President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 04, 2019 03:39 PM UTC
44 Comments
Lori Saine would be a great legislator in Gilead.
What planet do Lori and Perry live on now? Not ours, that's for sure. Did they miss the case of Chris Watts, who killed his wife and kids last year in Weld County and stuffed them in a tanker? Oh, he didn't murder with a gun. But could more court attention to Watts'threats have saved their lives?
Weld actually had a low rate of gun deaths relative to other Colorado counties, but that doesn't mean that increased judicial attention couldn't have saved some lives. The majority of Weld's gun deaths were suicides of older men. Their lives matter, too, and taking the guns away could have saved theirs.
Really have to wonder why these two lawmakers are so ironically claiming that red flag laws could "leave innocent women and children defenseless if an ex-spouse or domestic partner could use an extreme risk protection order to gain advantage."
They are seemingly clueless about the women and kids who die by guns in domestic violence daily.
They are betraying their sisters and mothers – all for RMGO money.
Colorado had ~ 13 firearms deaths / 100,000 people in 2017, more than most states that are not southern states. 136, according to the CDC.
You want to take the guns away from the violent criminals and the mentally ill. This will protect more of the "defenseless women and children", as well as the older men who take their own lives. Everyone except Lori and Perry knows this.
So…you are suggesting that taking away Chris Watts guns could have saved his families lives since he killed them without using guns. OK.
You are adamant about saving the lives of suicidal old men while supporting Death with Dignity by having the police/3rd party render them indignant. OK.
You parade CO gun deaths as more than most states while failing to accept that you were an active participant in support of laws in 2013 that were touted to reduce gun deaths, and you expect people to believe your opinion on the matter holds credibility when in fact it has proven to be the opposite.
Ground control to Major Mam.
Did you have to shit on your typewriter to produce this missive of stupidity. Guns good. Killing people without guns also good because it show guns not used for killing. Guns good. Libs bad. Me no care about victims as long as I can say they not killed by guns. Only deranged human.
1. The reason I bring up the Watts tragedy is that a) it was in Paine and Buck's home county, Weld, b) it speaks to the issue of deadly domestic violence perpetrated against the "women and children" Paine and Buck are supposedly trying to protect, c) the ERPO process would be just one more tool to use against domestic violence, whether or not it was applicable in the Watts case.
2. Yeah, I do care about preserving the lives of suicidal old men. This is not a contradiction to my support for Death with Dignity. Suicides by gun are messy and traumatic for the survivors; assisted suicides are gentler and more humane. It's a process with a lot of safeguards built in.
3. No, violent crime and aggravated assaults have actually increased in Colorado since 2014, after a brief dip from 2013-14; this does not mean that the 2013 gun laws failed. Per the Chieftain's reporting, citing CBI statistics:
None of this will persuade you; but I'll put it out there for those who care.
The Chieftain fails to report there were more denials in 2012 (7,362) before the law was enacted, so if you are going with that as your litmus test, it has once again, proven a failure.
Ps. I really like your phrase “render them indignant”. I will continue to strive to render you indignant every chance I get. 😸
I urge you to do so it bolsters my position.
C'mon, the worst that could happen is that more innocent women and children die because mentally ill people have access to guns.
You know it's hard to convince gun nuts of a downside there, right?
The late great Justice Scalia would no longer be Welcome in Weld with rhetoric like this from Heller – "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
To these two, Scalia was a hopeless liberal with dribble such as that.
A left-wing, flag-burning bastard!
can the governor remove elected county official for malfeasance? Wasn’t there a DA is a rural mountain county who was removed a few years ago? But I think he was charged with an actual crime, not felonious stupidity.
This is a national trend. This was a Reuters headline from this morning: Defiant U.S. sheriffs push gun sanctuaries, imitating liberals on immigration
Of course, immigration "sanctuary" policies are based in the upholding of due process by not honoring non-judicially approved detentions and not performing work for which state and local agents are not legally tasked to perform.
Law enforcement in so-called "gun sanctuaries" would be in violation of sworn duties if they actively refused to enforce a judicially issued ERPO, perform a mandated background check, or other legal duty. One could argue discretionary prioritization on some items, but this article is talking outright refusal to perform mandated duties…
Of course….. due process. Why didn't I think of that…..
The legislators did. Even added a guarantee of counsel, used the same standards we use for involuntary detention. It's kind of sad when you're expecting guns to have more rights than people.
What is sad is that this is not about guns….it's about due process, something you seem to hold dear when it fits your narrative….
Due process is a very elastic concept, Negev. One size does not fit all.
If I may quote President Trump who once said: Take the guns away from them and then let them have their day in court.
I'll fall for it. Clarify the lack of due process in a "red flag" scenario.
How are gun owners being deprived of "due process" in comparison to the allowed actions in eminent domain, civil forfeiture, involuntary commitment, "no-fly" lists, automobile towing from public streets, FCC voiding broadcasting licenses, or other government action?
Let me save Negev the trouble: None of those activities are protected by the Second Amendment.
I know, regarding the "No Fly" list, there are Supreme Court decision that recognize an implied right to travel like Griswold, Roe and Obergefell. But constitutional conservative – as they like to call themselves – do not recognized the implied constitutional rights.
Of course, regarding the FCC licensing, there actually is an amendment that covers speech and press, and it comes before the Second Amendment.
There are amendments other than the Second Amendment? Who knew?
None of the other Amendments are a salve for an inadequate personality.
There is an amendment about money equaling speech somewhere in the mix, isn't there?
Eminent domain is provided just compensation and private property is converted to public use.
Civil forfeiture assumes the same controversial due process issues as red flag laws and are highly contested from all sides but in Feb the Supreme Court ruled that the 8th Amendment bars excessive fines in a 9-0 decision. While this does not halt civil forfeiture, it is noted that it requires proof that the seized property was used in connection with a crime.
Involuntary commitment is what should be used in place of red flag and detains persons found to be unable to function independently.
You have no Constitutional right to fly.
You are required to abide by laws on public streets. If you are towed illegally for no reason you may have a case, but if you have entered public property and have violated the law you are subject to the penalty. You have no Constitutional right to drive.
I don't know anything about FCC voiding broadcasting, but would stand by anyone who falls victim to restrictions of free speech with no proof of violation.
You are innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. You should appreciate that.
ERPOs are a less restrictive involuntary detention, and subject to the same standard of due process. If you're saying the dentention should be used instead, are you placing guns above liberty?
Involuntary detention requires the state to prove your are incapable of independent function and a threat to society. Red Flag requires you to prove your are not.
Wrong again. Involuntary confinement for mental health problems requires a hearing at a later date, which varies by state.
Which has nothing to do with burden of proof, but hey, I am sure you are intimate with the process….
Wrong.
The burden of proof is clearly on proving the danger, not on proving innocence.
Wrong.
You're twisting the timeline, Negev; the hearing you're referring to is AFTER the continuing ERPO has been granted. The hearing where the ERPO is continued is where the burden of proof lies upon the accuser, and the hearing you're pointing out is after the ERPO was extended to 364 days.
After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 14 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. The court shall appoint counsel to represent the respondent at the hearing. 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 prohibits the respondent from possessing, controlling, purchasing, or receiving a firearm for 364 days.
Two weeks.
Two weeks for a potentially dangerous person to be without their firearm(s) before a hearing is too much for you to bear.
There is not a person on the planet that is not potentially dangerous.
Sure. And you're ignoring that you misrepresented the facts.
What Curmudgeon said. Also…
Once you've already had due process showing clear and convincing evidence prevented that you *are* a danger, you then get a chance to prove you're no longer a danger, which is your burden. And the judge can grant you ongoing chances if she thinks you're just not quite there yet. And then, after a year, the burden (I think) automatically falls back to proving you continue to present a significant danger and require a new ERPO.
Shhhhhhh comrade Negev . . .
Including all those “good guys” with arsenals that would be the envy of most third-world countries? Maybe, that’s why we need some reasonable limitations and restrictions?
. . . you’re making our point!
You are innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. You should appreciate that.
Except that plenty of people have their rights restricted or even suspended while their guilt or innocence is determined.
By your logic, no one should be incarcerated or be placed under any restrictions prior to their conviction.
Please identify the crime you are facing in a red flag situation. I can wait….
Why is Curmy supposed to prove that he is / was a victim…to you?
It doesn't actually make any difference to you, either way. I've told you that I was a victim in a red flag situation. You don't care.
My neighbors and the perp's relatives took away his guns. The police weren't interested in doing anything about the guns, although I did have a restraining order. They did not have a policy of confiscating weapons, without incarcerating the offender.
This is a guy who obviously is not responsible enough to have guns. He (recently) has shot a hole in his own sewer pipe while target practicing in his basement. He has threatened a cop while manic. He has allowed drug dealers to come into his home and help themselves to his guns. That's all aside from threats to me, which were many years ago now.
So my grown children keep his guns. They break them out once in a while to take the old dude target shooting. I'd like to see this ERPO legislation passed, though, to give legal standing to the confiscation.
Curmie does not have to prove he was a victim, my request was to identify what crime was committed in any red flag situation. There are none.
You were not a victim in a red flag situation. You were the victim of domestic violence. He violated a restraining order. That is a crime. He threatened a cop. That is a crime. He allowed his guns to be used in part of the crime of drug dealing, and (presumably) committed the crime of improper discharge of a firearm.
Any one of these crimes already preclude an individual from possessing or purchasing a firearm.
You're deliberately missing the point. Of course there are crimes committed prior to a "red flag situation" and petition for ERPO.
But the police are not in the habit of actually taking custody of the offender's guns, unless the person has them in hand at the time of arrest. My own story, with the offender having upwards of 30 guns in the house at the time of his offenses and incarcerations and involuntary commitments,illustrates this well.
I asked the police to keep his guns; they refused. Mutual friends and the perp’s relatives took his guns, which was probably a crime on their part, since they had no legal title. Same thing with my adult kids now, who have custody of the guns; it’s a grey area legally.
ERPO gives a mechanism by which law enforcement may enforce the law and enhance public safety. That is all.
There is no requirement of a prior crime to enact a red flag confiscation. That is the point. Hence the due process issue.
If you are or have been convicted of a crime that precludes you from the possession or purchase of a firearm the mere fact you have one is a violation of current law.
Good.
Why wait until the spilled
milkblood is out of the barn door?Guns don't have rights. People who own guns have rights. People who get shot by guns have rights. We have rights running out of our asses.
The trick is to move beyond rights to civilisation.
Because dead people got no rights.
You got that right.