• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

It's Official: Colorado's "Red Flag" Gun Confiscations Begin

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
27,972
Likes
20,243
Feedback: 123 / 0 / 0
Police in Colorado used the state’s new “Red Flag” gun law for the first time this week, one day after the law went into effect on January 1.

Denver police petitioned the court to temporarily confiscate a citizen’s firearms after he allegedly beat his wife and made suicidal threats to investigators.

In this case, the police actually confiscated the man’s firearms first and asked the court for permission to keep the guns after the fact, a violation of his 5th Amendment right to due process.

 
The guy is making suicidal threats. You want to police to just walk away? Doesn't everyone want the popo to go back to 'serving and protecting'?

Assuming anything is true based on the abortion of a news article.
 
The guy is making suicidal threats. You want to police to just walk away? Doesn't everyone want the popo to go back to 'serving and protecting'?

Assuming anything is true based on the abortion of a news article.
I agree. Idiots like him do all of us law-abiding gun owners a great deal of harm. The non-gun-owning public reads stories like that and form opinions. And these people also vote!
 
The guy is making suicidal threats. You want to police to just walk away?

Where is anyone saying that? It’s that ERPO was never needed to seize weapons for cases like these yet it is touted as some greatly successful new law. But I suspect you already know this and are happy with another tool to put in the box...
 
Denver police petitioned the court to temporarily confiscate a citizen’s firearms after he allegedly beat his wife...

Lol. It's gonna be cheaper and easier to hire someone to beat your wife now. Talk about an up-and-coming cottage industry...

Jamie-Foxx-as-Dean-MF-Jones.jpg
 
Where is anyone saying that? It’s that ERPO was never needed to seize weapons for cases like these yet it is touted as some greatly successful new law. But I suspect you already know this and are happy with another tool to put in the box...

I guess I should have replied directly to the original post. To me, this is a non-issue in THIS case. Notice the bold, underline, and italics before someone goes off.

Show me the guy in a divorce, where the only person who's making the claim is the ex-wife, and I'll be more inclined to give an harrumph. (that's actually a word spell checker?)

Without the ERPO law, I'd still be 'questionable' on seizing anything from anyone. We've all made off the cuff comments, and the stress of dealing with the police, people absolutely say the most retarded stuff. On it's face it seems like the 'right thing to do', but what a slippery slope.

edit: If these laws are going to stay on the books, the government needs to pay for the storage and be held liable for any damage done to the firearms, at a minimum.
 
Back
Top Bottom