Gun Grabbing bill is signed by Colorado governor,sheriffs vow not to enforce it

[Auld Phart]

As more gun legislation is passed......more & more law enforcement are refusing to uphold it. Colorado wasn't the first state to have to deal with this.

The law that you ultra rightwingers are talking about is the Red Flag law. Let me attempt to dumb it down to you.

If a person is thought to be a danger to him/herself or others and has guns, a family member or a law enforcement can take it in front of a Judge to determine if that person should have those guns in their possession of not. The Judge cannot arbitrarily make a decision at that point. The Person in question has to be afforded the option of a Mental Health test by a Mental Health Professional to determine if a danger does, in fact exist. If none exists then the weapons stay. IF it does exist, the Judge can order the guns to be temporarily removed until the condition passes which will have another court date and mental health exam. Now the tricky part. The Guns can be voluntarily turned over to either the Authorities or even a Family Member or a friend and satisfy the court order.

In Delta County, in the Western Slop of Colorado, the New Sheriff was elected. One of his (about his only one) campaign promises was that he would not enforce that law if passed. He was elected. Now it's passed. He finds out that the State Police will enforce it, the AG will enforce it, the Governor will enforce it and any Sheriff that doesn't will end up with some Jail time fast, have a felony and a Felon cannot serve as a Sheriff. Guess what, he now says he will adhere to the law. You know, exactly what his oath of office says he should.

If you have trouble with this law, chances are, you are either misinformed or wouldn't pass the mental exam and have to temporarily surrender your firearms. Hopefully, there is at least one sane person in your family that could care for your firearms.

No expert testimony needed just a "preponderance of evidence"

That is not an acceptable standard

ARe you saying that a licensed Shrinks testimony isn't an expert in the requirement?

Does the 'licensed shrink' own firearms, or does he have a bias against them?

Or does the shrink not think black people should own guns?

Seriously, what does skin color have to do with it?

 

[Blues Man]

As more gun legislation is passed......more & more law enforcement are refusing to uphold it. Colorado wasn't the first state to have to deal with this.

The law that you ultra rightwingers are talking about is the Red Flag law. Let me attempt to dumb it down to you.

If a person is thought to be a danger to him/herself or others and has guns, a family member or a law enforcement can take it in front of a Judge to determine if that person should have those guns in their possession of not. The Judge cannot arbitrarily make a decision at that point. The Person in question has to be afforded the option of a Mental Health test by a Mental Health Professional to determine if a danger does, in fact exist. If none exists then the weapons stay. IF it does exist, the Judge can order the guns to be temporarily removed until the condition passes which will have another court date and mental health exam. Now the tricky part. The Guns can be voluntarily turned over to either the Authorities or even a Family Member or a friend and satisfy the court order.

In Delta County, in the Western Slop of Colorado, the New Sheriff was elected. One of his (about his only one) campaign promises was that he would not enforce that law if passed. He was elected. Now it's passed. He finds out that the State Police will enforce it, the AG will enforce it, the Governor will enforce it and any Sheriff that doesn't will end up with some Jail time fast, have a felony and a Felon cannot serve as a Sheriff. Guess what, he now says he will adhere to the law. You know, exactly what his oath of office says he should.

If you have trouble with this law, chances are, you are either misinformed or wouldn't pass the mental exam and have to temporarily surrender your firearms. Hopefully, there is at least one sane person in your family that could care for your firearms.

No expert testimony needed just a "preponderance of evidence"

That is not an acceptable standard

ARe you saying that a licensed Shrinks testimony isn't an expert in the requirement?

Yes. There is no mention of the testimony of a mental health professional being required

Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly

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.

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.

 

[Ringel05]

As more gun legislation is passed......more & more law enforcement are refusing to uphold it. Colorado wasn't the first state to have to deal with this.

The law that you ultra rightwingers are talking about is the Red Flag law. Let me attempt to dumb it down to you.

If a person is thought to be a danger to him/herself or others and has guns, a family member or a law enforcement can take it in front of a Judge to determine if that person should have those guns in their possession of not. The Judge cannot arbitrarily make a decision at that point. The Person in question has to be afforded the option of a Mental Health test by a Mental Health Professional to determine if a danger does, in fact exist. If none exists then the weapons stay. IF it does exist, the Judge can order the guns to be temporarily removed until the condition passes which will have another court date and mental health exam. Now the tricky part. The Guns can be voluntarily turned over to either the Authorities or even a Family Member or a friend and satisfy the court order.

In Delta County, in the Western Slop of Colorado, the New Sheriff was elected. One of his (about his only one) campaign promises was that he would not enforce that law if passed. He was elected. Now it's passed. He finds out that the State Police will enforce it, the AG will enforce it, the Governor will enforce it and any Sheriff that doesn't will end up with some Jail time fast, have a felony and a Felon cannot serve as a Sheriff. Guess what, he now says he will adhere to the law. You know, exactly what his oath of office says he should.

If you have trouble with this law, chances are, you are either misinformed or wouldn't pass the mental exam and have to temporarily surrender your firearms. Hopefully, there is at least one sane person in your family that could care for your firearms.

Here's the problem with that, the Constitution and the fact that (due to the Constitution) our laws are designed to deal with "after the fact" is the issue here. Denying anyone's constitutionals rights when no actual crime has been committed is unconstitutional by definition so I don't see this law as surviving the test of Constitutionality.

 

[Crixus]

The law that you ultra rightwingers are talking about is the Red Flag law. Let me attempt to dumb it down to you.

If a person is thought to be a danger to him/herself or others and has guns, a family member or a law enforcement can take it in front of a Judge to determine if that person should have those guns in their possession of not. The Judge cannot arbitrarily make a decision at that point. The Person in question has to be afforded the option of a Mental Health test by a Mental Health Professional to determine if a danger does, in fact exist. If none exists then the weapons stay. IF it does exist, the Judge can order the guns to be temporarily removed until the condition passes which will have another court date and mental health exam. Now the tricky part. The Guns can be voluntarily turned over to either the Authorities or even a Family Member or a friend and satisfy the court order.

In Delta County, in the Western Slop of Colorado, the New Sheriff was elected. One of his (about his only one) campaign promises was that he would not enforce that law if passed. He was elected. Now it's passed. He finds out that the State Police will enforce it, the AG will enforce it, the Governor will enforce it and any Sheriff that doesn't will end up with some Jail time fast, have a felony and a Felon cannot serve as a Sheriff. Guess what, he now says he will adhere to the law. You know, exactly what his oath of office says he should.

If you have trouble with this law, chances are, you are either misinformed or wouldn't pass the mental exam and have to temporarily surrender your firearms. Hopefully, there is at least one sane person in your family that could care for your firearms.

No expert testimony needed just a "preponderance of evidence"

That is not an acceptable standard

ARe you saying that a licensed Shrinks testimony isn't an expert in the requirement?

Does the 'licensed shrink' own firearms, or does he have a bias against them?

Or does the shrink not think black people should own guns?

Seriously, what does skin color have to do with it?

Seriously, shrinks are human given to human bullshit. A shrink can not like a person because they are black. A shrink could decide a black person in Chicago doesn’t need a gun. A shrink may think women of any race are to emotionally unstable to own a gun.

 

[daveman]

As more gun legislation is passed......more & more law enforcement are refusing to uphold it. Colorado wasn't the first state to have to deal with this.

The law that you ultra rightwingers are talking about is the Red Flag law. Let me attempt to dumb it down to you.

If a person is thought to be a danger to him/herself or others and has guns, a family member or a law enforcement can take it in front of a Judge to determine if that person should have those guns in their possession of not. The Judge cannot arbitrarily make a decision at that point. The Person in question has to be afforded the option of a Mental Health test by a Mental Health Professional to determine if a danger does, in fact exist. If none exists then the weapons stay. IF it does exist, the Judge can order the guns to be temporarily removed until the condition passes which will have another court date and mental health exam. Now the tricky part. The Guns can be voluntarily turned over to either the Authorities or even a Family Member or a friend and satisfy the court order.

In Delta County, in the Western Slop of Colorado, the New Sheriff was elected. One of his (about his only one) campaign promises was that he would not enforce that law if passed. He was elected. Now it's passed. He finds out that the State Police will enforce it, the AG will enforce it, the Governor will enforce it and any Sheriff that doesn't will end up with some Jail time fast, have a felony and a Felon cannot serve as a Sheriff. Guess what, he now says he will adhere to the law. You know, exactly what his oath of office says he should.

If you have trouble with this law, chances are, you are either misinformed or wouldn't pass the mental exam and have to temporarily surrender your firearms. Hopefully, there is at least one sane person in your family that could care for your firearms.

What's that? I can't understand you with government dick in your mouth.

 

[daveman]

Wow, how subjective......if a person is thought...... And of course the liberal loons cheer this idiocy. Im not surprised.

This WILL be abused by leftist idiots with gun-owning relatives. Guaranteed.

 

[daveman]

As more gun legislation is passed......more & more law enforcement are refusing to uphold it. Colorado wasn't the first state to have to deal with this.

The law that you ultra rightwingers are talking about is the Red Flag law. Let me attempt to dumb it down to you.

If a person is thought to be a danger to him/herself or others and has guns, a family member or a law enforcement can take it in front of a Judge to determine if that person should have those guns in their possession of not. The Judge cannot arbitrarily make a decision at that point. The Person in question has to be afforded the option of a Mental Health test by a Mental Health Professional to determine if a danger does, in fact exist. If none exists then the weapons stay. IF it does exist, the Judge can order the guns to be temporarily removed until the condition passes which will have another court date and mental health exam. Now the tricky part. The Guns can be voluntarily turned over to either the Authorities or even a Family Member or a friend and satisfy the court order.

In Delta County, in the Western Slop of Colorado, the New Sheriff was elected. One of his (about his only one) campaign promises was that he would not enforce that law if passed. He was elected. Now it's passed. He finds out that the State Police will enforce it, the AG will enforce it, the Governor will enforce it and any Sheriff that doesn't will end up with some Jail time fast, have a felony and a Felon cannot serve as a Sheriff. Guess what, he now says he will adhere to the law. You know, exactly what his oath of office says he should.

If you have trouble with this law, chances are, you are either misinformed or wouldn't pass the mental exam and have to temporarily surrender your firearms. Hopefully, there is at least one sane person in your family that could care for your firearms.

No expert testimony needed just a "preponderance of evidence"

That is not an acceptable standard

ARe you saying that a licensed Shrinks testimony isn't an expert in the requirement?

Yes. There is no mention of the testimony of a mental health professional being required

Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly

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.

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.

Yup. Leftist pussies who piss their pants in terror at the sight of a gun will inform on their gun-owning relatives.

Then maybe they'll get to meet their club founder.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

As more gun legislation is passed......more & more law enforcement are refusing to uphold it. Colorado wasn't the first state to have to deal with this.

The law that you ultra rightwingers are talking about is the Red Flag law. Let me attempt to dumb it down to you.

If a person is thought to be a danger to him/herself or others and has guns, a family member or a law enforcement can take it in front of a Judge to determine if that person should have those guns in their possession of not. The Judge cannot arbitrarily make a decision at that point. The Person in question has to be afforded the option of a Mental Health test by a Mental Health Professional to determine if a danger does, in fact exist. If none exists then the weapons stay. IF it does exist, the Judge can order the guns to be temporarily removed until the condition passes which will have another court date and mental health exam. Now the tricky part. The Guns can be voluntarily turned over to either the Authorities or even a Family Member or a friend and satisfy the court order.

In Delta County, in the Western Slop of Colorado, the New Sheriff was elected. One of his (about his only one) campaign promises was that he would not enforce that law if passed. He was elected. Now it's passed. He finds out that the State Police will enforce it, the AG will enforce it, the Governor will enforce it and any Sheriff that doesn't will end up with some Jail time fast, have a felony and a Felon cannot serve as a Sheriff. Guess what, he now says he will adhere to the law. You know, exactly what his oath of office says he should.

If you have trouble with this law, chances are, you are either misinformed or wouldn't pass the mental exam and have to temporarily surrender your firearms. Hopefully, there is at least one sane person in your family that could care for your firearms.

No expert testimony needed just a "preponderance of evidence"

That is not an acceptable standard

ARe you saying that a licensed Shrinks testimony isn't an expert in the requirement?

Does the 'licensed shrink' own firearms, or does he have a bias against them?

Considering the person in question has the legal right to an attorney I guess that would be a good question that would be brought up, don't you think? He's still afforded due process regardless.

 

[Auld Phart]

As more gun legislation is passed......more & more law enforcement are refusing to uphold it. Colorado wasn't the first state to have to deal with this.

The law that you ultra rightwingers are talking about is the Red Flag law. Let me attempt to dumb it down to you.

If a person is thought to be a danger to him/herself or others and has guns, a family member or a law enforcement can take it in front of a Judge to determine if that person should have those guns in their possession of not. The Judge cannot arbitrarily make a decision at that point. The Person in question has to be afforded the option of a Mental Health test by a Mental Health Professional to determine if a danger does, in fact exist. If none exists then the weapons stay. IF it does exist, the Judge can order the guns to be temporarily removed until the condition passes which will have another court date and mental health exam. Now the tricky part. The Guns can be voluntarily turned over to either the Authorities or even a Family Member or a friend and satisfy the court order.

In Delta County, in the Western Slop of Colorado, the New Sheriff was elected. One of his (about his only one) campaign promises was that he would not enforce that law if passed. He was elected. Now it's passed. He finds out that the State Police will enforce it, the AG will enforce it, the Governor will enforce it and any Sheriff that doesn't will end up with some Jail time fast, have a felony and a Felon cannot serve as a Sheriff. Guess what, he now says he will adhere to the law. You know, exactly what his oath of office says he should.

If you have trouble with this law, chances are, you are either misinformed or wouldn't pass the mental exam and have to temporarily surrender your firearms. Hopefully, there is at least one sane person in your family that could care for your firearms.

No expert testimony needed just a "preponderance of evidence"

That is not an acceptable standard

ARe you saying that a licensed Shrinks testimony isn't an expert in the requirement?

Does the 'licensed shrink' own firearms, or does he have a bias against them?

Considering the person in question has the legal right to an attorney I guess that would be a good question that would be brought up, don't you think? He's still afforded due process regardless.

Does he?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

As more gun legislation is passed......more & more law enforcement are refusing to uphold it. Colorado wasn't the first state to have to deal with this.

The law that you ultra rightwingers are talking about is the Red Flag law. Let me attempt to dumb it down to you.

If a person is thought to be a danger to him/herself or others and has guns, a family member or a law enforcement can take it in front of a Judge to determine if that person should have those guns in their possession of not. The Judge cannot arbitrarily make a decision at that point. The Person in question has to be afforded the option of a Mental Health test by a Mental Health Professional to determine if a danger does, in fact exist. If none exists then the weapons stay. IF it does exist, the Judge can order the guns to be temporarily removed until the condition passes which will have another court date and mental health exam. Now the tricky part. The Guns can be voluntarily turned over to either the Authorities or even a Family Member or a friend and satisfy the court order.

In Delta County, in the Western Slop of Colorado, the New Sheriff was elected. One of his (about his only one) campaign promises was that he would not enforce that law if passed. He was elected. Now it's passed. He finds out that the State Police will enforce it, the AG will enforce it, the Governor will enforce it and any Sheriff that doesn't will end up with some Jail time fast, have a felony and a Felon cannot serve as a Sheriff. Guess what, he now says he will adhere to the law. You know, exactly what his oath of office says he should.

If you have trouble with this law, chances are, you are either misinformed or wouldn't pass the mental exam and have to temporarily surrender your firearms. Hopefully, there is at least one sane person in your family that could care for your firearms.

No expert testimony needed just a "preponderance of evidence"

That is not an acceptable standard

ARe you saying that a licensed Shrinks testimony isn't an expert in the requirement?

Yes. There is no mention of the testimony of a mental health professional being required

Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly

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.

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.

No it doesn't. But the person in question has the right to a mental health exam before hand. If the Mental Health exam says that they are NOT a threat to themselves or others, the petitioner's claim has failed. And let the Civil Suits begin.

You keep forgetting that the 14th amendment of the Constitution affords every citizen the right to due process. Just because someone says that he is a danger doesn't mean that he is. And it's not up to him to prove that he isn't, it's up to the petitioner to prove that he is. That means that he is afforded the opportunity to a lawyer and that Mental Health Professional. It also means that the petitioner is also afforded the ability to introduce the same. It doesn't have to be in that particular law. It's already in the laws.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

As more gun legislation is passed......more & more law enforcement are refusing to uphold it. Colorado wasn't the first state to have to deal with this.

The law that you ultra rightwingers are talking about is the Red Flag law. Let me attempt to dumb it down to you.

If a person is thought to be a danger to him/herself or others and has guns, a family member or a law enforcement can take it in front of a Judge to determine if that person should have those guns in their possession of not. The Judge cannot arbitrarily make a decision at that point. The Person in question has to be afforded the option of a Mental Health test by a Mental Health Professional to determine if a danger does, in fact exist. If none exists then the weapons stay. IF it does exist, the Judge can order the guns to be temporarily removed until the condition passes which will have another court date and mental health exam. Now the tricky part. The Guns can be voluntarily turned over to either the Authorities or even a Family Member or a friend and satisfy the court order.

In Delta County, in the Western Slop of Colorado, the New Sheriff was elected. One of his (about his only one) campaign promises was that he would not enforce that law if passed. He was elected. Now it's passed. He finds out that the State Police will enforce it, the AG will enforce it, the Governor will enforce it and any Sheriff that doesn't will end up with some Jail time fast, have a felony and a Felon cannot serve as a Sheriff. Guess what, he now says he will adhere to the law. You know, exactly what his oath of office says he should.

If you have trouble with this law, chances are, you are either misinformed or wouldn't pass the mental exam and have to temporarily surrender your firearms. Hopefully, there is at least one sane person in your family that could care for your firearms.

No expert testimony needed just a "preponderance of evidence"

That is not an acceptable standard

ARe you saying that a licensed Shrinks testimony isn't an expert in the requirement?

Does the 'licensed shrink' own firearms, or does he have a bias against them?

Or does the shrink not think black people should own guns?

Maybe people that ask that question should not own guns

 

[Thinker101]

The law that you ultra rightwingers are talking about is the Red Flag law. Let me attempt to dumb it down to you.

If a person is thought to be a danger to him/herself or others and has guns, a family member or a law enforcement can take it in front of a Judge to determine if that person should have those guns in their possession of not. The Judge cannot arbitrarily make a decision at that point. The Person in question has to be afforded the option of a Mental Health test by a Mental Health Professional to determine if a danger does, in fact exist. If none exists then the weapons stay. IF it does exist, the Judge can order the guns to be temporarily removed until the condition passes which will have another court date and mental health exam. Now the tricky part. The Guns can be voluntarily turned over to either the Authorities or even a Family Member or a friend and satisfy the court order.

In Delta County, in the Western Slop of Colorado, the New Sheriff was elected. One of his (about his only one) campaign promises was that he would not enforce that law if passed. He was elected. Now it's passed. He finds out that the State Police will enforce it, the AG will enforce it, the Governor will enforce it and any Sheriff that doesn't will end up with some Jail time fast, have a felony and a Felon cannot serve as a Sheriff. Guess what, he now says he will adhere to the law. You know, exactly what his oath of office says he should.

If you have trouble with this law, chances are, you are either misinformed or wouldn't pass the mental exam and have to temporarily surrender your firearms. Hopefully, there is at least one sane person in your family that could care for your firearms.

No expert testimony needed just a "preponderance of evidence"

That is not an acceptable standard

ARe you saying that a licensed Shrinks testimony isn't an expert in the requirement?

Does the 'licensed shrink' own firearms, or does he have a bias against them?

Or does the shrink not think black people should own guns?

Maybe people that ask that question should not own guns

I feel you should turn in your guns....can I get a second on this?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The law that you ultra rightwingers are talking about is the Red Flag law. Let me attempt to dumb it down to you.

If a person is thought to be a danger to him/herself or others and has guns, a family member or a law enforcement can take it in front of a Judge to determine if that person should have those guns in their possession of not. The Judge cannot arbitrarily make a decision at that point. The Person in question has to be afforded the option of a Mental Health test by a Mental Health Professional to determine if a danger does, in fact exist. If none exists then the weapons stay. IF it does exist, the Judge can order the guns to be temporarily removed until the condition passes which will have another court date and mental health exam. Now the tricky part. The Guns can be voluntarily turned over to either the Authorities or even a Family Member or a friend and satisfy the court order.

In Delta County, in the Western Slop of Colorado, the New Sheriff was elected. One of his (about his only one) campaign promises was that he would not enforce that law if passed. He was elected. Now it's passed. He finds out that the State Police will enforce it, the AG will enforce it, the Governor will enforce it and any Sheriff that doesn't will end up with some Jail time fast, have a felony and a Felon cannot serve as a Sheriff. Guess what, he now says he will adhere to the law. You know, exactly what his oath of office says he should.

If you have trouble with this law, chances are, you are either misinformed or wouldn't pass the mental exam and have to temporarily surrender your firearms. Hopefully, there is at least one sane person in your family that could care for your firearms.

No expert testimony needed just a "preponderance of evidence"

That is not an acceptable standard

ARe you saying that a licensed Shrinks testimony isn't an expert in the requirement?

Does the 'licensed shrink' own firearms, or does he have a bias against them?

Considering the person in question has the legal right to an attorney I guess that would be a good question that would be brought up, don't you think? He's still afforded due process regardless.

Does he?

Maybe not where you live. But around here, we all have the right to an attorney no matter what. Even if it's a public defender. And even I know that the first step to block something like this is to go for a mental health exam. It's either going to block it or cement it. Either way, justice will be served. If it blocks it, there are some pretty good grounds for a nice civil suit. If the Shrink of the persons or their Lawyers choice does find that he is, in fact, a danger to himself or others in the community, then he really shouldn't have those guns for the next 6 months when it will be revisited. You gunnerts seem to want the crazies off the streets. Well, here is your chance. Don't screw it up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No expert testimony needed just a "preponderance of evidence"

That is not an acceptable standard

ARe you saying that a licensed Shrinks testimony isn't an expert in the requirement?

Does the 'licensed shrink' own firearms, or does he have a bias against them?

Or does the shrink not think black people should own guns?

Maybe people that ask that question should not own guns

I feel you should turn in your guns....can I get a second on this?

Just as long as I get my due process. And you have to file with the State of Colorado. Tell me, is your house paid for? How about your car? Do you have a nice saving account?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Controversial Colorado gun bill becomes law, 11 sheriffs willing to choose jail over enforcement - CNN

Good for those Sheriff's! Its unconstitutional.

I thought the Supreme Coutt has already struck this kind of shit down. Fucking left needs to learn

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Controversial Colorado gun bill becomes law, 11 sheriffs willing to choose jail over enforcement - CNN

Good for those Sheriff's! Its unconstitutional.

I thought the Supreme Coutt has already struck this kind of shit down. Fucking left needs to learn

Nope. The Courts have not ruled on it. Sorry, but your Red Fake News is still fake news. And those 11 Sheriffs are slowing backing down. The real reason they are doing this is that it's been an election year and they are catering to idiots like you. Right after the election they usually change their minds when they find out that if they don't operate within it, they just might end up jailed with a felony record with means they can't be a Sheriff anymore. The lower courts are supporting it. It hasn't made it to the upper Federal Courts yet. Considering it really doesn't deprive the person of their lawful rights, I don't see it being overturned.

 

[Kondor3]

Controversial Colorado gun bill becomes law, 11 sheriffs willing to choose jail over enforcement - CNN

Good for those Sheriff's! Its unconstitutional.

No problem. There's always some young Deputy lookin' to move up the ladder.

 

[Auld Phart]

No expert testimony needed just a "preponderance of evidence"

That is not an acceptable standard

ARe you saying that a licensed Shrinks testimony isn't an expert in the requirement?

Does the 'licensed shrink' own firearms, or does he have a bias against them?

Considering the person in question has the legal right to an attorney I guess that would be a good question that would be brought up, don't you think? He's still afforded due process regardless.

Does he?

Maybe not where you live. But around here, we all have the right to an attorney no matter what. Even if it's a public defender. And even I know that the first step to block something like this is to go for a mental health exam. It's either going to block it or cement it. Either way, justice will be served. If it blocks it, there are some pretty good grounds for a nice civil suit. If the Shrink of the persons or their Lawyers choice does find that he is, in fact, a danger to himself or others in the community, then he really shouldn't have those guns for the next 6 months when it will be revisited. You gunnerts seem to want the crazies off the streets. Well, here is your chance. Don't screw it up.

and if the shrink is anti gun, the guy is screwed.

 

[Kondor3]

Colorado is facing a full scale voter revolt.
Jared Polis, Colorado Democrats face recall effort over leftist agenda

Maybe the state will vote them all out.

The sheriffs need to go to the capital and remove the governor by force.

Insurrection on the part of those sheriffs would be met with overwhelming deadly force; on the Federal level, if need be.

However, the Colorado Army National Guard should be sufficient.

Hell... the Colorado State Capitol Police should be sufficient.

 

[Crixus]

Controversial Colorado gun bill becomes law, 11 sheriffs willing to choose jail over enforcement - CNN

Good for those Sheriff's! Its unconstitutional.

I thought the Supreme Coutt has already struck this kind of shit down. Fucking left needs to learn

Nope. The Courts have not ruled on it. Sorry, but your Red Fake News is still fake news. And those 11 Sheriffs are slowing backing down. The real reason they are doing this is that it's been an election year and they are catering to idiots like you. Right after the election they usually change their minds when they find out that if they don't operate within it, they just might end up jailed with a felony record with means they can't be a Sheriff anymore. The lower courts are supporting it. It hasn't made it to the upper Federal Courts yet. Considering it really doesn't deprive the person of their lawful rights, I don't see it being overturned.

If you are talking about the LE in Colorado you are talking out of your ass . Maybe you live there and if you do it’s cloistered away in a closet or some. Weld county sheriff routinely ignored laws coming out of Denver. Know your shit before you talk.