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

[Picton]

There isn't
Tell me you don't really believe any of this had anything to do with " public safety".

Reread. I was referring to the section I bolded above it.

I'm not the one defending ERPOs. I'm the one saying they're unconstitutional bullshit.

 

[Clumber32]

In 1930s Germany they were legally required to report Jews to the police, so they could be brought to concentration camps. Should people follow despicable laws like that, just because it's the law? Some laws are written by the scum of the Earth -- and it's our duty to break those laws.

 

[atmay]

“It’s the law, so it has to be enforced” is right up there with “I was just following orders”.

Can selective enforcement be a vehicle for discrimination and/or abuse? Absolutely. Does that possibility make blindly enforcing “the law” any more excusable? No, it does not.

The Holocaust was “the law”, and the soldiers putting families on trains headed for death camps were the ones that “don’t make the law, just enforce it”.

 

[HuntMaine]

If that were true, there'd be no need for any such thing as ERPOs. No?

Actually that is why they get a court order from a judge and go through a judicial process. But you knew that

 

[HuntMaine]

In 1930s Germany they were legally required to report Jews to the police, so they could be brought to concentration camps. Should people follow despicable laws like that, just because it's the law? Some laws are written by the scum of the Earth -- and it's our duty to break those laws.

I’d you think that an actual logical analogy, I feel sorry for you

 

[HuntMaine]

Lots of keyboard hero’s on this one. It’s amusing that you come out and fake outrage at a lawful process to determine if a person is mentally ill or an immediate threat to themselves or others, and have a process to temporarily remove their firearms BUT you participate in a process where a Chief is the one person who may issue you a license in Mass. That’s not in the constitution, so why aren’t you just saying No I won’t comply and go on your way? Because it’s the law and you comply.

Now for the area of mental illness or where a person is a threat to their self or others the process of obtaining an order from the court, allowing for a legal process to take place etc is about the best that can be done other than letting a tragedy happen and then saying “wow how did they possess a firearm”. Also many states already have such restrictions currently. Possession of Firearms by People With Mental Illness Instead of whining on a blog it would be better if firearm owners participated to insure the process is clearly defined and reduces the chance for abuse. The process in Colorado while it could use a few tweaks seems rational.

 

[Deleted member 67409]

Political grandstanding that means nothing. They enforce plenty of unconstitutional laws everyday already.

Its important to keep in mind that these sheriffs are probably elected. Their counties are probably R-strongholds where they know making some political grandstanding will boost their chances this upcoming election cycle.

My bet is they'll enforce the laws when it suits them.

The trouble is that the people who have a Red Flag order placed against them are more than likely not the ones with deep enough pockets to challenge the law in court and then fund the appeals process all the way up to the SCOTUS. If an unconstitutional law is never examined at that level (and overturned) its constitutionality or not is a moot point.

Why is everyone obsessed with SCOTUS? Not every state is Massachusetts where the only way to get the SJC to do anything pro-gun is to have SCOTUS do a benchslap.

Every state's highest appellate court is the final arbiter of interpretation of the state's constitution. You don't need to go to SCOTUS if you win at the state supreme court.

Winning at SCOTUS would be nice, but the vast majority of litigation happens in state courts. Besides, it isn't the Feds enforcing these laws, its Sheriff Cletus and Deputy Bubba of Podunk County. They're state (well, municipal) LEOs.

You can get a case to a state supreme court in... two years? SCOTUS is normally a much longer haul.

 

[SFC13557]

Has SCOTUS ruled red flag laws are unconstitutional? I must have missed that. You understand that the Left thinks immigration laws are Unconstitutional too. As much as I abhor them, Red flag laws have been passed and until they’re deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, they’re the law where’ve they have been passed. The constitutionality argument doesn’t change the inherent problem with selective enforcement of duly enacted laws.

The left started it.

 

[Blackmore]

Lots of keyboard hero’s on this one. It’s amusing that you come out and fake outrage at a lawful process to determine if a person is mentally ill or an immediate threat to themselves or others, and have a process to temporarily remove their firearms BUT you participate in a process where a Chief is the one person who may issue you a license in Mass. That’s not in the constitution, so why aren’t you just saying No I won’t comply and go on your way? Because it’s the law and you comply.

Now for the area of mental illness or where a person is a threat to their self or others the process of obtaining an order from the court, allowing for a legal process to take place etc is about the best that can be done other than letting a tragedy happen and then saying “wow how did they possess a firearm”. Also many states already have such restrictions currently. Possession of Firearms by People With Mental Illness Instead of whining on a blog it would be better if firearm owners participated to insure the process is clearly defined and reduces the chance for abuse. The process in Colorado while it could use a few tweaks seems rational.

I'll grant you that, but it still takes $$$ no matter how high you need to go to get it overruled.

 

[Deleted member 67409]

I'll grant you that, but it still takes $$$ no matter how high you need to go to get it overruled.

Not necessarily. Most criminal appeals come from defendants represented by public defenders. Means testing for a PD varies from state to state, but the general cut off line is if someone is a homeowner and isn't in a total financial meltdown.

Appellate PDs are constantly in appellate courts so they know what they're doing. The problem is PDs skew left, so the client would want to strongly emphasize making a stand on 2A grounds, not just due process.

 

[robjax]

I think it appropriate that cologuard is the advertisement on this snip of the news. Because the sherif who is for it and claims he is a 2A guy is so full of cancerous sh#t. He is not a 2A guy. he is a JBT.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Pretty annoying so far how they are heavily laying on the sympathy angle by showing cases of crazy guys killing cops, young guy killing himself etc, the author of the model law saying how reasonable and respectful of due process it is, well before they get to the Sherriff's explaining why they are declinging to enforce. The whole peice is designed to set them up to look unreasonable.

It was two bad examples in my book.

Example #1 - they should have taken the crazy guy in LONG before, based on the selected video. Guns or not, that guy was not right in his head. Either he's AOK or he needs treatment. There isn't a middle ground where he can run people over with his car or set off pipe bombs but doesn't have access to a gun.

Example #2 - I was in Dad's court right up until he said he gave the guns back to the kid. Ummmm, what?? So it's the Village's fault because you gave your mentally ill child (he was 20) a handgun and he FIGURED OUT HOW TO BUST THE LOCK????? C'mon. If it wasn't a gun, he'd have jumped off a bridge.


It was a very short, very slanted piece with little to no information.


I found the piece on the butt-nuggets on the ocean floor more fascinating. Yet in typical 60Min fashion, we barely scratched the surface. Is it just me or did they do more in depth stuff years ago. Or I am more observant and less likely to just take all their crap at face value now????

 

[HuntMaine]

I'll grant you that, but it still takes $$$ no matter how high you need to go to get it overruled.

That is true and wondering how to address that

 

[citoriguy]

In extreme cases as to the one that they showed on 60minutes where the gun owner was clearly mentally deranged , they should have been able to restrain the person, collect his firearms for storage and have him thoroughly evaluated. He had made threats, there were numerous calls to his residence and he was mentally ill.

Do ERPO laws (anywhere) require authorities to take the person away for evaluation (or arraignment, if applicable) when they take the gun(s)?

I found the piece on the butt-nuggets on the ocean floor more fascinating. Yet in typical 60Min fashion, we barely scratched the surface. Is it just me or did they do more in depth stuff years ago. Or I am more observant and less likely to just take all their crap at face value now????

That was pretty cool. 60 Minutes did as much as they could given the other 2 stories they had. Ideally, at least for this episode, they would have spent half the time on ERPO regulations and the other half on the nodules.

 

[Dadstoys]

Reread. I was referring to the section I bolded above it.

I'm not the one defending ERPOs. I'm the one saying they're unconstitutional bullshit.

My bad, you scared me for a bit there.

 

[Dadstoys]

I’d you think that an actual logical analogy, I feel sorry for you

No actually it is dead nuts on.
They didn't get there overnight , but they damn well got there just the same as we are.
Take a group, marginalize it, demonize it and then attack it.
Sound familiar ?

 

[Dadstoys]

Lots of keyboard hero’s on this one. It’s amusing that you come out and fake outrage at a lawful process to determine if a person is mentally ill or an immediate threat to themselves or others, and have a process to temporarily remove their firearms BUT you participate in a process where a Chief is the one person who may issue you a license in Mass. That’s not in the constitution, so why aren’t you just saying No I won’t comply and go on your way? Because it’s the law and you comply.

Now for the area of mental illness or where a person is a threat to their self or others the process of obtaining an order from the court, allowing for a legal process to take place etc is about the best that can be done other than letting a tragedy happen and then saying “wow how did they possess a firearm”. Also many states already have such restrictions currently. Possession of Firearms by People With Mental Illness Instead of whining on a blog it would be better if firearm owners participated to insure the process is clearly defined and reduces the chance for abuse. The process in Colorado while it could use a few tweaks seems rational.

You sir are incorrect.
There is no statute in the law , at least in MA. for any sort of mental health evaluation.
Someone says your nuts or scary , they show up , take your guns and done. End of story.
No proof required, no penalty for accusing someone falsely , Nada.

 

[Picton]

Actually that is why they get a court order from a judge and go through a judicial process. But you knew that

And that’s actually my problem with ERPOs: not so much that they remove firearms from people who are legitimately dangerous or severely mentally disordered, but because they do so without due process. There’s no right to counsel prior to the revocation of constitutional rights. No right to confront your accuser. The subject of the ERPO “gets his day in court...” up to a full year later. And screw that.

It’s a judicial process, as you say, but with zero right for the defendant to present a case. So it’s arbitrary, and arbitrary is tyrannical.

I think the legal standard should be EXCEPTIONALLY high any time the state wants to violate BoR. ERPOs lower that standard. So ERPOs, as written, are arbitrary.

 

[HuntMaine]

And that’s actually my problem with ERPOs: not so much that they remove firearms from people who are legitimately dangerous or severely mentally disordered, but because they do so without due process. There’s no right to counsel prior to the revocation of constitutional rights. No right to confront your accuser. The subject of the ERPO “gets his day in court...” up to a full year later. And screw that.

It’s a judicial process, as you say, but with zero right for the defendant to present a case. So it’s arbitrary, and arbitrary is tyrannical.

I think the legal standard should be EXCEPTIONALLY high any time the state wants to violate BoR. ERPOs lower that standard. So ERPOs, as written, are arbitrary.

Everyone has their own opinion but if done correctly with a process that has judicial oversight it would work. There are many cases where after the fact people state that person was mentally unstable, had talked about either hurting himself or others etc and this type of process would have worked.

 

[kevin9]

Everyone has their own opinion but if done correctly with a process that has judicial oversight it would work. There are many cases where after the fact people state that person was mentally unstable, had talked about either hurting himself or others etc and this type of process would have worked.

Sounds nice in theory. The problem is, what Picton describes is the general (near-universal?) implementation and practice.

 

[Buck F]

You sir are incorrect.
There is no statute in the law , at least in MA. for any sort of mental health evaluation.
Someone says your nuts or scary , they show up , take your guns and done. End of story.
No proof required, no penalty for accusing someone falsely , Nada.

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...

 

[Coyote33]

And that’s actually my problem with ERPOs: not so much that they remove firearms from people who are legitimately dangerous or severely mentally disordered, but because they do so without due process. There’s no right to counsel prior to the revocation of constitutional rights. No right to confront your accuser. The subject of the ERPO “gets his day in court...” up to a full year later. And screw that.

It’s a judicial process, as you say, but with zero right for the defendant to present a case. So it’s arbitrary, and arbitrary is tyrannical.

I think the legal standard should be EXCEPTIONALLY high any time the state wants to violate BoR. ERPOs lower that standard. So ERPOs, as written, are arbitrary.

Everyone has their own opinion but if done correctly with a process that has judicial oversight it would work. There are many cases where after the fact people state that person was mentally unstable, had talked about either hurting himself or others etc and this type of process would have worked.

Sounds nice in theory. The problem is, what Picton describes is the general (near-universal?) implementation and practice.

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.

 

[Picton]

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.

The solution is to treat 2A like any of the other As (don't get me started on how the authorities run roughshod over 4A these days, please).

Depriving someone of their right to speak freely or practice their religion is unthinkable to most people. RKBA ought to be thought of the same way. So are there cases where it's legitimate to deprive a citizen of any of those rights? Sure. But think of the legal hurdles that would need to be crossed before a court could stop a man from speaking freely: that's about how hard it ought to be for the State to gank yer gunz.

Due process is the issue for me. I can't speak for "most people." And it needs to be meaningful due process, with a presumption of innocence rather than guilt. I recognize that's not the direction we're moving in, and that us gunowners in MA have had de facto ERPOs for many years. But the struggle continues.

 

[June4th]

“It’s the law, so it has to be enforced” is right up there with “I was just following orders”.

Can selective enforcement be a vehicle for discrimination and/or abuse? Absolutely. Does that possibility make blindly enforcing “the law” any more excusable? No, it does not.

The Holocaust was “the law”, and the soldiers putting families on trains headed for death camps were the ones that “don’t make the law, just enforce it”.

Wow, long time no see! Good to see you back!

 

[Coyote33]

Due process is the issue for me. ... And it needs to be meaningful due process, with a presumption of innocence rather than guilt. I recognize that's not the direction we're moving in, and that us gunowners in MA have had de facto ERPOs for many years. But the struggle continues.

So, if you had to change it, what would the law look like?

 

[Picton]

So, if you had to change it, what would the law look like?

ERPO? I'd abolish it.

I would treat RKBA like the right to walk free and not be imprisoned: the state can deprive you of it, but only if there's a trial with a jury. Full legal representation on all sides. If the State wants to take away your legal property, cool, but they'd better be prepared for a full-court press, motions, voir dire, the works. Because RKBA is that important.

Failing that, I'd open the floodgates for ERPOs on all the rest of the BoR's protections; we'd see how long it would take for the whole system to collapse.

Again, for me, it's not about creating some sort of special legal category just for guns. It's a mindset change ensuring 2A is as sacred as 1A or (giggle) 3A or whatever else.

 

[Boris]

I would argue that yes, WE ALL need to be the arbiters of what is Constitutional, Moral and Just. If you leave up to 'the other guy' or 'that court' or 'that elected official' that's how you end up running a train to Auschwitz. The guy who wrote the law did it, the guys who passed it did it, the guy who signed it did it, the guys who identified the Jews did it, the guys who rounded up the Jews did it, the guys who put the Jews on the trains did it, the guy who ran the train did it, the guys who marched them into the showers did it. NOT ONE OF THEM SAID NO.

Granted the first guy who said no probably would have been on the train next, and maybe the next guy, but if one led to two and two to four and so on it would have stopped.

If one police force says no to unconstitutional laws, then another will and another. Then when we say no, we can point to them and them to us; and pretty soon it stops.

It doesn't stop because they are afraid of us, or us of them; it stops because a government only works with consent of the governed and if enough people say no - they will end it lest the rest of the people realize that the government isn't in charge - it's us.


******************************************

Public Safety with out Public Rights isn't safe at all. The Indian laws, the roundup of Japanese Americans, the Patriot Act, the TSA all passed/enacted for 'public safety'.

There is a monument to several dozen Soviet soldiers who refused to shoot at civilians during the bloody putdown of uprising in East Germany in1953 by Stalin's forces. There are people who have conscience enough to defy an order on the pain of death. We are kind of splitting the hairs on which laws to ignore and which not.

The sheriffs were asked what if they don't enforce and crazy dude shoots someone. Lawsuit against county? Not a day passes by when I don't see news of some illegal from sanctuary city killing or raping and no one get sued. When it comes to hypocrisy f***ing libtards are platinum standard!


For those who lament the due process shmocess ... Boston stronk! Crazy chechens didn't need guns, only fireworks and a pressure cooker. Libtards seem to be fixated on guns alone, not cars, not gasoline, not pressure cookers ... just guns. If person is that crazy, perhaps s/he needs to be institutionalized regardless of what they own.

 

[June4th]

So, if you had to change it, what would the law look like?

If you have to codify it into laws, it has to be in the form of 'means, motive and opportunity'. Similar to a justified defensive use of firearm, the court needs to establish that a reasonable person (I'd prefer a mini-jury rather than a judge here) consider the words and actions of defendant pose clear and present danger in firearm-related violence.

Because we are indeed punishing and depriving someone of his property BEFORE a crime is committed here, so the bar has to be set high.

Then again, we are chasing a never ending issue:

1. Most mass shooters have clean record.
2. Many wackos make what seems to be credible threats but never carry them out.
3. In the end, laws do not deter people who are willing to die themselves in the act.

Focusing on mass shooting and how to prevent them in a pre-crime manner is a futile corner issue while we leave population-wide civil right infringement and violence infested city untouched.

 

[rsj]

The sheriffs were asked what if they don't enforce and crazy dude shoots someone. Lawsuit against county? Not a day passes by when I don't see news of some illegal from sanctuary city killing or raping and no one get sued. When it comes to hypocrisy f***ing libtards are platinum standard!

It's impossible now to use search engines to find cases of families trying to sue the sanctuary cities when their family members are killed by an illegal (all results are Kate Steinle). The sanctuary city DA can just say that they have no duty to enforce immigration (while hamstringing ICE), and throw the case out. The court system is so rigged what's a fake trial for the news in a mass shooting, and throwing out all the real drunk driving illegal cases on BS immunity or jurisdictional run-arounds.

 

[sieveboy]

I was waiting for a final comment from the interviewer..."so you take their guns and walk away, leaving an allegedly dangerous person angry, and with a car, knives, pills, chainsaw, kids, etc.", but it didn't come