mako20ft

Colorado "Seizure" Proposal

Rate this topic

51 posts in this topic

I honestly don't know where I stand on this one.  I've watched first hand, in my face the immediacy of a mental breakdown, alcohol fueled bender that went on for nearly 2 months.  Guns weren't pulled but they were handy enough to make the wife and 2 daughters very nervous.  The dude is still not right but still owns several, lawful guns.

 

Thoughts...

 

 

NEWS: Colorado Gun Control Bill Could Lead to Gun Seizure

 

A Colorado gun control bill that would allow the seizure of firearms from “high risk” individuals was heard Thursday in the House Judiciary Committee, after being reintroduced in the statehouse last week.

The bill, co-sponsored by House majority leader Alec Garnett, describes an extreme risk protection order which allows family, household member, or an officer to petition a judge to lawfully take away the weapons in possession by any arms-bearing individual.  Supporters, including several gun control groups, say it will help remove the threat of gun violence from people experiencing a mental health crisis.

 

Extreme Risk Protection Order

With an extreme risk protection order, a judge will hold a hearing with the individual petitioning for intervention, excluding the person of concern. A temporary seizure order lasts 14 days, during which the gun owner and family member or roommate will make their individual cases to the judge. The bill demands that a lawyer will be provided to the gun owner free of charge and the judge can request drug and alcohol as well as mental health evaluations.

If they decide to proceed with the order, the judge then determines a period of arms seizure that can be as long as 364 days. Throughout this period, the individual may appeal without restriction for the return of their arms.

A similar extreme risk protection bill was passed in Florida after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018.

The last gun legislation to pass in Colorado was in 2013, when Democrats enforced universal background checks and outlawed high-capacity magazines. For six years, no changes have been made.

Colorado Republican voters were polled in the first days of February, Magellan Strategies found that 60 percent support this law, while 33 percent oppose it.

This bill does not currently have any Republican sponsors, although two GOP representatives voted in favor of the earlier version presented last year. 

Colorado House Minority leader Patrick Neville was not among them.

“This is an even more draconian versatile of legislation than what we saw last year,” Neville said in a statement, according to the Denver Post. “In this version of the bill, innocent until proven guilty no longer exists.”

Edited by TimS
links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"With an extreme risk protection order, a judge will hold a hearing with the individual petitioning for intervention, excluding the person of concern."

That seem ripe for abuse.They should add some mandatory punishments for false accusations to the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What eats me is some low level, agenda minded Judge will have absolute authority over the process.

 

The process would need tighter scrutiny and review before we legislate the loss of a fundamental Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this and other laws it is ripe for abuse.

 

You yell at your own kid to do his homework, clean his room.

 

He goes to school talks to someone in power, the next thing you will get a knock on the door, and they will be leaving with your guns.

 

You all do know that yelling at your kid is a form of child abuse. MA is such a place that this has and does happen.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree. 

It's sad and pathetic that we have to jump thru hoops. 

I don't even let my kids put the gun cases in the car when walking from front door to my truck. All it takes is one effen phone call from some unhinged neighbor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday - my wife and I were leaving our island and some a-hole in a "chebby" was weaving in and out of traffic. My wife is driving and there are two lanes open to our left. We stay right to avoid the sweetheart approaching.

The guy swerves into our lane and tries to side-swipe us!

We pull over onto the shoulder to avoid collision. The guy is gone like a bat out of hell.

Wife is rattled. I call the cops. Worthless. Maybe they will get him.

Even if this guy got caught, he'd probably get a suspended license WITH A TRIAL.

If someone "red-flags" you as a gun owner, don't expect justice to be blind or swift.

Elections have consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The absence or removal of any sort of due process is very alarming and as many have pointed out, very subject to abuse by those with an agenda.

 

So, as Ben Franklin said,  ""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.".

 

While I recognize that there are cases where this type of administrative procedure would benefit potential victims, I also see where there's an immense potential for abuse.  And, in my eyes, it flies in the face of any concept of a legal system that is based on due process and justice.

 

Jeff B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 10:45 AM, Connetquot said:

The absence or removal of any sort of due process is very alarming and as many have pointed out, very subject to abuse by those with an agenda.

 

So, as Ben Franklin said,  ""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.".

 

While I recognize that there are cases where this type of administrative procedure would benefit potential victims, I also see where there's an immense potential for abuse.  And, in my eyes, it flies in the face of any concept of a legal system that is based on due process and justice.

 

Jeff B.

Well said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 11:14 PM, mako20ft said:

What eats me is some low level, agenda minded Judge will have absolute authority over the process.

 

The process would need tighter scrutiny and review before we legislate the loss of a fundamental Right.

The Second Amendment possess one funny irony, in that it gives individual people the right to bear arms equivalent to the well armed militia described in the articles of the confederacy; but would not apply to non-military use weapons - which could still be regulated by the government, presumably even banned. 

The reason was fear of government attacks against people by a central army.  When the second amendment was drafted, it was in reaction to acts of heads of parliament in England, specifically, King Charles I, II, King James, King William, and Cromwell.  Suppose you hated Catholics, you could take their guns, and then take away their rights to representation in government. Suppose you hated Protestants, you could arm Catholics, pass laws to disarm Protestants, and start to limit Protestants representation in government.  Arms provide protection against the government’s tyranny. In the end, a law was passed in England, under William, as a declaration giving the people an absolute right Protestant or Catholic to own military weapons to defend themselves from abuses of the government.  There still remained in effect a ban on lay folk, non-titled people, from owning hunting weapons. 

Personally, given the history of the Second Amendment, I think it is fine for the government to issue any rule or regulation against non-military grade weapon ownership. However, I don’t think the government can make any rule to stop the production or sale of military grade weapons, combat weapons, to its citizenry. 

 

Beyond that point, I am not certain what due process is required to take away a gun from a person that poses a threat to another persons liberty.  Washington stated individuals must give up a portion of liberty to preserve the rest.  We have the Fourth Amendment setting out protections for criminals to receive jury trials, we have the Fifth Amendment stating people cannot be deprived of property or liberty without due process.  The question is how much process is due?

 

We can’t argue that the Second Amendment states a person can never be deprived of a gun. If this was the case, prisoners would retain the right to bear arms while in prison; the one time we don’t want people fighting back against the state for an act of tyranny - we accept this tyranny as necessary to the preservation of the liberty of the rest of society.  So, at least upon conviction by a jury a person can be deprived of a gun.

 

Short of a criminal conviction and imprisonment would it ever be wise to deprive a citizen of a weapon?  Should my brother in law with downed syndrome be given a glock loaded without a safety if he wants one? Not really a good idea. So there are going to be instances of mental incompetence or incapacity that will trump the Second Amendment. 

 

So how much due process should a person be given, if that persons incompetence/or mental incapacity results in him or her being a threat to my liberty? Should my retarded brother in law be given a glock and not have it taken away until a jury finds he should not be able to possess one?  The process could take a year. I would not want him to possess that glock for a year.

 

In fact, I would in that case be happier with a much condensed form of due process, allowing for the seizure of the weapon, and a competency hearing by a judge.  Normally, competency hearings do not involve juries anyway. 

 

“The right of the people” in the Second Amendment we should not read to mean any  living and breathing person, but any competent person, and someone adjudicated incompetent, is not one such person contemplated by the Second Amendment to possess a military grade weapon. 

 

That leads us to the other issues of competency, those caused by alchohol or drug abuse, medications, or diseases like dementia or Alzheimer’s, or other mental diseases such as depression, psychosis, and such.  Any mental infirmity that would cause a lapse in an individual’s judgment to infringe on my liberty.  My impression is that a hearing in front of judge on these issues to determine if someone should possess a combat firearm is all the due process necessary. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Don, you cast a very wide net with your thoughts (I'm guessing you knew that).  You quoted me and therefore deserve a reasoned response.  Long day old friend...that said I'd like to mull your comments over.  Defend at dawn if you will :)

 

Btw, well said...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 mins ago, mako20ft said:

^Don, you cast a very wide net with your thoughts (I'm guessing you knew that).  You quoted me and therefore deserve a reasoned response.  Long day old friend...that said I'd like to mull your comments over.  Defend at dawn if you will :)

 

Btw, well said...  

It’s a big topic with room for lots of interesting answers on how our country will approach this. Certainly people at the time of the enacting of the Second Amendment had mental disease or substance abuse issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.