Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

Discussion of other state's CHL's & reciprocity

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4214
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#46

Post by ScottDLS » Fri May 25, 2018 7:12 pm

mojo84 wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 7:02 pm
ScottDLS wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 6:53 pm
mojo84 wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 6:17 pm
ninjabread wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 6:10 pm
Yes it may be. I suggest you do that.

I see people here who look willing to remove someone's liberty and freedom and their guns, after a trial by a jury of their peers. I don't see anybody suggesting people should be locked up and allowed to keep their guns while locked up, which you claim "so many" do. However, I do see people willing to infringe constitutional rights like RKBA without a jury trial, because the accused is allegedly dangerous, but they want to let the allegedly dangerous people back into society with free access to knives, poisons, explosives, motor vehicles, etc.
Look at ELB's posts and those that agree with him. He clearly stated if someone should have their guns removed they should be locked up. The problem is, as is explained in the link provided, it's very very difficult to get someone involuntarily committed in today's world.
That is good. It should be very difficult. I believe in Texas, long term involuntary commitment requires a finding by a jury. My father sat on such a jury. Since it was clear (at least to that jury) that the guy was in fact "batpoocrazy", they granted the commitment petitioned by the State. SCOTUS has already ruled that in order to have a domestic restraining order causing someone to forfeit their gun rights federally, the person must be accorded due process including a hearing before a judge, the right to have testimony favorable to him brought and the right to be represented by a lawyer, and to challenge witnesses against him. Because taking someones gun rights with a restraining order is temporary and does not involve incarceration, a jury trial isn't necessarily required. But the standard for some of these new restraints on liberty being proposed is significantly weaker.
You are conflating long-term/permanent with temporary. This law is discussing temporary until it can be adjudicated. How long does it take to get a case to trial? What do you suggest in the interim?

I agree it should be difficult to get one's rights removed. I do not know if this particular proposed law is well written or not. However, I do know from experience, our mental health system and getting someone the level of help they need can be extremely difficult and can take years.
I understand. And the temporary removal of gun rights doesn't require a jury trial, but short of grounds for arrest, it should at least involve a hearing in front of a judge. On the metal health issue forcing someone into "mental health care" is essentially incarcerating them and should (and does) require a very high bar. The 5th amendment is very important and there shouldn't be easy workarounds. Nor should there be for depriving someone of their 2nd amendment liberty.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 11964
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#47

Post by C-dub » Fri May 25, 2018 7:22 pm

mojo84 wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 5:38 pm
C-dub wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 5:19 pm
ELB wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 8:41 pm
Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
crazy2medic wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 8:44 pm
I believe they really have no desire to stop the mass shootings, their goal is to get gun confiscation! You cannot subjugate an armed populace!
There you go!
What "seems" should happen is not what actually happens. Here is some info that sheds some light on how hard it is to get someone involuntarily committed due to mental illness. https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/ivc/inv ... cepts.html

This is my exact point. Most of us are as ignorant about the laws regarding having someone involuntarily committed as many of the antigunners are about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Also, why are so many willing to remove someone's liberty and freedom but not their guns?
Oh yeah, it's a mess. A huge mess!

I have thought about many of those issues without being aware of the specific cases. It's stuff my daughter and I talk about when she has asked questions after these recent shootings.

The answers are not simple and each time one is floated it only seems to bring up 5 more questions.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.

NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 5978
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#48

Post by Pawpaw » Sat May 26, 2018 12:02 am

mojo84 wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 5:02 pm
Pawpaw wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 2:39 pm
mojo84 wrote:
RogueUSMC wrote:
Papa_Tiger wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
:iagree:

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be locked up. They should not have access to any weapons, including vehicles, knives, etc.
With due process of course...
'Due process' meaning a jury of your peers not just a robe on a bench...
So arrest warrants that temporarily take away one's freedom should be ruled on by a jury before being issued instead of a robe on a bench?
Anything less is a violation of the Constitution.
Amendment V wrote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So, you are really upset with how search and arrest warrants are obtained and believe that process is unconstitutional? It appears this proposed law works very similar to them. Do you believe people should be tried and convicted prior to being arrested?

I'm not an attorney but it does not appear to me that only a jury trial is the only form of due process. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=595
That's an absurd argument. Nowhere in this discussion has anyone said anything about being arrested for the suspicion of a crime. This whole discussion is about the government seizing weapons because someone thinks you might commit a crime.

Being arrested and charged with a crime is part of due process. Confiscating someone's legally owned property just because they might possibly commit a crime is not..
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8248
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#49

Post by mojo84 » Sat May 26, 2018 6:05 am

Pawpaw wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 12:02 am
mojo84 wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 5:02 pm
Pawpaw wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 2:39 pm
mojo84 wrote:
RogueUSMC wrote:
Papa_Tiger wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
:iagree:

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be locked up. They should not have access to any weapons, including vehicles, knives, etc.
With due process of course...
'Due process' meaning a jury of your peers not just a robe on a bench...
So arrest warrants that temporarily take away one's freedom should be ruled on by a jury before being issued instead of a robe on a bench?
Anything less is a violation of the Constitution.
Amendment V wrote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So, you are really upset with how search and arrest warrants are obtained and believe that process is unconstitutional? It appears this proposed law works very similar to them. Do you believe people should be tried and convicted prior to being arrested?

I'm not an attorney but it does not appear to me that only a jury trial is the only form of due process. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=595
That's an absurd argument. Nowhere in this discussion has anyone said anything about being arrested for the suspicion of a crime. This whole discussion is about the government seizing weapons because someone thinks you might commit a crime.

Being arrested and charged with a crime is part of due process. Confiscating someone's legally owned property just because they might possibly commit a crime is not..
You ignore the fact the proposed law in Colorado proposes to work very similar to how arrest warrants are processes and issued.

It's not confiscation of one's guns "just because they might possibly commit a crime". It is temporarily removing the guns from a person's possession based upon a preponderance of evidence that the person is mentally ill to the point of harming themself or others. If this law passes, it will become part of the due process just as it is part of due process to arrest someone and temporarily take away their liberty until the trial because they are suspected of a crime.

Like I said, I do not know if this law is well enough written to mitigate abuse but I do know from experience, there needs to be a better process for friends, family and law enforcement to get people the help they need and protect the public and the mentally ill person from harm.


philbo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:36 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#50

Post by philbo » Sat May 26, 2018 8:12 am

mojo84 wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 6:05 am
It's not confiscation of one's guns "just because they might possibly commit a crime". It is temporarily removing the guns from a person's possession based upon a preponderance of evidence that the person is mentally ill to the point of harming themself or others.
Reading the proposed legislation, this bill requires clear and convincing evidence, not merely a preponderance of of evidence... this is a lot more difficult standard to meet in court than a layman might presume. That coupled with the ability of the charged party to have a rehearing during the 182 days of suspension is more conservative than I've read in some other proposals/laws passed by other states.

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 5978
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#51

Post by Pawpaw » Sat May 26, 2018 9:32 am

If you guys think this law is so correct, please tell me why it ONLY targets firearms.

If "the person is mentally ill to the point of harming themself or others", why doesn't it mention taking away their knives, axes, hatchets, hammers, screwdrivers, etc? Don't forget vehicles. It's been abundantly proven that cars & trucks can be used as deadly weapons.

It seems to me that if a person is that mentally ill, we would all be better served if they took him/her off the street and got them the help they need.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8248
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#52

Post by mojo84 » Sat May 26, 2018 10:20 am

Pawpaw wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 9:32 am
If you guys think this law is so correct, please tell me why it ONLY targets firearms.

If "the person is mentally ill to the point of harming themself or others", why doesn't it mention taking away their knives, axes, hatchets, hammers, screwdrivers, etc? Don't forget vehicles. It's been abundantly proven that cars & trucks can be used as deadly weapons.

It seems to me that if a person is that mentally ill, we would all be better served if they took him/her off the street and got them the help they need.
At least in Texas, there is already a method to have someone's driver's license revoked. https://www.dps.texas.gov/DriverLicense ... cation.htm

Therefore, why are you guys that are so opposed to such a law regarding guns not upset and protesting the process for taking someone's driver license? Same goes for an LTC.

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8248
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#53

Post by mojo84 » Sat May 26, 2018 10:29 am

philbo wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 8:12 am
mojo84 wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 6:05 am
It's not confiscation of one's guns "just because they might possibly commit a crime". It is temporarily removing the guns from a person's possession based upon a preponderance of evidence that the person is mentally ill to the point of harming themself or others.
Reading the proposed legislation, this bill requires clear and convincing evidence, not merely a preponderance of of evidence... this is a lot more difficult standard to meet in court than a layman might presume. That coupled with the ability of the charged party to have a rehearing during the 182 days of suspension is more conservative than I've read in some other proposals/laws passed by other states.
I just used the wording provided by the link posted and assumed they had it correct. The preponderance of evidence standard is for the initial removal of the guns and then the standard you pointed out is the standard to continue the ERPO order.

"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."


DevilDawg
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:53 pm

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#54

Post by DevilDawg » Sat May 26, 2018 2:04 pm

Ah yes, precrime.. good thing we had a movie about that benefit to society to condition us to willfully surrender our rights to peoples “feelings”


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3933
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#55

Post by srothstein » Sat May 26, 2018 3:17 pm

philbo wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 8:12 am
mojo84 wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 6:05 am
It's not confiscation of one's guns "just because they might possibly commit a crime". It is temporarily removing the guns from a person's possession based upon a preponderance of evidence that the person is mentally ill to the point of harming themself or others.
Reading the proposed legislation, this bill requires clear and convincing evidence, not merely a preponderance of of evidence... this is a lot more difficult standard to meet in court than a layman might presume. That coupled with the ability of the charged party to have a rehearing during the 182 days of suspension is more conservative than I've read in some other proposals/laws passed by other states.

The way I read the summary attached, there is a hearing within one day that is only based on a preponderance of the evidence. The hearing a week later is where the clear and convincing evidence rule kicks in.

My guess is that the way the law is written is that it will be held unconstitutional. The first hearing is an ex parte hearing without the respondent being notified. It may also, if the police file it, include a search warrant to find the guns. I have faith that this will not pass Supreme Court scrutiny, based on how protective orders that were from ex parte hearings do not result in a ban on firearms possession, combined with Heller.

I could be wrong and SCOTUS could say the emergency needs overrule your rights, but I don't think they will. It seems like an ex parte hearing based on as low a standard as a preponderance of the evidence should not cut it. I could support it if the evidence standard were significantly higher or if the law required the respondent to be notified and given the chance to participate in the original hearing, but this one is too far, IMHO.
Steve Rothstein

User avatar

bigtek
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:48 am

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#56

Post by bigtek » Sat May 26, 2018 3:39 pm

It's enough to make a rational person cache a gun away from home just in case. Maybe more than one.
Image


philbo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:36 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#57

Post by philbo » Sat May 26, 2018 10:47 pm

Well the whole thread is moot, since the bill was shot down in the Colorado senate.

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8248
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#58

Post by mojo84 » Sat May 26, 2018 11:01 pm

srothstein wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 3:17 pm
philbo wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 8:12 am
mojo84 wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 6:05 am
It's not confiscation of one's guns "just because they might possibly commit a crime". It is temporarily removing the guns from a person's possession based upon a preponderance of evidence that the person is mentally ill to the point of harming themself or others.
Reading the proposed legislation, this bill requires clear and convincing evidence, not merely a preponderance of of evidence... this is a lot more difficult standard to meet in court than a layman might presume. That coupled with the ability of the charged party to have a rehearing during the 182 days of suspension is more conservative than I've read in some other proposals/laws passed by other states.

The way I read the summary attached, there is a hearing within one day that is only based on a preponderance of the evidence. The hearing a week later is where the clear and convincing evidence rule kicks in.

My guess is that the way the law is written is that it will be held unconstitutional. The first hearing is an ex parte hearing without the respondent being notified. It may also, if the police file it, include a search warrant to find the guns. I have faith that this will not pass Supreme Court scrutiny, based on how protective orders that were from ex parte hearings do not result in a ban on firearms possession, combined with Heller.

I could be wrong and SCOTUS could say the emergency needs overrule your rights, but I don't think they will. It seems like an ex parte hearing based on as low a standard as a preponderance of the evidence should not cut it. I could support it if the evidence standard were significantly higher or if the law required the respondent to be notified and given the chance to participate in the original hearing, but this one is too far, IMHO.
I appreciate your feedback and comments about how the bill is written. Since I am not a lawyer or an expert in this area, I am not convinced the bill, as written, is good. However, I do believe there needs to be some process that preserves a person's rights as much as possible while allowing some one that is seriously mentally and a danger to himself or others be separated from their guns until they can be treated and their mental competency adjudicated.

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8248
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#59

Post by mojo84 » Sat May 26, 2018 11:09 pm

DevilDawg wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 2:04 pm
Ah yes, precrime.. good thing we had a movie about that benefit to society to condition us to willfully surrender our rights to peoples “feelings”
So, a severely mentally ill person should just be left alone by his/her family, friends or authorities until a crime is committed? Do you base all of your decisions on movies? On the contrary, my opinions in this matter are based on real life personal experience that ended in the death of a family member and the attempted suicide of another that left him with the mental capacity of a 4 year old for the 30 years.

The point being, proactive action by those that know the mentally ill person can go long way in protecting the mentally ill person as well as others. They just need a process to do so.
Last edited by mojo84 on Sun May 27, 2018 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.


NNT
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:22 pm

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#60

Post by NNT » Sun May 27, 2018 9:54 am

philbo wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 10:47 pm
Well the whole thread is moot, since the bill was shot down in the Colorado senate.
But it will come up sooner rather than later, if not in CO, then in other places.

I dislike things that remove our liberty, but in society we make compromises all the time. Or we could devolve to MadMax/Waterworld. Once in that grey area of compromise, who gets to decide? 16 oz soda? Straws? Drugs? Alcohol? Spanking our kids? taxes? business regulations? ADA? Toll Roads? Topics can range from absurd to head scratchers.

Where we draw the lines will be debated until we are under a dictatorship and don't have any input in the matter. I for one appreciate healthy debate and even some passion. what scares me most is when someone on any side thinks they have the perfect solution and quits listening to others or looking for a better one.

Post Reply

Return to “Other States”