHO:

          1) Allegation that someone is mentally ill, suffering from a mental breakdown, or somesuch that makes them a danger to self or others is made.

          2) Allegation is investigated by law enforcement or certified mental health professional.

          3) Court order is obtained to involuntarily take subject to a mental health professional for a proper evaluation of their condition.

          4) Court order is obtained pursuant to that professional's evaluation, or Exigent Circumstances, to temporarily seize dangerous and deadly weapons from subject.

          5) Weapons are seized and stored pending the case.

          6) The State has no more than 14 calendar days with a possible 7 day extension to prove in front of a judge (District court or equivalent) that the subject is showing to be mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others, has been committed to a treatment facility, and the State will be seeking a Competency Hearing.

          7) The State has no more than 180 days with a possible 60 day extension, to execute a Competency Hearing in front of a Judge. The State must PROVE incompetence to obtain a permanent suspension of the 2nd Amendment rights.

          8) If at any point the State is unable to prove to the appropriate level or misses a time hack, the process is immediately terminated with prejudice (meaning that it can't be restarted from that point and must start from the beginning if they wish to start it again with new evidence).

          9) If a subject in open court in a criminal matter uses their own incompetence as a defense to any charge in which a victim was injured and their incompetence pleading or finding is accepted and recorded by the court (such as when someone uses incompetence to beat an assault charge), this shall be prima facie evidence that the subject is incompetent. I put that in to cover those who get off of a felony rap because they claim to be mentally incompetent.
          Last edited by TacCovert4; 04 Apr 19, 10:44.
          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

            I can no longer count how many times I've responded to 'civil matters' between neighbors. Neighbor has a problem that could be solved with a conversation. Reason that they didn't have a conversation: "They might shoot me". Sarcastic response under my breath: "Your neighbor doesn't even have a gun.....I pulled up in your yard with 5 of them and about a thousand rounds of ammunition......and you're worried about them?" Also a reason why I liked working the hood.....it's your basic middle class b**** that acts like this.

            And yeah, I've served DVPOs that wanted firearm restrictions for such stupid things as 'they've got guns and they might shoot me' with no evidence of the person even having so much as a single threat uttered ever. I've seen them granted, and I've seen them denied.

            A proper framework for a Red Flag law would go this way IMHO:

            1) Allegation that someone is mentally ill, suffering from a mental breakdown, or somesuch that makes them a danger to self or others is made.

            2) Allegation is investigated by law enforcement or certified mental health professional.

            3) Court order is obtained to involuntarily take subject to a mental health professional for a proper evaluation of their condition.

            4) Court order is obtained pursuant to that professional's evaluation, or Exigent Circumstances, to temporarily seize dangerous and deadly weapons from subject.

            5) Weapons are seized and stored pending the case.

            6) The State has no more than 14 calendar days with a possible 7 day extension to prove in front of a judge (District court or equivalent) that the subject is showing to be mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others, has been committed to a treatment facility, and the State will be seeking a Competency Hearing.

            7) The State has no more than 180 days with a possible 60 day extension, to execute a Competency Hearing in front of a Judge. The State must PROVE incompetence to obtain a permanent suspension of the 2nd Amendment rights.

            8) If at any point the State is unable to prove to the appropriate level or misses a time hack, the process is immediately terminated with prejudice (meaning that it can't be restarted from that point and must start from the beginning if they wish to start it again with new evidence).

            9) If a subject in open court in a criminal matter uses their own incompetence as a defense to any charge in which a victim was injured and their incompetence pleading or finding is accepted and recorded by the court (such as when someone uses incompetence to beat an assault charge), this shall be prima facie evidence that the subject is incompetent. I put that in to cover those who get off of a felony rap because they claim to be mentally incompetent.
            Sounds good, but remove the extensions. If not, they will become automatic.

            Comment


            • #21
              The extensions are really only procedural, since it is entirely possible for the court system in it's usual state of endless congestion snarl to not have a judge or room available within that timeframe. I might put language that the extension (continuance) can only be granted if requested by the defense, or if a specifically identified circumstance unreasonably delayed the state's ability to proceed, and the judge granting the continuance (unless it's defense requested or consensual between the parties) must document the circumstance and why it unreasonably delayed the state's ability to proceed on the originally calandered date.

              I'm a big proponent of using specific calendar day maximum time limits when it comes to the state. The state should not only have a burden of proof, and a due process requirement, it should also have a maximum time limit for said processes unless the defendant requests more time. The defendant has a right to a speedy trial, but can request that it be pushed back. Which is why in a lot of my cases, the arrest is made and the next business day I'm dropping off my full case file to the DA's office.
              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X