Warms the cockles of my gun and freedom loving heart...



Colorado's attorney general testified said week that country sheriffs vowing not to enforce the state's proposed anti-gun "red flag" bill should "resign" -- a challenge that threatened to ramp up tensions between state officials and local leaders who were already creating droves of so-called Second Amendment "sanctuary counties" to resist the legislation.

Democrat Phil Weiser made the remarks, which were first reported by The Colorado Sun, while testifying before a state committee on Friday. Weiser has said that the red flag legislation, which would permit a court to the seizure of weapons from people determined to be a threat to others or themselves, would save lives, particularly in domestic violence situations.

“If a sheriff cannot follow the law, the sheriff cannot do his or her job,” Weiser said. “The right thing to do for a sheriff who says, ‘I can’t follow the law’ is to resign.”

The proposed state law, House Bill 1177, is expected to secure passage in the Colorado legislature and be approved by the state's Democrat governor, Jared Polis. It says petitioners, under oath, must establish by a "preponderance of the evidence" -- a relatively lax legal standard essentially meaning that something is "more likely than not" -- 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."

An emergency hearing must then be held within 24 hours, and if an "extreme risk protection order" (ERPO) is issued by a judge, an individual will be barred from "possessing, controlling, purchasing or receiving a firearm for 364 days," and must "surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit."

Defendants can successfully override the ERPO only by establishing by "clear and convincing evidence" -- a legal standard even more strict than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- "that he or she no longer poses a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others."

“Because ERPO will be constitutionally upheld, every sheriff will be required and, I believe, will follow through to uphold an act under that law," Weiser told the state Senate panel.

Several other states are considering similar red flag laws, and counties in states as far apart as New Mexico and Illinois have responded by creating Second Amendment sanctuaries, leading to court challenges. But Weiser's comments were perhaps the most direct repudiation by state officials of local leaders who have resisted their gun control efforts.

Similar red flag laws have passed since 2018 in Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. Connecticut, California, Indiana, Oregon and Washington had versions of red flag laws prior to the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in February 2018.

Weiser did not respond to Fox News' request for clarification on his remarks.

Conservatives have said Colorado's legislation should focus more on providing mental health services, and they warn that the bill would only discourage distressed individuals from seeking help. Legislators, critics say, should work instead on expanding and improving the state's existing provisions for 72-hour mental health holds.

"The criteria for a 72-hour hold is you are a danger to yourself and others,” Assistant State Senate Minority Leader John Cooke, a Republican and former sheriff, told The Colorado Times. “Well, that’s what this bill is saying, too — to come in and take your guns. But the problem is you leave the person at the house. It’s gun confiscation, and it’s really short on mental health. So, if you’re going to take the gun, you ought to take the person instead if they are that dangerous.”

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams told Fox News that Weiser, effectively, could take a hike.

“If you pass an unconstitutional law, our oaths as commissioners or myself as the sheriff — we’re going to follow our constitutional oath first,” Reams, whose county commissioners recently voted to become a Second Amendment "sanctuary," told Fox News. “And we’ll do that balancing act on our own.”

On Wednesday afternoon, commissioners in Logan County, Colo., became the latest officials to pass such a sanctuary measure. The vote among commissioners was unanimous.

"It's time we quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and start funding our mental health facilities, instead of trying to take the rights from our people," Logan County Sheriff Brett Powell said in public remarks prior to the vote.

He added that law enforcement searches are traditionally only acceptable during criminal investigations.

"In Colorado, it's not a crime to harm yourself," Powell said.

According to a list compiled by Rally for Our Rights, a nonprofit, 22 Colorado counties have become "Second Amendment sanctuaries" in the last month, including El Paso County, among the state's largest.

El Paso last week vowed to fight the Colorado measure in court if needed, and pledged not to “appropriate funds, resources, employees, or agencies to initiate unconstitutional seizures in unincorporated El Paso County." The country affirmed its "support for the duly elected Sheriff of El Paso County, Colorado and collaborate with the Sheriff to refuse to initiate unconstitutional actions against citizens."

El Paso Commissioner Stan VanderWerf called on the state's Democrat leaders to change course.

“I would ask Governor Polis to refuse to sign it,” VanderWerf said, “because of the unconstitutionality of the bill as presently written. No governor or senate should willfully sign into law or pass legislation that are violations of a set of documents that protect our rights.”



https://www.foxnews.com/politi...resign-state-ag-says

quote:

“If a sheriff cannot follow the law, the sheriff cannot do his or her job,” Weiser said. “The right thing to do for a sheriff who says, ‘I can’t follow the law’ is to resign.”

Boy, that's rich coming from a democrat.

My Sheriff supports the constitution and the good people who elected him into office. These commies try to spout off with this shit in an attempt to silence their support of the citizens.
Between this nonsense and governor puff's attempts to abolish the electoral college shit may get a little weird soon.

Fucking commies. I'm just embarrassed. Great article on this issue in the April edition of the Blue Press written by Alan Korwin.

By Alan Korwin
Officials promoting so-called “red-flag laws”
should be evaluated for fitness to serve. Why?
Because their so called “extreme protection
orders” are blatant constitutional violations and
have no place in an American system of justice.
This much is obvious.
Empowering your neighbors, roommates,
former lovers, relatives or people who have a
grudge against you to use armed police to attack
you, without warning or probable cause, does you
serious criminal harm and
must be stopped cold.
Encouraging the public to
“red flag” each other is
what dictators did in the
Soviet Union, communist
China and elsewhere.
Leftist sympathizers in
America are attempting it
here. It cannot be allowed
to proceed.
If people are too
dangerous to keep and bear
their own arms, they are
too dangerous to be out in
public, period.
Proposing to take a
person’s rights by armed
force, without a trial or
even a hearing, is such a
violation of our laws, such
an affront to the principle
of innocent until proven
guilty, and such a misuse of
armed might, that anyone
suggesting it should be
subject to at least the
psychiatric evaluation they
would impose on us.
Legitimate methods
already exist for intervening
with truly dangerous
people. Reluctance to do so reflects the
extraordinary nature of taking such action against
a person. Red-flag laws on the other hand are a
casual workaround and a “clear and present
danger” to public liberty. Proposing due-process
removal by flagging is as bad as proposing racism
by statute. The advocates must be stopped.
Using mass media to whip the public into a
mass frenzy to support this paranoid delusion is a
harbinger of the end of our peaceful Republic. It
signals a desire to overturn centuries of righteous
law-making with mob violence, turning neighbor
against neighbor in a vain effort achieve safety.
Ben Franklin framed it perfectly: “Those who
would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety.” Shouldn’t we all be flagged? Isn’t everyone
potentially dangerous?
Criminal Penalties for Voiding Due Process
The dilemma: How do we structure a new bill
so “officials” who stand in the way of full and free
exercise of a given right face a penalty, or some
deterrent to their actions? Like the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 aimed to do?
The left in its fury is
ignoring whether bills can
pass legal muster. They
push the envelope: “We’ll
examine your Google
search history before we’ll
grant a carry license.”
Preposterous of course, a
product of one dimwit
Brooklyn, N.Y. legislator.
What would they do with
what they find? Who does
the looking, and who could
possibly pass? They don’t
say, but they push it, then
“news” media bathes in it,
and next thing you know,
it’s part of the social
fabric – “the narrative.”
We must do the same,
force them back on their
heels, even the odds.
Should we seek Google
checks for politicians and
police before they’re
hired? Let them gripe.
Officials who examine
“bad” Google histories,
maybe they’ve been
corrupted by reviewing
disqualifying histories
(whatever that may be, it’s undefined). Officials
who promote grotesque civil-rights violation into
laws should face repercussions. Why would
honest people object?
Fortunately, we don’t have to invent new laws.
We simply need to resurrect existing ones, and
enforce them. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has been
remiss in failing to enforce critical laws on the
books: 18 U.S.C. §242. Deprivation of rights
under color of law.
Discriminating against civil rights is illegal. The
right to keep and bear arms is and has always
GunLaws WeNeed,Part IV: “Re
“Your right to
defendyour life
against anyone or
thingthatunjustly
threatens youhas
historicprecedent
goingbackto
before theBible.”
been a basic civil and human right. Your right to
defend your life against anyone or thing that
unjustly threatens you has historic precedent
going back to before the Bible. It is ensconced in
the earliest written law, the Code of Hammurabi in
1700 B.C., and it was restated by the U.S.
Supreme Court in the Heller Case as a “specific,
enumerated right” (District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570, 628 n.27 (2008)).
In plain English, federal criminal code says
anyone who, under color of any law, statute,
ordinance, custom or regulation, willfully deprives
any person of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, shall be fined or imprisoned for
up to one year, or both.
It continues that, if bodily injury results, or if
the violation includes the use or attempted or
threatened use of a dangerous weapon,
explosive or fire, the prison term rises up to 10
years. If death results, or if such acts include
kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, aggravated
sexual assault, attempted aggravated sexual
assault, or an attempt to kill, the violator may be
fined, imprisoned for any term of years up to life,
or put to death. That’s sufficient. It needs
enforcement.
The left is screaming for new laws, let’s give
them some! Tax credits for gun-safety classes,
encouraging a responsible citizenry, anyone? We
must also look at repeals of the most onerous
ones. Do you agree?
Alan Korwin, a national columnist, awardwinning author of 14 books and veteran of more
than 1,000 radio and TV interviews, has been
writing as a journalism ombudsman since 2006.
He can be reached at GunLaws.com where you
can read more common sense like you just read.
41

Time to find a more "secure" storage location for my safe.

Does the Colorado AG refuse to enforce immigration law? If so perhaps he should resign also.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Does the Colorado AG refuse to enforce immigration law? If so perhaps he should resign also.

You're assuming a turd sucking commie would apply the law equally to himself? Laws for thee but not for me is their permanent motto and EVERYTHING that comes out of their mouth is for the SOLE purpose of keeping as much power as they can.

20+ county sheriffs in Wa. refuse to enforce the commie inspired I1639 law here. Only 4 sheriffs in the Seattle area have said they would support it. Do you think the liberal assholes on the westside would get the hint? Nope, they are gearing up to introduce more intrusive gun laws. The fight will be long and hard.

Jim

quote:

Between this nonsense and governor puff's attempts to abolish the electoral college shit may get a little weird soon.

Very true! Add to this SB 181, as well.

Maybe the Colorado AG should suck-start a 12 gauge and do the state a favor.

If the Colorado AG thinks his job is to shred the Constitution, he is the one who should resign.

All of this the natural progression of laws where an entity - state, county or local government - just passes a law that says we aren't going to follow the law previously enacted.

It's precisely what happens when a city says they are now deeming themself a sanctuary city and won't abide by federal law. So what happens if a city decides it doesn't want to send the taxes it collects to the state? Apparently that's OK too if you follow the sanctuary city model of thinking.

Dems have been carving out exceptions to the laws they want to follow and now the tables are being turned and they don't like it one bit. Tough shit.

As I read the proposed law, subject to someone here correcting me, there's no notice per se to the removal petition but rather it's done by affidavit and if granted (judges always err on preventing harm) the only recourse is for the gun owner to appeal with a pretty high burden of proof.

I can see vindictive neighbors, wives, soon to be ex-wives and girlfriends abusing this.

They need mental help and nothing in this law says that will happen.

^^^I think you've pretty much nailed it. All done without due process.

More laws leading to confiscation but, zero to severely onerous mechanism to recover said property.

This reminds me of a friend who's wife called the cops on him during an argument. Aside from the fact that their argument was just that, she's not very mature; cops show up, he acknowledges he owns firearms thus the police took possession. He was booked on abuse them released. Several thousand dollars later, DA throws the case out, records are sealed yet, months later he's still trying to recover all of his property. Cop on duty didn't record everything correctly, gets a couple of serial numbers backwards or, incorrectly written; property locker removes all the optics and slings, odd scratches are found on a number of them and evidence that somebody(s) was fucking around with some of them.