DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Colorado Gun Bill Causes Controversy..Some Sheriff's Won't Enforce

Colorado's controversial 'red flag' gun bill becomes law. Some sheriffs would rather to go to jail than enforce it

By Scott McLean and Sara Weisfeldt, CNN

Fri April 12, 2019

Colorado gun bill causes controversy

(CNN)Colorado's controversial "red flag" bill was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis on Friday, with more than half of the state's counties declaring opposition to it and many sheriffs promising not to enforce it at all.

"This is a moment of progress," said Colorado House Majority Leader Alec Garnett, one of the legislation's four sponsors. "Today, we did something that was difficult and that is going to save lives."

Known as the "Extreme Risk Protection Order," the law will allow a family member, a roommate or law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily seize a person's firearms if they are deemed a risk to themselves or others. Fourteen other states have passed similar legislation.

Still, the law now faces major hurdles, with a pro-gun lobby group promising to challenge it in court. Additionally, a growing number of sheriffs in the state have vowed to ignore the law when it takes effect next year, calling it unconstitutional.

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams told CNN last month that he would rather be found in contempt of court and locked up in his own county jail than carry out a court order to seize a person's weapon.
At least 10 other sheriffs contacted by CNN are lining up behind Reams, saying they are prepared to go to jail rather than enforce a law they believe would violate a person's constitutional rights.

"How many judges are going to send all the sheriffs in Colorado who are standing up to this to jail?" wondered Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell, who is among the sheriffs willing to choose jail over enforcement.

Garnett said he wasn't concerned about sheriffs being locked up.
"What I'm going to lose sleep over is, if that's the choice that they make, and someone loses their life, someone in crisis goes on a shooting spree, (or) someone commits suicide" because a gun wasn't taken away, he said.

Already, 38 of Colorado's 64 counties have officially declared their opposition to the bill, and 35 of them have passed formal resolutions against the law. Many of the resolutions declare the jurisdictions to be Second Amendment "sanctuary" or "preservation" counties, and pledge not to allocate resources to enforcement of the law.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser he is "confident that when and if the time comes, all law enforcement officials will follow the rule of law."

Reams insists he's not bluffing. So does Prowers County Sheriff Sam Zordel.
"I've already asked the coroner if he wanted to come over (to the jail) and get some training," he said, explaining that if he becomes an inmate, the coroner would be tasked with running the county jail.


"I'm willing to go to my jail for it, the only exception would be a totally extreme case and most sheriffs would agree with that," said Park County Sheriff Tom McGraw.

The law is meant to be used only in the most extreme cases, but critics believe it will allow for guns to be taken based on a false accusation. A non-partisan analysis of the bill by Colorado's Legislative Council Staff predicted that the number of false red flag petitions would be minimal, and that the law would only be used 170 times per year.

California and Washington use similar red flag laws even less than that, though a similar law in Maryland is enforced six times more often than the Colorado estimate.

Legal challenges could be on the way

"Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is going to file a lawsuit against the red flag legislation before the end of the session," the lobby group's executive director, Dudley Brown, said. The legislative session ends May 3. Brown also said there could be a second lawsuit filed after the bill becomes law, but declined to provide more details.

Brown is also planning recall efforts of "at least 10" state lawmakers who supported the legislation. Two Colorado lawmakers were successfully recalled in 2013 after supporting controversial background check legislation and a restriction on magazine size.
The El Paso County Sheriff's office initially said the county would file a lawsuit when the legislation became law. The county now says it is still "in the brainstorming phase" of a potential lawsuit, according to county spokesman Matt Steiner.

New York's governor, joined by Nancy Pelosi, signs 'red flag' gun protection law
New York's governor, joined by Nancy Pelosi, signs 'red flag' gun protection law

According to the Giffords Law Center, which lobbies for tougher gun laws, there have not been any successful legal challenges of any similar state laws. There is, however, an ongoing complaint in an Illinois district court asking for an injunction, arguing that the law violates the Second and 14th amendments.

Assuming Colorado's law withstands a court challenge, defiant local sheriffs are on a legal collision course with the state. State law enforcement agencies like the Colorado State Patrol do "not have the authority to supersede local control," and seize the guns instead, according to Shelby Wieman, a spokeswoman for Gov. Polis.

Polis is confident that law enforcement will not ignore court orders to seize weapons, but if they do, it would be for the district courts or the state attorney general to resolve.

Ignoring gun laws versus immigration laws
The declaration of a "sanctuary county" borrows the phrasing used by immigration advocates to describe jurisdictions where local law enforcement does not cooperate with federal immigration authorities, even when undocumented immigrants charged with crimes enter local jails.
If it's OK to ignore immigration laws, why can't Colorado counties ignore gun laws?

University of Denver law professor John Campbell said local law enforcement "can't choose not to enforce their state's law." But the enforcement of federal laws, such as immigration legislation, are voluntary for local authorities.

If a sheriff were to ignore a court order to seize a person's guns and they use them to hurt someone, Campbell believes the sheriff could be held liable. Law enforcement has immunity for genuine mistakes, but not for recklessness or blatantly ignoring their legal duty.
"Those are classic conditions to create liability even when people typically would enjoy immunity," he said.

While the legal obligation to enforce court-ordered gun seizures is different than enforcing immigration laws, Campbell said the outcomes can be the same -- someone getting hurt or killed.

In 2015, 31-year-old Kate Steinle was killed by an undocumented immigrant who was released from jail despite a request from federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to turn him over. A federal appeals court ruled last month that Steinle's parents cannot sue over San Francisco's "sanctuary" policy that allowed her killer to avoid deportation and walk free.

Garnett said sheriffs should enforce the new gun law, but wouldn't make a statement on enforcing immigration law.
"Immigration laws are primarily federal issues and I'm not going to get into that," he said.

Sheriff Reams acknowledged his risk of liability for ignoring a court-ordered gun seizure, but he's not worried.

"The person who commits a crime against another is truly the person responsible," he said, adding that if a person is mentally ill, he would use existing laws to detain them for treatment. "We still intend to deal with the person."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/12/us/colorado-red-flag-gun-laws/index.html

I'm actually rather surprised by the response to this.

I can see a resistance to this in gun happy red state Georgia.

But not liberal Colorado.

So, this is rather interesting.

This is part of the problem in the country right now. Colorado is not liberal. Denver is liberal. Boulder is liberal. The rural areas are not.

Meanwhile, Polis signed a bill to expand locations where illegal immigrants can get a drivers license in Colorado.

I understand the intent, it just seems like this could be easily used to disarm someone you intended to hurt.

Good luck trying to actually enforce this, just saying. You can pass it for some symbolic nature I guess.

You mean like some of the crazy abortion bill that are getting passed while the law says they are legal?

The right to own a gun and protect myself and my family is protected by the 2nd amendment in the constitution of the United States. Abortion or anything relating to it is NOT in the constitution. By the way, I am pro-choice because I believe its up the individual whether or not they want to have an abortion because its their own body and choice. The government doesn't have the authority to tell someone what to do in that circumstance.

A gun bill that urges others to get involved and let authorities know when somebody might be a danger to themselves or others, so the Sheriff can "TEMPORARILY" confiscate their firearms... Of course the right would hate that.

So when my crazy relative shoots your family up, don't blame me for not doing something to prevent it 'cause 2nd Amendment Murica! smh

The problem with the bill is the lack of due process. I'm not surprised to see that you are ok with that.

If this happens couldn't somebody just file a lawsuit at the federal level and the state of Colorado wouldn't be able to do a thing? Just wondering. In addition I'm pretty sure the constitution overrules state law.

I also wouldn't expect anything less from OCD. He wants a communist state. The 1st step to that type of system is to take peoples guns so they can't fight back.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/...35f2_story.html

The city of Pittsburgh is trying to push their anti constitution measures.

Both the 2A, and the states constitution do not allow for this. The mayor should be brought up on charges.

Do you honestly think any law like this would not require the sheriff to make an onsite immediate assessment then follow up with the court? It's not like they are talking about willy nilly taking peoples guns. And unless your friends/family/coworkers think you are a danger nobody would even be coming after your guns.

lol, When the people who know you best say "oh crap, he's losing it"... chances are that you are losing it.

I have never advocated for anything communistic, unlike comrade Trump and his minions there fella.

You guys don't get me at all, I'm one of few as far left as I am that actually supports the 2nd Amendment. I think owning guns to protect your home and hunt is completely reasonable. I just don't see the need for any type of gun that fires a ridiculous amount of ammo in a short period of time. If I'm under fire, I'd like a chance in hell of escaping during a reload or because the hail of bullets is coming one or two at a time instead of 30. I can't see how that is so hard to understand unless you are just radicalized to hate everyone with a different view.

I always thought that Police must enforce the laws that are on the books regardless if they agree with them.

If I'm the person in charge, I fire them the first time they don't enforce the laws on the books.

So you agree the mayors of sanctuary cities should be fired?

And you have no problem with anyone from ICE deporting any illegal immigrant

I don't remember ever making such a stupid statement,,, Show me where I did

The new tactic of the right is to take a few words you say then completely redefine what you meant to orchestrate a personal attack on you. they are doing it from Trump down to libs across the country. This is really a form of personal attacks and should not be allowed on the board since I get banned for personal attacks for much less when addressing GOPers.

They are simple questions, do you think mayors of sanctuary cities should be fired?

Do you think ICE should be deporting all illegal immigrants.

Please do not deflect, answer.

How is asking a question a personal attack? Get the heck outta here...

The new tactic of the right is to call out the left as they continue to talk out of the wrong end of their bodies.

You both know what you are doing.

Showing your hypocrisy?

Want your cake and eat it too, huh?

OCD got put in the penalty box for name calling and personal attacks. He's butthurt so now he wants to see someone else get banned LOL.

[size:8pt][/size]

I don't think anyone's rights should be infringed upon based on hearsay or how someone "feels" about them. What about a former friend/crazy in-law/ex co-worker saying that they think you're dangerous? Should your guns be taken?

This is just another case of the Left punishing people without Due Process. We have seen plenty of examples of this over the years.

Someone will take this Law to Court and kill it.

I certainly agree with that. But abortion is legal as was decided by the SCOTUS. So is it your position that states can ignore laws just because they're not in the constitution?

Nonsense.

Not at all. I'm perfectly willing to take a ban I deserve, I just want a level playing field. You guys say all kinds of crap that is way over the personal attack line daily, yet you are back the next day and the next etc.

So I call you out, because one of you reported me and got me banned. Nothing I said that day was any more offensive than weeks or months of the same before... Only difference was one of you cried, whined, and whimpered to get me banned... I find that less than manly or honorable. So I call you out for doing the same thing I was banned for again, but PUBLICLY with no shame.

It depends on how the court handles it. If the court puts a stay in place, which means the state can't enact the measure until the court rules, then the law could not be acted upon until the court makes final ruling.

If the court does not enact a stay the law can be acted on until the court makes a final ruling.

Snowflakes love to get people banned.

J/C

I am still waiting for daman to answer the question posed after his statement.

*Crickets*

Secretly so nobody can call them out.

I guess they should be fired just like every politician who voted for and approved medical and recreational marijuana should be legal in their state too. Because that breaks federal law as well.

I don't think anyone should be able to pick and choose which we reward and which we punish for not following federal law. It's an all or nothing proposition.

Just keep holding your breath there blue. I wouldn't respond to your obvious GOPer bait either. Who even thinks that way? You think Mayors can just be fired by Presidents? lol, is that how it's done down yonder?

They think the president can do anything including breaking the law.

*Cheerleader*