60 Minutes - Colorado cops says they wont enforce Red Flags orders

[Dennis in MA]

So, what is the solution, then?

Is it mostly a "due process" issue for most people? If they were to put in language that says there would be a hearing the next day, to review the facts, would that do it for most of you? I'm not totally sure on how all this works, so am looking for information, so I can have an informed opinion when someone mentions these laws.

Thanks.

Yeah, we're gonna search your house, then go get a search warrant after.

How about no! How about, there should be a process to get rid of these guns. That dad on 60Min should have been able to go to court and get the guns removed. (Although he could have just bought another one - so there was no-win with ERPO, but let's not explain that on 60Min.). But removing the guns THEN a hearing, like in Washington State??? No. Wrong order.

The reality is that once the guns are out of your house, even in Washington, a judge is reluctant to countermand the order in case you DO go postal. So everyone winds up (I'm guessing, but I know human nature and the nature of government) getting their 1 year ban on guns. If not longer. Hearing should be first. Preponderance of evidence to remove, not a SWAG.

 

[kevin9]

Yeah, we're gonna search your house, then go get a search warrant after.

How about no! How about, there should be a process to get rid of these guns. That dad on 60Min should have been able to go to court and get the guns removed. (Although he could have just bought another one - so there was no-win with ERPO, but let's not explain that on 60Min.). But removing the guns THEN a hearing, like in Washington State??? No. Wrong order.

The reality is that once the guns are out of your house, even in Washington, a judge is reluctant to countermand the order in case you DO go postal. So everyone winds up (I'm guessing, but I know human nature and the nature of government) getting their 1 year ban on guns. If not longer. Hearing should be first. Preponderance of evidence to remove, not a SWAG.

IMNSHO this is question of fundamental right, not a civil question, therefore the standard for the removal of one's firearms should be "beyond reasonable doubt", not just "preponderance of evidence".

 

[Dadstoys]

Actually, in MA there’s up to a $1,000 fine & up to 2 1/2 years in jail for falsely accusing someone. I wonder how many of those fines have been imposed or what the likelihood of one ever being imposed is...

I would say about the same as the thousands of restraining orders filed every year by women getting divorced on advise from their lowlife lawyer.
Zero.
I have yet to hear about charges being filed against the whacko sister in law of the guy in MD who ended up dead .

 

[MaverickNH]

These guys think local sheriffs and prosecutors should be appointed by state officials rather than elected by local voters

Singer, Stephen and Hoeffel, Janet C., Elections, Power, and Local Control: Reining in Chief Prosecutors and Sheriffs (September 3, 2016). 15 U. Md. L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class 319 (2015); Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Research Paper No. 2016-08; Tulane Public Law Research Paper No. 16-13. Available at SSRN: Elections, Power, and Local Control: Reining in Chief Prosecutors and Sheriffs by Stephen Singer, Janet C. Hoeffel :: SSRN

Some BS reason about Mass Incarceration but pretty much about removing power from those elected by citizens...

 

[Bonesinium]

These guys think local sheriffs and prosecutors should be appointed by state officials rather than elected by local voters

Elected or appointed, there would be little if any change in how they act, and accountability would remain nonexistent.

 

[drgrant]

Not enforcing laws, even bad ones, sets a dangerous precedent. How do we feel about not enforcing immigration laws? Not enforcing laws against those who assault others for their political views? Yeah, this one works in our favor but its nothing to celebrate

This is worse than a "bad law" this is one where there isn't even full due process applied to it. They can come and take your shit "because someone said you were mean to them" etc.

Also there's a huge ideological difference between things like Assault, Murder, Theft.... and varying grades of malum prohibitum bullshit, like most shitty gun laws or immigration.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Sound observation.

But ERPO itself is a huge perversion of the legal system.... Shit like ERPO and Lautenberg play "skippity doo dah" with due process. What's left behind is a total
joke/shit show. Most of these cases they can get them ex-parte, etc. So you won't know you're getting an ERPO until they show up at your house at 2 am or you come back from work and your house is looted. All without a provable accusation, just "someone saying something in the right combination of words to make a judge flinch on the rubber stamp.".

-Mike

 

[enbloc]

ERPO needs to meet SCOTUS...

 

[MaverickNH]

But ERPO itself is a huge perversion of the legal system.... Shit like ERPO and Lautenberg play "skippity doo dah" with due process. What's left behind is a total
joke/shit show. Most of these cases they can get them ex-parte, etc. So you won't know you're getting an ERPO until they show up at your house at 2 am or you come back from work and your house is looted. All without a provable accusation, just "someone saying something in the right combination of words to make a judge flinch on the rubber stamp.".

-Mike

Heard on Cam & Co that some 80%of those Ted Flagged appear in court without a lawyer. A shameless perversion of a civil right.

 

[Dadstoys]

Heard on Cam & Co that some 80%of those Ted Flagged appear in court without a lawyer. A shameless perversion of a civil right.

You can be sure there is some kind of selection based on the ability to fight back.
Pull that shit on some multi millionaire and you can bet your ass it will hit the Supreme Court sooner rather than later.

 

[jct61765]

Not enforcing laws, even bad ones, sets a dangerous precedent. How do we feel about not enforcing immigration laws? Not enforcing laws against those who assault others for their political views? Yeah, this one works in our favor but its nothing to celebrate

This goes on every day in some states. California, Washington just to name a few.

 

[Daddy Mac]

This is how you answer the door when they come. Worth watching until the end.
View: https://youtu.be/p_NS2H55dxI

 

[Buck F]

This goes on every day in some states. California, Washington just to name a few.

Yes, and we rail about it all the time. But it’s ok when our side does it?

 

[Dadstoys]

Yes, and we rail about it all the time. But it’s ok when our side does it?

It is when it's in line with the highest law of the land (The Constitution) says it is.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

If you had someone saying 'Well I know we have the 13th amendment and all , but we're just going to grab a few blacks and get them back on the plantations . " It's all good.

How about just a little 19th amendment infringement ?
Women can vote if the local police chief is In a giving mood and decides to allow it ?
After they pass some tests and wait six months to a year for their permission slip.
Which can be revoked if the chief decides he doesn't like the way they act.

Sounds stupid right ?
Till you realize that's what's being done to us.

 

[pastera]

It is when it's in line with the highest law of the land (The Constitution) says it is.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

If you had someone saying 'Well I know we have the 13th amendment and all , but we're just going to grab a few blacks and get them back on the plantations . " It's all good.

How about just a little 19th amendment infringement ?
Women can vote if the local police chief is In a giving mood and decides to allow it ?
After they pass some tests and wait six months to a year for their permission slip.
Which can be revoked if the chief decides he doesn't like the way they act.

Sounds stupid right ?
Till you realize that's what's being done to us.

If Trump wins 2020, you could probably convince the majority of Mass to license voting...

 

[Dadstoys]

If Trump wins 2020, you could probably convince the majority of Mass to license voting...

Or eliminate it.
Our betters will take care of all that for us.

 

[mac1911]

Maybe its just me but is it only Sheriffs standing up to some of these red flag laws?
Let me know when all the Chiefs and Commanders start a Constitution 1st movement.

 

[Coyote33]

The Impossible Dream: Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause in Relation to a Malum Prohibitum Offense.

Are any of these ‘offenses’ something you are willing to kill or die for? To sacrifice your spouse, children, or grandchildren for? Think about it.

taooflaw.wordpress.com

 

[M1911]

Maybe its just me but is it only Sheriffs standing up to some of these red flag laws?
Let me know when all the Chiefs and Commanders start a Constitution 1st movement.

Sheriffs are elected. Chiefs are appointed. As a result, popular sheriffs in conservative counties have far more ability to take such actions than a chief. A chief would just be fired by the mayor or Selectmen.

 

[Broc]

you understand a lot of people believe immigration laws are bad laws, not enforcing those is the moral thing for them. Or marriage equality laws. Reproductive rights. Take your pic.

Buck, I have a hard time believeing that a lot of people truly believe immigration laws are bad, and the proof is easy to find:

1. All the politicians saying these laws are bad - there are plenty of videos of them talking about how we need to control immigration. From the 90s and early 2000s. The last D President deported more people than Trump.

2. I have heard a lot of people talk about how we need to let all these immigrants in. But I haven't seen a single one of them offer them shelter in their homes. That means they are just saying this crap to feel better about themselves, but they dont actually believe anything of what they are saying. Also, these people were all quiet while hundreds of thousands were deported under Obama.

From 2006:

In 2006, Democrats were saying ‘build that fence!’ - The Boston Globe

A 2006 bill shows how border security occupied Washington well before Trump made it the centerpiece of his candidacy.

www.google.com

I cant comment on your other examples.

Anyway, I understand the point you are trying to make and these things are tricky.

If someone shoots a school and the week before he was posting online that he would kill people, a lot of people will blame the gov for not paying attention. But at the same time, you cant just go after someone that didnt commit a crime.

It can be a catch 22. The reported does have a good point, if someone had a red flag order and it is not enforced and that person kills people, the media will be all over the Sheriff.

But at the same time, I agree with the Sheriffs, you cant just go after someone that hasn't done anything wrong.

And if that person really wants to kill people, he/she will find a way. That person can rent a truck and run over people.

Also, keep in mind the red flag law is a stepping stone, politicians will not end there. It will get worse, like mandating doctors ask you about guns and so on ...

Going to court is great and the right way of doing it, but it gets to a point when you need someone with a little bit of power to say f*** this, I'm not enforcing it.