Gunman Shot While Firing into Trump National Doral

[Rustic]

yea, the left wants to ban guns til they need them.

And the Right wants to blame it on the Left. You say it's because of Metal illness yet when a bill is presented so that judges can temporarily impound a nutcases weapons, the Republicans all vote it down. Yes, Beverly, it's already happened. I guess your real master, the NRA doesn't want to lose the Nutjobs revenue of those that haven't purchased guns yet and haven't purchased enough ammo (is there really ever enough).

The NRA is not pro gun enough, this country needs to be better armed.
Buy more guns and ammo...

You are advertising because you sell guns and ammo. And want all your buddies to go forth and bring the word of the Gun to the masses.

Yep, an armed nation is a civilized nation.

Yup, that armed 17 year old in Texas certainly was civilized.

Lol
Other than he being a criminal...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A leftist nut job no doubt. He was reported as screaming anti-Trump comments while firing into the lobby

-Geaux

Man firing shots and 'spewing' about president inside Trump National Doral shot by police

A man who was firing shots, waving an American flag and “yelling and spewing some information about President Trump” was shot and wounded by police early Friday at Trump National Doral, the golf and spa resort owned by President Donald Trump in northwest Miami-Dade.

The shooting at the resort — located off the Palmetto Expressway at Northwest 36th Street and 87th Avenue — happened about 1:30 a.m., Miami-Dade Police Director Juan Perez said during a pre-dawn news conference outside the resort that was carried live by local television stations.

Man firing shots and 'spewing' about president inside Trump National Doral shot by police

yea, the left wants to ban guns til they need them.

And the Right wants to blame it on the Left. You say it's because of Metal illness yet when a bill is presented so that judges can temporarily impound a nutcases weapons, the Republicans all vote it down. Yes, Beverly, it's already happened. I guess your real master, the NRA doesn't want to lose the Nutjobs revenue of those that haven't purchased guns yet and haven't purchased enough ammo (is there really ever enough).

This is untrue, when a judge properly adjudicates a case like this the NRA has no problem with the Ruling being carried out. It is blanket laws that deny the People their Civil Liberties, namely the Right to Due Process where they have a problem, as do I.

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

 

[westwall]

A leftist nut job no doubt. He was reported as screaming anti-Trump comments while firing into the lobby

-Geaux

Man firing shots and 'spewing' about president inside Trump National Doral shot by police

A man who was firing shots, waving an American flag and “yelling and spewing some information about President Trump” was shot and wounded by police early Friday at Trump National Doral, the golf and spa resort owned by President Donald Trump in northwest Miami-Dade.

The shooting at the resort — located off the Palmetto Expressway at Northwest 36th Street and 87th Avenue — happened about 1:30 a.m., Miami-Dade Police Director Juan Perez said during a pre-dawn news conference outside the resort that was carried live by local television stations.

Man firing shots and 'spewing' about president inside Trump National Doral shot by police

yea, the left wants to ban guns til they need them.

And the Right wants to blame it on the Left. You say it's because of Metal illness yet when a bill is presented so that judges can temporarily impound a nutcases weapons, the Republicans all vote it down. Yes, Beverly, it's already happened. I guess your real master, the NRA doesn't want to lose the Nutjobs revenue of those that haven't purchased guns yet and haven't purchased enough ammo (is there really ever enough).

This is untrue, when a judge properly adjudicates a case like this the NRA has no problem with the Ruling being carried out. It is blanket laws that deny the People their Civil Liberties, namely the Right to Due Process where they have a problem, as do I.

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

I read the CO law and it is not well written. In fact it opens up all sorts of abuse possibilities for those who want to make life miserable for gun owners.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And the Right wants to blame it on the Left. You say it's because of Metal illness yet when a bill is presented so that judges can temporarily impound a nutcases weapons, the Republicans all vote it down. Yes, Beverly, it's already happened. I guess your real master, the NRA doesn't want to lose the Nutjobs revenue of those that haven't purchased guns yet and haven't purchased enough ammo (is there really ever enough).

The NRA is not pro gun enough, this country needs to be better armed.
Buy more guns and ammo...

You are advertising because you sell guns and ammo. And want all your buddies to go forth and bring the word of the Gun to the masses.

Yep, an armed nation is a civilized nation.

Yup, that armed 17 year old in Texas certainly was civilized.

Lol
Other than he being a criminal...

Was he a criminal before the act, during the act, or after the act? Was it preventable? WE had a similar situation around here. Wearing a long Raincoat approaching a school gate should have been reported to the cops long before he entered the school grounds. WE had a kid try that. He was reported by a civilian. The Cops surrounded and subdued him. They found an AR-15 (his fathers) along with 2 loaded 20 round mags. They took him down so fast, the kid never had the chance to get the weapon out of his raincoat.

The Texas kid wore the raincoat even on sunny hot days, wore a "Born to Kill" t-shirt under it and posted a picture of his T-shirt on his social media page. He had bomb making materials in his bedroom, he must have clanked walking with all those bomb and incendiary devices under that raincoat before he entered the school. There were plenty of signs. And I had to listen to the Governor of Texas explain that there were no signs that would have shown this would have happened.

The Community let those kids down, the Parents let those kids down, the Cops let those kids down, the Governor let those kids down, the State let those kids down and most of all, the kids parents let those kids down. It should have never happened.

 

[Aba Incieni]

The NRA is not pro gun enough, this country needs to be better armed.
Buy more guns and ammo...

You are advertising because you sell guns and ammo. And want all your buddies to go forth and bring the word of the Gun to the masses.

Yep, an armed nation is a civilized nation.

Yup, that armed 17 year old in Texas certainly was civilized.

Lol
Other than he being a criminal...

Was he a criminal before the act, during the act, or after the act? Was it preventable? WE had a similar situation around here. Wearing a long Raincoat approaching a school gate should have been reported to the cops long before he entered the school grounds. WE had a kid try that. He was reported by a civilian. The Cops surrounded and subdued him. They found an AR-15 (his fathers) along with 2 loaded 20 round mags. They took him down so fast, the kid never had the chance to get the weapon out of his raincoat.

The Texas kid wore the raincoat even on sunny hot days, wore a "Born to Kill" t-shirt under it and posted a picture of his T-shirt on his social media page. He had bomb making materials in his bedroom, he must have clanked walking with all those bomb and incendiary devices under that raincoat before he entered the school. There were plenty of signs. And I had to listen to the Governor of Texas explain that there were no signs that would have shown this would have happened.

The Community let those kids down, the Parents let those kids down, the Cops let those kids down, the Governor let those kids down, the State let those kids down and most of all, the kids parents let those kids down. It should have never happened.

A law against bombs is called for.

 

[Roudy]

But I thought people on the left were all so peaceful and tolerant? Or at least that's what CNN and MSNBC keep telling us.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A leftist nut job no doubt. He was reported as screaming anti-Trump comments while firing into the lobby

-Geaux

Man firing shots and 'spewing' about president inside Trump National Doral shot by police

A man who was firing shots, waving an American flag and “yelling and spewing some information about President Trump” was shot and wounded by police early Friday at Trump National Doral, the golf and spa resort owned by President Donald Trump in northwest Miami-Dade.

The shooting at the resort — located off the Palmetto Expressway at Northwest 36th Street and 87th Avenue — happened about 1:30 a.m., Miami-Dade Police Director Juan Perez said during a pre-dawn news conference outside the resort that was carried live by local television stations.

Man firing shots and 'spewing' about president inside Trump National Doral shot by police

yea, the left wants to ban guns til they need them.

And the Right wants to blame it on the Left. You say it's because of Metal illness yet when a bill is presented so that judges can temporarily impound a nutcases weapons, the Republicans all vote it down. Yes, Beverly, it's already happened. I guess your real master, the NRA doesn't want to lose the Nutjobs revenue of those that haven't purchased guns yet and haven't purchased enough ammo (is there really ever enough).

This is untrue, when a judge properly adjudicates a case like this the NRA has no problem with the Ruling being carried out. It is blanket laws that deny the People their Civil Liberties, namely the Right to Due Process where they have a problem, as do I.

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

I read the CO law and it is not well written. In fact it opens up all sorts of abuse possibilities for those who want to make life miserable for gun owners.

Here is the law as it was presented
Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly
HB18-1436

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Concerning creation of an extreme risk protection order.

Session:
2018 Regular Session

Subject:
Courts & Judicial



The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). 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. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.


After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. 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.


Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.


The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.


The bill requires the state court administrator to develop and prepare standard petitions and ERPO forms. Additionally, the state court administrator at the judicial department's 'State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act' hearing shall provide statistics related to petitions for ERPOs.



(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

I think it's pretty cut and dried. The ONLY way the weapons can be seized (and then it's still temporary) is by a petition by either a family member or law enforcement to a Judge. If it makes the life of a gun owner miserable maybe they shouldn't have the guns in the first place and really are a detriment to society. I know of a couple that almost fit that bill. I also know of many that don't fit that bill. But until they prove that there is a good chance that they are going to be a detriment to society then this law does not apply. If it scares some of the Gun Owners, good. I know a couple that indirectly use their weapons on the street as an intimidation factor by the way they stand, move and such. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have weapons.

 

[Aba Incieni]

yea, the left wants to ban guns til they need them.

And the Right wants to blame it on the Left. You say it's because of Metal illness yet when a bill is presented so that judges can temporarily impound a nutcases weapons, the Republicans all vote it down. Yes, Beverly, it's already happened. I guess your real master, the NRA doesn't want to lose the Nutjobs revenue of those that haven't purchased guns yet and haven't purchased enough ammo (is there really ever enough).

This is untrue, when a judge properly adjudicates a case like this the NRA has no problem with the Ruling being carried out. It is blanket laws that deny the People their Civil Liberties, namely the Right to Due Process where they have a problem, as do I.

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

I read the CO law and it is not well written. In fact it opens up all sorts of abuse possibilities for those who want to make life miserable for gun owners.

Here is the law as it was presented
Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly
HB18-1436

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Concerning creation of an extreme risk protection order.

Session:
2018 Regular Session

Subject:
Courts & Judicial



The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). 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. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.


After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. 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.


Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.


The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.


The bill requires the state court administrator to develop and prepare standard petitions and ERPO forms. Additionally, the state court administrator at the judicial department's 'State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act' hearing shall provide statistics related to petitions for ERPOs.



(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

I think it's pretty cut and dried. The ONLY way the weapons can be seized (and then it's still temporary) is by a petition by either a family member or law enforcement to a Judge. If it makes the life of a gun owner miserable maybe they shouldn't have the guns in the first place and really are a detriment to society. I know of a couple that almost fit that bill. I also know of many that don't fit that bill. But until they prove that there is a good chance that they are going to be a detriment to society then this law does not apply. If it scares some of the Gun Owners, good. I know a couple that indirectly use their weapons on the street as an intimidation factor by the way they stand, move and such. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have weapons.

They have a right to own guns.

Standing wrong does not negate that right.

 

[westwall]

yea, the left wants to ban guns til they need them.

And the Right wants to blame it on the Left. You say it's because of Metal illness yet when a bill is presented so that judges can temporarily impound a nutcases weapons, the Republicans all vote it down. Yes, Beverly, it's already happened. I guess your real master, the NRA doesn't want to lose the Nutjobs revenue of those that haven't purchased guns yet and haven't purchased enough ammo (is there really ever enough).

This is untrue, when a judge properly adjudicates a case like this the NRA has no problem with the Ruling being carried out. It is blanket laws that deny the People their Civil Liberties, namely the Right to Due Process where they have a problem, as do I.

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

I read the CO law and it is not well written. In fact it opens up all sorts of abuse possibilities for those who want to make life miserable for gun owners.

Here is the law as it was presented
Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly
HB18-1436

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Concerning creation of an extreme risk protection order.

Session:
2018 Regular Session

Subject:
Courts & Judicial



The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). 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. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.


After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. 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.


Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.


The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.


The bill requires the state court administrator to develop and prepare standard petitions and ERPO forms. Additionally, the state court administrator at the judicial department's 'State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act' hearing shall provide statistics related to petitions for ERPOs.



(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

I think it's pretty cut and dried. The ONLY way the weapons can be seized (and then it's still temporary) is by a petition by either a family member or law enforcement to a Judge. If it makes the life of a gun owner miserable maybe they shouldn't have the guns in the first place and really are a detriment to society. I know of a couple that almost fit that bill. I also know of many that don't fit that bill. But until they prove that there is a good chance that they are going to be a detriment to society then this law does not apply. If it scares some of the Gun Owners, good. I know a couple that indirectly use their weapons on the street as an intimidation factor by the way they stand, move and such. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have weapons.

No, that is a summation of the law. The actual law runs to almost 33 pages. it is loaded with vague declarations that make it quite easy to screw with people that you don't like.

 

[Rustic]

The NRA is not pro gun enough, this country needs to be better armed.
Buy more guns and ammo...

You are advertising because you sell guns and ammo. And want all your buddies to go forth and bring the word of the Gun to the masses.

Yep, an armed nation is a civilized nation.

Yup, that armed 17 year old in Texas certainly was civilized.

Lol
Other than he being a criminal...

Was he a criminal before the act, during the act, or after the act? Was it preventable? WE had a similar situation around here. Wearing a long Raincoat approaching a school gate should have been reported to the cops long before he entered the school grounds. WE had a kid try that. He was reported by a civilian. The Cops surrounded and subdued him. They found an AR-15 (his fathers) along with 2 loaded 20 round mags. They took him down so fast, the kid never had the chance to get the weapon out of his raincoat.

The Texas kid wore the raincoat even on sunny hot days, wore a "Born to Kill" t-shirt under it and posted a picture of his T-shirt on his social media page. He had bomb making materials in his bedroom, he must have clanked walking with all those bomb and incendiary devices under that raincoat before he entered the school. There were plenty of signs. And I had to listen to the Governor of Texas explain that there were no signs that would have shown this would have happened.

The Community let those kids down, the Parents let those kids down, the Cops let those kids down, the Governor let those kids down, the State let those kids down and most of all, the kids parents let those kids down. It should have never happened.

Shit happens, And no amount of frivolous gun control laws will stop it...
We have no criminal control in this country. fact

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And the Right wants to blame it on the Left. You say it's because of Metal illness yet when a bill is presented so that judges can temporarily impound a nutcases weapons, the Republicans all vote it down. Yes, Beverly, it's already happened. I guess your real master, the NRA doesn't want to lose the Nutjobs revenue of those that haven't purchased guns yet and haven't purchased enough ammo (is there really ever enough).

This is untrue, when a judge properly adjudicates a case like this the NRA has no problem with the Ruling being carried out. It is blanket laws that deny the People their Civil Liberties, namely the Right to Due Process where they have a problem, as do I.

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

I read the CO law and it is not well written. In fact it opens up all sorts of abuse possibilities for those who want to make life miserable for gun owners.

Here is the law as it was presented
Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly
HB18-1436

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Concerning creation of an extreme risk protection order.

Session:
2018 Regular Session

Subject:
Courts & Judicial



The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). 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. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.


After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. 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.


Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.


The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.


The bill requires the state court administrator to develop and prepare standard petitions and ERPO forms. Additionally, the state court administrator at the judicial department's 'State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act' hearing shall provide statistics related to petitions for ERPOs.



(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

I think it's pretty cut and dried. The ONLY way the weapons can be seized (and then it's still temporary) is by a petition by either a family member or law enforcement to a Judge. If it makes the life of a gun owner miserable maybe they shouldn't have the guns in the first place and really are a detriment to society. I know of a couple that almost fit that bill. I also know of many that don't fit that bill. But until they prove that there is a good chance that they are going to be a detriment to society then this law does not apply. If it scares some of the Gun Owners, good. I know a couple that indirectly use their weapons on the street as an intimidation factor by the way they stand, move and such. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have weapons.

No, that is a summation of the law. The actual law runs to almost 33 pages. it is loaded with vague declarations that make it quite easy to screw with people that you don't like.

All laws can be interpreted to screw with all people. It's up to the Judges to prevent that from happening. And this one clearly places the power into the judges hands where it belongs.

Now, exactly how do we keep the mentally dangerous and the violent from having guns again? You tell me.

 

[Aba Incieni]

This is untrue, when a judge properly adjudicates a case like this the NRA has no problem with the Ruling being carried out. It is blanket laws that deny the People their Civil Liberties, namely the Right to Due Process where they have a problem, as do I.

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

I read the CO law and it is not well written. In fact it opens up all sorts of abuse possibilities for those who want to make life miserable for gun owners.

Here is the law as it was presented
Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly
HB18-1436

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Concerning creation of an extreme risk protection order.

Session:
2018 Regular Session

Subject:
Courts & Judicial



The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). 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. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.


After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. 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.


Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.


The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.


The bill requires the state court administrator to develop and prepare standard petitions and ERPO forms. Additionally, the state court administrator at the judicial department's 'State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act' hearing shall provide statistics related to petitions for ERPOs.



(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

I think it's pretty cut and dried. The ONLY way the weapons can be seized (and then it's still temporary) is by a petition by either a family member or law enforcement to a Judge. If it makes the life of a gun owner miserable maybe they shouldn't have the guns in the first place and really are a detriment to society. I know of a couple that almost fit that bill. I also know of many that don't fit that bill. But until they prove that there is a good chance that they are going to be a detriment to society then this law does not apply. If it scares some of the Gun Owners, good. I know a couple that indirectly use their weapons on the street as an intimidation factor by the way they stand, move and such. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have weapons.

No, that is a summation of the law. The actual law runs to almost 33 pages. it is loaded with vague declarations that make it quite easy to screw with people that you don't like.

All laws can be interpreted to screw with all people. It's up to the Judges to prevent that from happening. And this one clearly places the power into the judges hands where it belongs.

Now, exactly how do we keep the mentally dangerous and the violent from having guns again? You tell me.

Watch to see if they stand wrong.

 

[2aguy]

A leftist nut job no doubt. He was reported as screaming anti-Trump comments while firing into the lobby

-Geaux

Man firing shots and 'spewing' about president inside Trump National Doral shot by police

A man who was firing shots, waving an American flag and “yelling and spewing some information about President Trump” was shot and wounded by police early Friday at Trump National Doral, the golf and spa resort owned by President Donald Trump in northwest Miami-Dade.

The shooting at the resort — located off the Palmetto Expressway at Northwest 36th Street and 87th Avenue — happened about 1:30 a.m., Miami-Dade Police Director Juan Perez said during a pre-dawn news conference outside the resort that was carried live by local television stations.

Man firing shots and 'spewing' about president inside Trump National Doral shot by police

yea, the left wants to ban guns til they need them.

And the Right wants to blame it on the Left. You say it's because of Metal illness yet when a bill is presented so that judges can temporarily impound a nutcases weapons, the Republicans all vote it down. Yes, Beverly, it's already happened. I guess your real master, the NRA doesn't want to lose the Nutjobs revenue of those that haven't purchased guns yet and haven't purchased enough ammo (is there really ever enough).

This is untrue, when a judge properly adjudicates a case like this the NRA has no problem with the Ruling being carried out. It is blanket laws that deny the People their Civil Liberties, namely the Right to Due Process where they have a problem, as do I.

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

The ACLU opposes these laws too, twit......

 

[2aguy]

yea, the left wants to ban guns til they need them.

And the Right wants to blame it on the Left. You say it's because of Metal illness yet when a bill is presented so that judges can temporarily impound a nutcases weapons, the Republicans all vote it down. Yes, Beverly, it's already happened. I guess your real master, the NRA doesn't want to lose the Nutjobs revenue of those that haven't purchased guns yet and haven't purchased enough ammo (is there really ever enough).

This is untrue, when a judge properly adjudicates a case like this the NRA has no problem with the Ruling being carried out. It is blanket laws that deny the People their Civil Liberties, namely the Right to Due Process where they have a problem, as do I.

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

I read the CO law and it is not well written. In fact it opens up all sorts of abuse possibilities for those who want to make life miserable for gun owners.

Here is the law as it was presented
Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly
HB18-1436

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Concerning creation of an extreme risk protection order.

Session:
2018 Regular Session

Subject:
Courts & Judicial



The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). 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. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.


After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. 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.


Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.


The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.


The bill requires the state court administrator to develop and prepare standard petitions and ERPO forms. Additionally, the state court administrator at the judicial department's 'State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act' hearing shall provide statistics related to petitions for ERPOs.



(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

I think it's pretty cut and dried. The ONLY way the weapons can be seized (and then it's still temporary) is by a petition by either a family member or law enforcement to a Judge. If it makes the life of a gun owner miserable maybe they shouldn't have the guns in the first place and really are a detriment to society. I know of a couple that almost fit that bill. I also know of many that don't fit that bill. But until they prove that there is a good chance that they are going to be a detriment to society then this law does not apply. If it scares some of the Gun Owners, good. I know a couple that indirectly use their weapons on the street as an intimidation factor by the way they stand, move and such. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have weapons.

Can you show where the person who is the subject of the restraining order has his lawyers fees and court costs paid by the state when he appears in the court to get his Rights back? Or is the target of the order required to pay for all of that to prove his innocence?

 

[2aguy]

This is untrue, when a judge properly adjudicates a case like this the NRA has no problem with the Ruling being carried out. It is blanket laws that deny the People their Civil Liberties, namely the Right to Due Process where they have a problem, as do I.

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

I read the CO law and it is not well written. In fact it opens up all sorts of abuse possibilities for those who want to make life miserable for gun owners.

Here is the law as it was presented
Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly
HB18-1436

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Concerning creation of an extreme risk protection order.

Session:
2018 Regular Session

Subject:
Courts & Judicial



The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). 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. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.


After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. 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.


Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.


The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.


The bill requires the state court administrator to develop and prepare standard petitions and ERPO forms. Additionally, the state court administrator at the judicial department's 'State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act' hearing shall provide statistics related to petitions for ERPOs.



(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

I think it's pretty cut and dried. The ONLY way the weapons can be seized (and then it's still temporary) is by a petition by either a family member or law enforcement to a Judge. If it makes the life of a gun owner miserable maybe they shouldn't have the guns in the first place and really are a detriment to society. I know of a couple that almost fit that bill. I also know of many that don't fit that bill. But until they prove that there is a good chance that they are going to be a detriment to society then this law does not apply. If it scares some of the Gun Owners, good. I know a couple that indirectly use their weapons on the street as an intimidation factor by the way they stand, move and such. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have weapons.

No, that is a summation of the law. The actual law runs to almost 33 pages. it is loaded with vague declarations that make it quite easy to screw with people that you don't like.

All laws can be interpreted to screw with all people. It's up to the Judges to prevent that from happening. And this one clearly places the power into the judges hands where it belongs.

Now, exactly how do we keep the mentally dangerous and the violent from having guns again? You tell me.

How about when they are arrested you keep them locked up? The vast majority of gun crime and gun murder are committed not by mentally ill people doing mass shootings, but by career criminals with long histories of crime and violence who are repeatedly released on bond, released from prison by democrat policies.....like the Promise Program that kept the Parkland shooter from having a criminal record......

Long prison sentences for gun criminals...real criminals......would be a better starting point....but you guys don't seem to care about actually stopping gun crime.

 

[Andylusion]

A leftist nut job no doubt. He was reported as screaming anti-Trump comments while firing into the lobby

-Geaux

Man firing shots and 'spewing' about president inside Trump National Doral shot by police

A man who was firing shots, waving an American flag and “yelling and spewing some information about President Trump” was shot and wounded by police early Friday at Trump National Doral, the golf and spa resort owned by President Donald Trump in northwest Miami-Dade.

The shooting at the resort — located off the Palmetto Expressway at Northwest 36th Street and 87th Avenue — happened about 1:30 a.m., Miami-Dade Police Director Juan Perez said during a pre-dawn news conference outside the resort that was carried live by local television stations.

Man firing shots and 'spewing' about president inside Trump National Doral shot by police

yea, the left wants to ban guns til they need them.

And the Right wants to blame it on the Left. You say it's because of Metal illness yet when a bill is presented so that judges can temporarily impound a nutcases weapons, the Republicans all vote it down. Yes, Beverly, it's already happened. I guess your real master, the NRA doesn't want to lose the Nutjobs revenue of those that haven't purchased guns yet and haven't purchased enough ammo (is there really ever enough).

A number of Right-wingers came up with this idea, and were pushing it to begin with.

You people on the left-wing, have no problem taking rights away from people. We do.

The issue was, the bill that defeated by Republicans, was opposed because it could allow people to have their rights taken away, without them even having a say. In other words, people unconnected to the individual could have a hearing to have their gun rights revoked, without even allowing the person defend themselves.

If a Republican allowed the removal of any other rights, say to a black man, you would screaming that this was injustice.

But because it involves the remove of gun rights, you don't even care about justice and fairness in the court system, where people who may not even know you can have your rights removed.

The Republicans were right to oppose this. We want this law in place, but it has to have sufficient safe guards protecting people's rights. You can't just have people's rights revoked without them having a say in the matter.

 

[westwall]

This is untrue, when a judge properly adjudicates a case like this the NRA has no problem with the Ruling being carried out. It is blanket laws that deny the People their Civil Liberties, namely the Right to Due Process where they have a problem, as do I.

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

I read the CO law and it is not well written. In fact it opens up all sorts of abuse possibilities for those who want to make life miserable for gun owners.

Here is the law as it was presented
Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly
HB18-1436

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Concerning creation of an extreme risk protection order.

Session:
2018 Regular Session

Subject:
Courts & Judicial



The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). 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. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.


After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. 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.


Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.


The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.


The bill requires the state court administrator to develop and prepare standard petitions and ERPO forms. Additionally, the state court administrator at the judicial department's 'State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act' hearing shall provide statistics related to petitions for ERPOs.



(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

I think it's pretty cut and dried. The ONLY way the weapons can be seized (and then it's still temporary) is by a petition by either a family member or law enforcement to a Judge. If it makes the life of a gun owner miserable maybe they shouldn't have the guns in the first place and really are a detriment to society. I know of a couple that almost fit that bill. I also know of many that don't fit that bill. But until they prove that there is a good chance that they are going to be a detriment to society then this law does not apply. If it scares some of the Gun Owners, good. I know a couple that indirectly use their weapons on the street as an intimidation factor by the way they stand, move and such. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have weapons.

No, that is a summation of the law. The actual law runs to almost 33 pages. it is loaded with vague declarations that make it quite easy to screw with people that you don't like.

All laws can be interpreted to screw with all people. It's up to the Judges to prevent that from happening. And this one clearly places the power into the judges hands where it belongs.

Now, exactly how do we keep the mentally dangerous and the violent from having guns again? You tell me.

No, they can't. Vague laws, as the CO law you cite is, are almost always written in a vague way so that they can be abused. This is either due to the fact that the writers of the law are grossly incompetent (frequently the case) or they have an underlying political motive to be able to abuse the law, and that is clearly the case with the CO law. It was written in such a way as to be abused by those who are politically motivated. That is very clear.

It was not "well written" as you claim.

 

[2aguy]

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

I read the CO law and it is not well written. In fact it opens up all sorts of abuse possibilities for those who want to make life miserable for gun owners.

Here is the law as it was presented
Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly
HB18-1436

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Concerning creation of an extreme risk protection order.

Session:
2018 Regular Session

Subject:
Courts & Judicial



The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). 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. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.


After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. 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.


Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.


The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.


The bill requires the state court administrator to develop and prepare standard petitions and ERPO forms. Additionally, the state court administrator at the judicial department's 'State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act' hearing shall provide statistics related to petitions for ERPOs.



(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

I think it's pretty cut and dried. The ONLY way the weapons can be seized (and then it's still temporary) is by a petition by either a family member or law enforcement to a Judge. If it makes the life of a gun owner miserable maybe they shouldn't have the guns in the first place and really are a detriment to society. I know of a couple that almost fit that bill. I also know of many that don't fit that bill. But until they prove that there is a good chance that they are going to be a detriment to society then this law does not apply. If it scares some of the Gun Owners, good. I know a couple that indirectly use their weapons on the street as an intimidation factor by the way they stand, move and such. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have weapons.

No, that is a summation of the law. The actual law runs to almost 33 pages. it is loaded with vague declarations that make it quite easy to screw with people that you don't like.

All laws can be interpreted to screw with all people. It's up to the Judges to prevent that from happening. And this one clearly places the power into the judges hands where it belongs.

Now, exactly how do we keep the mentally dangerous and the violent from having guns again? You tell me.

No, they can't. Vaguee laws, as the CO law you cite is, are almost always written in a vague way so that they can be abused. This is either due to the fact that the writers of the law are grossly incompetent (frequently the case) or they have an underlying political motive to be able to abuse the law, and that is clearly the case with the CO law. It was written in such a way as to be abused by those who are politically motivated. That is very clear.

It was not "well written" as you claim.

Hmmmmm....is there anything in there that would prevent large scale removals? You know, say....a problem area, or after a natural disaster, the cops come in, confiscate guns "because people are upset and might be dangerous," and then they all have to go to get their guns back?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A leftist nut job no doubt. He was reported as screaming anti-Trump comments while firing into the lobby

-Geaux

Man firing shots and 'spewing' about president inside Trump National Doral shot by police

A man who was firing shots, waving an American flag and “yelling and spewing some information about President Trump” was shot and wounded by police early Friday at Trump National Doral, the golf and spa resort owned by President Donald Trump in northwest Miami-Dade.

The shooting at the resort — located off the Palmetto Expressway at Northwest 36th Street and 87th Avenue — happened about 1:30 a.m., Miami-Dade Police Director Juan Perez said during a pre-dawn news conference outside the resort that was carried live by local television stations.

Man firing shots and 'spewing' about president inside Trump National Doral shot by police

yea, the left wants to ban guns til they need them.

And the Right wants to blame it on the Left. You say it's because of Metal illness yet when a bill is presented so that judges can temporarily impound a nutcases weapons, the Republicans all vote it down. Yes, Beverly, it's already happened. I guess your real master, the NRA doesn't want to lose the Nutjobs revenue of those that haven't purchased guns yet and haven't purchased enough ammo (is there really ever enough).

This is untrue, when a judge properly adjudicates a case like this the NRA has no problem with the Ruling being carried out. It is blanket laws that deny the People their Civil Liberties, namely the Right to Due Process where they have a problem, as do I.

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

The ACLU opposes these laws too, twit......

I know the NRA is already sending you money but are you auditioning to work for the ACLU as well? Is the NRA check late? Did it Bounce?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not in the case with the House Bill in Colorado. It was well written and spelled out what could be done. Even a few of the House Republicans voted for it. But it was squashed along party lines when it went to the Senate. The bill was non partisan and should have been non political. But it was made that way by the GOP who is clearly bought and paid for by the Gun Lobby.

I read the CO law and it is not well written. In fact it opens up all sorts of abuse possibilities for those who want to make life miserable for gun owners.

Here is the law as it was presented
Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly
HB18-1436

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Concerning creation of an extreme risk protection order.

Session:
2018 Regular Session

Subject:
Courts & Judicial



The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). 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. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.


After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 7 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. 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.


Upon issuance of the ERPO, the respondent shall surrender all of his or her firearms and his or her concealed carry permit if the respondent has one. The respondent may surrender his or her firearms either to a law enforcement agency or a federally licensed firearms dealer. If a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered to law enforcement, the firearm shall be returned to him or her.


The respondent can motion the court once during the 182-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The petitioner has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the petitioner does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control a firearm or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The party requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The requesting party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent's firearms must be returned.


The bill requires the state court administrator to develop and prepare standard petitions and ERPO forms. Additionally, the state court administrator at the judicial department's 'State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act' hearing shall provide statistics related to petitions for ERPOs.



(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

I think it's pretty cut and dried. The ONLY way the weapons can be seized (and then it's still temporary) is by a petition by either a family member or law enforcement to a Judge. If it makes the life of a gun owner miserable maybe they shouldn't have the guns in the first place and really are a detriment to society. I know of a couple that almost fit that bill. I also know of many that don't fit that bill. But until they prove that there is a good chance that they are going to be a detriment to society then this law does not apply. If it scares some of the Gun Owners, good. I know a couple that indirectly use their weapons on the street as an intimidation factor by the way they stand, move and such. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have weapons.

No, that is a summation of the law. The actual law runs to almost 33 pages. it is loaded with vague declarations that make it quite easy to screw with people that you don't like.

All laws can be interpreted to screw with all people. It's up to the Judges to prevent that from happening. And this one clearly places the power into the judges hands where it belongs.

Now, exactly how do we keep the mentally dangerous and the violent from having guns again? You tell me.

No, they can't. Vaguee laws, as the CO law you cite is, are almost always written in a vague way so that they can be abused. This is either due to the fact that the writers of the law are grossly incompetent (frequently the case) or they have an underlying political motive to be able to abuse the law, and that is clearly the case with the CO law. It was written in such a way as to be abused by those who are politically motivated. That is very clear.

It was not "well written" as you claim.

Then present a method that would work. Obviously, if you see the indicators then you can't say you didn't see it coming. A Mass Shooter doesn't wake up one day and say, "I think I am going to go kill a few hundred people" and then go do it. It takes planning. Otherwise, the best they can do is 3 to 5 people and that is hardly a mass shooting. Even the ones that do wake up with the thought to go kill people will probably have indicators if you care to look.

The Gun Crazies keep screaming that we are trying to take their guns away and we don't do anything about the mentally ill. Yet when someone does bring up something about it, they don't try and work it out. It's turned down without discussion flat. There IS a solution here but it takes discussion and debate. Not the flat turn down of a 9 year old.