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

[Blues Man]

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.

I'm petty sure you can only get a public defender for criminal cases.

 

[Kondor3]

GOP dupes have lost respect for our law enforcement and FBI and CIA, but for all the wrong imaginary brainwashed reasons. There is no conspiracy against Trump or Republicans. Or any other conspiracy for that matter, except the right-wing propaganda 1.

I voted for Shrillary, and even I know that's bull$hit... one need merely look around, on any given day, since January 20, 2017.

 

[Kondor3]

...This law is a side step around due process. And why should a person have to incur the expense of a mental health examination in order to prove anything? If the court wants to order a mental health evaluation then the court should foot the bill to prove that the state has the authority to suspend a citizen's rights. THAT is due process

Safety first, Constitutionality second... a practical necessity... it's the way the world works.

At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in the interests of public safety.

The President decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

At the start of WWII, Roosevelt incarcerated scores of thousands of Japanese-Americans in the interests of public safety.

The President decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

In Colorado, the State temporarily impounds firearms of suspected mental illness victims in the interests of public safety.

The State Legislature decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

When constitutionality and safety are dramatically juxtaposed, safety almost always wins.

Peoples' lives are more important than allowing a mentally unbalanced individual to continue to possess firearms.

Will it be abused from time to time and will the law 'get it wrong' from time to time? Yep.

But for every one it gets wrong, it will get a hundred right, and a lot of folks will live, who might not have otherwise.

And that is the single most important thing, not the feelings of knuckle-dragging NRA bumper-sticker echo-chambers.

This legislation merely accelerates due process on an emergency basis, vetted by a law-judge, based upon testimony.

------------

I agree, however, that the State should foot the bill for subsequent mental health examinations to affirm or dismiss the impound.

 

[Crixus]

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?

You won't get it with this law as all it takes is a couple family members and a LEO to say they don't think you should have guns

Or a pissed off girl friend, or the guy from work who didn't get the raise that you got or a guy who just doesn’t like anyone who isn’t white. It’s a stupid law.

 

[Blues Man]

...This law is a side step around due process. And why should a person have to incur the expense of a mental health examination in order to prove anything? If the court wants to order a mental health evaluation then the court should foot the bill to prove that the state has the authority to suspend a citizen's rights. THAT is due process

Safety first, Constitutionality second... a practical necessity... it's the way the world works.

At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in the interests of public safety.

The President decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

At the start of WWII, Roosevelt incarcerated scores of thousands of Japanese-Americans in the interests of public safety.

The President decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

In Colorado, the State temporarily impounds firearms of suspected mental illness victims in the interests of public safety.

The State Legislature decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

When constitutionality and safety are dramatically juxtaposed, safety almost always wins.

Peoples' lives are more important than allowing a mentally unbalanced individual to continue to possess firearms.

Will it be abused from time to time and will the law 'get it wrong' from time to time? Yep.

But for every one it gets wrong, it will get a hundred right, and a lot of folks will live, who might not have otherwise.

And that is the single most important thing, not the feelings of knuckle-dragging NRA bumper-sticker echo-chambers.

This legislation merely accelerates due process on an emergency basis, vetted by a law-judge, based upon testimony.

------------

I agree, however, that the State should foot the bill for subsequent mental health examinations to affirm or dismiss the impound.

We are not at war

And it is up to the state to PROVE a person is mentally ill before suspending any rights.

This law sidesteps due process and is therefore unconstitutional and I believe it will be struck down by SCOTUS

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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?

You won't get it with this law as all it takes is a couple family members and a LEO to say they don't think you should have guns

And a Judge and a Mental Health appointment. You keep forgetting about Due Process. Even a nutcase gets due process.

 

[Flash]

These filthy Liberals love the concept of guilty until proven innocent.

They always think you are guilty when you support the Constitution and oppose making the US a socialist shithole.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

I'm petty sure you can only get a public defender for criminal cases.

Actually, in this case, there are number of top Layers that would do it pro bono. You keep trying to take Due Process that every one including a nutcase has as a right out of the picture. That is what got the Nevada one thrown out not long ago. Meanwhile, others have passed and withstood higher courts that did address due process.

I think you are just throwing crap at the wall hoping something will stick. End of bother with you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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?

You won't get it with this law as all it takes is a couple family members and a LEO to say they don't think you should have guns

Or a pissed off girl friend, or the guy from work who didn't get the raise that you got or a guy who just doesn’t like anyone who isn’t white. It’s a stupid law.

As long as your rights to due process is observed, the Judge will have to make the right decision. If he doesn't you have grounds for an appeal to a Federal Court. If your due process rights are not observed, when you do get it overthrown, that same pro bono high powered lawyer will go after the applicants last dollar and possession in a civil court. Due Process has to be observed.

Again, you people are just throwing shit at the wall hoping to see what sticks. I am done with you.

 

[Blues Man]

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?

You won't get it with this law as all it takes is a couple family members and a LEO to say they don't think you should have guns

And a Judge and a Mental Health appointment. You keep forgetting about Due Process. Even a nutcase gets due process.

Where in the law does t say a mental health appointment is required?

This law is NOT about competency it is about an emergency order of protection and nowhere does it say that an examination by a mental health professional is required all it says is a petitioner must by preponderance of the evidence prove that a person is a danger to himself

This law is about denying due process.

You trust your masters too much

 

[Blues Man]

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.

I'm petty sure you can only get a public defender for criminal cases.

Actually, in this case, there are number of top Layers that would do it pro bono. You keep trying to take Due Process that every one including a nutcase has as a right out of the picture. That is what got the Nevada one thrown out not long ago. Meanwhile, others have passed and withstood higher courts that did address due process.

I think you are just throwing crap at the wall hoping something will stick. End of bother with you.

.


You ASSUME they will do it pro bono but the court does not have to provide you with an attorney except for criminal cases

 

[Blues Man]

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?

You won't get it with this law as all it takes is a couple family members and a LEO to say they don't think you should have guns

Or a pissed off girl friend, or the guy from work who didn't get the raise that you got or a guy who just doesn’t like anyone who isn’t white. It’s a stupid law.

As long as your rights to due process is observed, the Judge will have to make the right decision. If he doesn't you have grounds for an appeal to a Federal Court. If your due process rights are not observed, when you do get it overthrown, that same pro bono high powered lawyer will go after the applicants last dollar and possession in a civil court. Due Process has to be observed.

Again, you people are just throwing shit at the wall hoping to see what sticks. I am done with you.

No you are trusting the government to have your best interests at heart.

This law proves that is not the case and since you can't seem to find the text in the law that states that an evaluation by a mental health professional is required I'll stand by my assertion that this law is not about due process

 

[Blues Man]

So here is a document detailing the red flag law

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1177

It states that a temporary EPRO can be issued which will prompt the confiscation of a person's firearms or bar that person from purchasing firearms if a third party petitions the court.

This EPRO can be issued the very same day as the petition is filed via a hearing over the phone or at latest the day after in court.

So saying that a mental health evaluation is part of the deal is flat out wrong.

No lawyer will be appointed for the initial hearing

If issued a person's guns will be confiscated and in 14 days a second hearing will take place. The court will provide representation at that hearing but once again there is no mention of any requirement of a mental health assessment by a professional and the EPRO can be continued with nothing more than the statements of a family member or a law enforcement officer
.

This law sidesteps due process by couching it as an EPRO instead of a competency hearing which would involve mental health and medical assessments by professionals instead of the opinions of family members and law enforcement officers

 

[Brain357]

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

Good for those Sheriff's! Its unconstitutional.

Sad, Sheriff’s refusing to do their jobs. They don’t make laws, they enforce them.

 

[JusticeHammer]

GOP dupes have lost respect for our law enforcement and FBI and CIA, but for all the wrong imaginary brainwashed reasons. There is no conspiracy against Trump or Republicans. Or any other conspiracy for that matter, except the right-wing propaganda 1.

Still as stupid as always.

 

[JusticeHammer]

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

Good for those Sheriff's! Its unconstitutional.

Sad, Sheriff’s refusing to do their jobs. They don’t make laws, they enforce them.

What is sad is libtards thinking they are smart. Stupid law signed by a stupid cimmie gov.

 

[daveman]

...It's always funny when you leftist morons insist the military would support your totalitarianism. Not gonna happen. You can just forget about that little Brownshirt wet dream.

There is nothing "American" about rebelling against lawful authority.

There is nothing "American" about sedition.

There is nothing "American" about violence against elected civilian officials because you don't like a law.

Members of the United States Armed Forces are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

The only "brownshirts" around here are those advocating to send armed force against elected officials.

Punk.

But you sending armed forces against civilians to enforce your totalitarianism isn't?

Eat shit, fascist.

 

[daveman]

So here is a document detailing the red flag law

Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly

It states that a temporary EPRO can be issued which will prompt the confiscation of a person's firearms or bar that person from purchasing firearms if a third party petitions the court.

This EPRO can be issued the very same day as the petition is filed via a hearing over the phone or at latest the day after in court.

So saying that a mental health evaluation is part of the deal is flat out wrong.

No lawyer will be appointed for the initial hearing

If issued a person's guns will be confiscated and in 14 days a second hearing will take place. The court will provide representation at that hearing but once again there is no mention of any requirement of a mental health assessment by a professional and the EPRO can be continued with nothing more than the statements of a family member or a law enforcement officer
.

This law sidesteps due process by couching it as an EPRO instead of a competency hearing which would involve mental health and medical assessments by professionals instead of the opinions of family members and law enforcement officers

I say again...this is guaranteed to be misused by liberals. HE OWNS GUNS HES OBVIOUSLY CRAZY

 

[daveman]

...This law is a side step around due process. And why should a person have to incur the expense of a mental health examination in order to prove anything? If the court wants to order a mental health evaluation then the court should foot the bill to prove that the state has the authority to suspend a citizen's rights. THAT is due process

Safety first, Constitutionality second... a practical necessity... it's the way the world works.

At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in the interests of public safety.

The President decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

At the start of WWII, Roosevelt incarcerated scores of thousands of Japanese-Americans in the interests of public safety.

The President decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

In Colorado, the State temporarily impounds firearms of suspected mental illness victims in the interests of public safety.

The State Legislature decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

When constitutionality and safety are dramatically juxtaposed, safety almost always wins.

Peoples' lives are more important than allowing a mentally unbalanced individual to continue to possess firearms.

Will it be abused from time to time and will the law 'get it wrong' from time to time? Yep.

But for every one it gets wrong, it will get a hundred right, and a lot of folks will live, who might not have otherwise.

And that is the single most important thing, not the feelings of knuckle-dragging NRA bumper-sticker echo-chambers.

This legislation merely accelerates due process on an emergency basis, vetted by a law-judge, based upon testimony.

------------

I agree, however, that the State should foot the bill for subsequent mental health examinations to affirm or dismiss the impound.

Raise your hand if you think gun control is a good idea.

 

[daveman]

So here is a document detailing the red flag law

Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly

It states that a temporary EPRO can be issued which will prompt the confiscation of a person's firearms or bar that person from purchasing firearms if a third party petitions the court.

This EPRO can be issued the very same day as the petition is filed via a hearing over the phone or at latest the day after in court.

So saying that a mental health evaluation is part of the deal is flat out wrong.

No lawyer will be appointed for the initial hearing

If issued a person's guns will be confiscated and in 14 days a second hearing will take place. The court will provide representation at that hearing but once again there is no mention of any requirement of a mental health assessment by a professional and the EPRO can be continued with nothing more than the statements of a family member or a law enforcement officer
.

This law sidesteps due process by couching it as an EPRO instead of a competency hearing which would involve mental health and medical assessments by professionals instead of the opinions of family members and law enforcement officers

Paging Daryl Hunt. There is no due process in this law.