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

We all know why you wont answer. You are afraid to stand by your beliefs, because you know they are hypocritical and don't have the stones to do so.

And yes, pitt, you can fire any elected official on election day sir.

What are you talking about? I didn't have anything to answer? lmao

But you just called me a hypocrite with no balls for not answering a question you never asked me, I'd say that is a delusion fed personal attack.

And fired on election day is not what you meant at all when you asked Daman if they should be fired! PUH-lease, stop trying to outsmart us.

I gave you an answer. If federal law is the standard you plan to use, every politician who voted for legal medical or recreational marijuana in their state should also be fired. You can't pick and choose. And who has the power to fire them for that?

Nobody bro. Same kind of rules apply there as apply to POTUS. But Willit is young so he probably didn't go to school when they still taught Civics and Government.

Rest assured, I do not care what you find manly or honorable. I will report any name calling....IF that's even what got you banned. I would like to think of it as my civic duty.

BpG, I'm not going to put you on ignore. But now I know exactly who you are and what you are, so I won't be engaging with you on any level. You just go ahead and do you BpG, and know that you disgust me and are not worth one more second of my time.

hahaha it's cool bro, no worries.

Do you need a link to the rules of the pound again? Happy to help

I didn't say you didn't answer, did I?

And I agree, they should.

So then it should only stand to reason that you would also agree that Steven Mnuchin should be fired for refusing to follow federal law that requires him to turn over Trump's tax returns.

The law says he should be removed from office and fined or imprisoned.

If that's the law that's the law. Unlike some on this board, I don't hide from questions that don't fit an agenda.

I am not sure what law you are speaking off, I haven't read it. But if there is one, so be it.

Still haven't heard Damon or OCD man up and back their statements.

26 U.S. Code § 6103. Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

(a) General ruleReturns and return information shall be confidential, and ex

Cool, want to post the immigration law next and see what Damon and OCD responses are?

I don't know what you are talking about willit, ask me again and I'll happily respond.

My post wasn't directed to them. You said you hadn't seen the law. So I provided the law. Why the animosity OCD? I mean willit....

If you are accusing someone of breaking the law, they are to be given their day in court to defend themselves.

Due Process is their Right.

Response to what? I've looked back and never see a question from you. You okay man?

Then put Mnuchin on trial. It's obvious from the law that he's breaking it.

Go ahead, arrest the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America.

It will be another hoot like the Collusion fiasco was!

If the law is the law...



You chimed in on this telling Damon "not to answer GOPer" or whatever you deflective comment was. You have and Damon have been ducking this question all day.

If the law is supposed to be enforced equally across the board...….

When people try to make jokes about special needs people, they deserve the animosity and more.

Only this time it's obvious. The law is in writing and refusing to follow it is public. See, this is exactly what willit was talking about.

You only care about people following the law of it suits your politics.

I didn't see it so I can't comment on it.

Fair enough.

I saw it, and I can honestly say it was despicable. he was trying to compare another poster to special needs kids as a put down, and went to a descriptive detail.

For someone who screams about victim blaming he turned millions of special needs kids into victims. I have seen some banned for less, but that's all objective to the refs, I wont question them, it was at least removed.

Police are supposed to enforce the laws on the books. Yes.
Do they always? No. Some old laws are never enforced, some questionable laws are not 'always' enforced, and some cops look the other way on certain things. Do I agree with this practice? Nope, it's a slippery slope. And yes, not enforcing laws should be punished.

Mayors are like the Presidents of cities. They are no above the law, but there are similar rules to removing them from office. They can't be fired. They can be voted out and I believe there is a form of impeachment or 'no faith' that can get them removed.

I have no issue with ICE doing their job. They follow orders. My issue with immigration starts and ends with those issuing the orders and making the laws. Trump is not horrible for deporting illegals; it's the other crap he's doing that is horrible; splitting up families, kidnapping kids, opening concentration camps, threatening sanctuary cities, etc.

You and I are probably not far apart on immigration. I believe in borders unlike most think on here, but I also believe in compassion and not dehumanizing people who are in horrible need for sanctuary. I'm sure we won't agree on the fine details at all, but the concept of maintaining a border and knowing who is in the country I think are both areas we agree.

Still not sure what I said that made you think I was talking about this question.

Thats the problem. How many times do we see schools evacuated/lockeddown because of an unsubstantiated threat? Even if it's not a legit threat, schools are not going to take that chance.

With this law, angry ex can say john doe is going to shoot up <insert location>. Is the judge going to take a chance? Now the defendant has to prove that they are not a nutjob.

One of the earlier versions of the bill had something in it that allowed for someone lying about the claim to be sued, but that got removed from the final one.

You live there, I believe. Do most of the people there support this? I'd still like to hear OCD respond to my question.

I'd say that's where the responding officer/deputy would use their judgement or the court would decide. Not much different than those same types calling children's services on people and that happens everyday. I think taking somebody's kids is far worse than taking their guns, temporarily or otherwise, yet nobody is up in arms over that. This is nothing more than a health and safety check involving guns, and meant to be for the greater good. I see no immediate problems with that.

Obviously any system can and at some point might be abused, but we have to start somewhere to get the guns out of the nutjobs hands.

Isn't the 72-hour hold rule already on the books?

Emergency Mental Health Holds (17-38)
Subject Health Care & Health Insurance
Agency Legislative Council Staff
Published
10/02/2017

This issue brief addresses the state’s emergency mental health hold procedure, which allows for a person to be involuntarily held for a 72-hour period of treatment and evaluation if he or she appears to have a mental illness and, due to the mental illness, appears to be an imminent danger to self or others, or appears to be gravely disabled. The brief also discusses short-term and long-term treatment following a mental health hold.
Download

https://leg.colorado.gov/publications/emergency-mental-health-holds-17-38

When you get to the point where one has to forfeit rights and prove his innocence against hearsay and false accusations vs. government having to prove his guilt, we've reached the point where we're crapping on the people who died so we wouldn't have to experience that.

I served and have a ton of family and friends that have served. In my entire life, including studies in military history, I can not think of a single soldier or leader of any type that advocated for the right for people who may shoot kids in a school, kill their families, become a mass shooter, commit suicide, or have the potential to do any of these things due to mental illness and bring harm to themselves or others... not one advocated to make sure these people kept their guns unconditionally.

We're not talking about permanent seizure of guns or banning guns to mentally healthy individuals. We're talking about people who are a clear danger due to mental issues. So when you bring up the great men and women who died to protect your 2nd amendment, please have the decency to respect the fact that they protected the right to live free and safe in our communities too. And they would have been the first to step up to protect those who are in harms way in this situation.

From what I've seen it's mixed. Those that support it seem to take the law on the surface(keep guns from mentally unstable people) and don't consider how the law could be wrongfully used.

I sincerely thank you for your service, I mean that. When you say "people who MAY shoot kids...." you are advocating identifying these people based on hearsay without solid evidence. Anyone can make a call and have someone's rights infringed. You don't see fault with that? Seems to me this is the patriot act on steroids.



Well, you are talking about seizure of guns for an unspecified length of time and banning guns to mentally healthy individuals based on false accusations. You're saying to take the guns first and then investigate.



Don't you realize that according to this law, anyone with a grudge or an axe to grind can make a phone call and deprive someone of their rights?

After reading this forum, I have some calls to make. They're crazy people walking among us in here.

I'll concede that this law as well as any other may be abused under a tyrannical government or by individual bad actors in a government. I'll also say that in an 'ideal' situation the law would only affect those with real mental issues, but rarely is any law enforced under ideal situations.

I would still support this law.

So you want police officers', whom a lot of people distrust and say are racist and bigots, and shoot African americans at will, to have that power?

Under this law, in a set framework, YES. I've never been anti-police, I've been vocal about unfair treatment of minorities by police and there is a difference. The Police and legal system are imperfect in many ways, but even considering that, imperfect beats the hell out of lawlessness.

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb18-1436

The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in her or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.

After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. If a family or household member or a law enforcement officer establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm, the court may issue a continuing ERPO. The ERPO would prohibit the respondent from possessing, controlling, purchasing, or receiving a firearm for 182 days.

Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.

The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.

The bill requires the state court administrator to develop and prepare standard petitions and ERPO forms. Additionally, the state court administrator at the judicial department's 'State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act' hearing shall provide statistics related to petitions for ERPOs.

So in this case, you would actually have to establish a preponderance of the evidence to a court. That seems to fly in the face of what many have said in this thread that you only need to make some wild accusation.

There is some disturbing lack of clarity here.

"The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone", with WHOM, exactly? Is the law-abiding, legitimate gun owner given an opportunity to defend themselves at this time?

How about the second hearing, after 7 days?

"Under oath and penalty of perjury". Go and talk to a few divorced men and come back and tell the group if you believe that this is any guarantee whatsoever against false accusations being made.

It would appear that the law-abiding, legitimate gun-owner has no opportunity for defense until the 182-day period has commenced, and has, during that time, ONE and ONLY ONE chance to motion the court and present evidence on his behalf? This is the only specific mention of this fundamental right.

The paragraph about giving up the firearms states "Upon issuance of the ERPO", but does not clarify the temporary or continuing version. I believe this is deliberate ambiguity used to mask the severity of the action contained herein.

So, not a friend or co-worker, but a family member, someone who lives in the house, or law enforcement officer can do this. No mention if family or household member must be an adult.

On one person's uncorroborated statement, with a good story for a judge, with no chance to present any defense or factual reasons why this should not be done, anyone, anytime, can be deprived of their Second Amendment rights.

NO.