U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 27, 2019 11:38 AM UTC
54 Comments
Sounds like he's eager to lose to Scott Tipton by ~30k votes. Even if he won, what's he going to do in 2022 when Pueblo (probably) gets tossed into a completely different district?
As noted, there’s probably dozens of questions that could be pointed up here about this . . .
. . . here’s my just one: Why didn’t the Senate President discuss with his party’s bill sponsors his personal and representational misgivings prior to the introduction of this bill?
This situation with the Senate President appears to be yet another instance this session where the term “Democratic leadership” is only an unfortunate oxymoron . . .
Indeed. What a disgrace. He should not be in the leadership any longer.
I've already expressed my deep disappointment with Senator Garcia, whom I supported and volunteered for when I was in Pueblo. He will be hearing from me.
Cue "Ride of the Valkyries!"
It's the first smart thing a Demoncrat has done this year!
Still waiting for you to say or do something smart, Poddy Mouth.
He can respect his conscience and his district by individually voting “no.” But he can also respect his caucus by not trying to kill a bill which has 18 votes.
he doesn’t need to become a Mitch McConnell.
The bills problems may go deeper than Senator Garcia's misgivings. The Denver Police Protective Association came out today against 1177. And Gov. Polis was pretty evasive when talking about enforcement for the proposed law. I do wonder if there's at least one other Democratic Senator in a possible swing district who is feeling that an unpopular and possibly un-Constitutional law is worth losing their seat over.
Getting guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable is a great idea. Having people stripped of their rights in absentia and being forced to prove their innocence to get them back is a step in the wrong direction imho.
You haven't read the bill, have you?
The gun owner (respondent) doesn't ever "give up his/her rights". The process is:
1. Petitioner signs under oath and penalty of perjury* that there is extreme risk because respondent has a firearm, and presents facts and evidence to a court to back this claim.
2. Court decides on the basis of evidence and facts presented whether to issue a temporary ERPO. (Extreme Risk Protection Order). If an ERPO is issued,
3. Respondent is asked to surrender firearm(s) and concealed carry permit.
4. Within 14 days, respondent appears in court, represented by court-appointed lawyer, to accept or dispute temporary ERPO. Evidence is considered; if warranted, the ERPO can be extended for a year. If not warranted, ERPO is discontinued and respondent gets guns back.
5. If 1 year ERPO is issued, respondent gets one time within that year to petition the court, and show by clear and convincing evidence that he or she no longer poses a danger by possessing firearms. Court can terminate ERPO, if warranted.If ERPO is terminated, respondent gets guns back.
6. At end of a year, petitioner can ask the court to extend the ERPO. Again, evidence must be presented. Nothing is taken on hearsay.
*If petitioner lies or ERPO was found unwarranted, petitioner can be sued for damages and fees.
All the ERPO process does is put some teeth into a normal restraining order , providing that the dangerous and/or unstable or suicidal person does not have access to firearms for a set period of time, and expand it to prevent self-harm, as well as harm to others. Nobody's "rights" are taken. ERPO, above all, takes guns out of the hands of dangerous people for a limited period of time. It doesn't exist outside of existing domestic violence and restraining order law, but supplements it.
It is saying that the petitioners rights to peaceful and safe existence supersede the ownership of firearms, within limits. Life over property.
If this bill is rejected, it is a signal to all victims of domestic violence that their lives are not valued; that legislators like Senator Garcia are more afraid that AR-toting constituents will show up and yell at him and try to instigate a recall, than that another 800 Coloradans will lose their lives to firearms this year.
The Giffords Center has a good summary of ERPO law as applied by states and the Federal Government.
thanks for the thorough outline of the bill.
And have you ever noticed, although there are lots of gun folks opposed to whatever SPECIFIC bill is being debate, they keep saying "it's just not the right approach" for something…. and they never get around to offering anything which IS the right approach.
Right? It's a common derailing tactic.
Pretty much. There is the constant platitude about needing to address mental health. Absolutely no suggestions about how. The only thing they can even suggest is requiring teachers to have guns, which is a demonstrably stupid idea.
But it sells more guns, which is the point.
Fleece the sheep.
Wow, this is a great summary of the bill. This morning, listening to John Caldera on Ross Kaminsky's show, I had to laugh….he talked about last year's Red Flag bill and how much wose this one is…but as I recall, last year's bill was the end of the Constitution for honest gun folk.
The truth is, the GOP will oppose any and all bills that regulate guns. End of story. I hope this bill passes and demonstrates its effectiveness in the next 18 months. I wonder if the sheriffs who say they won't enforce this bill, have considered how badly they will look, the first time they refuse to remove guns from a killer and someone dies.
Sheriffs are elected officials, and in red counties, they have to please their voters.
Do you consider a mandatory no bail hold (until a first appearance) on an accused Domestic Violence charge to be "stripping their rights in absentia"?
It effectively allows a court to order the removal of a persons property in absentia, and requires that person to then prove their innocence. It also doesn't allow an appeal to a separate court. It also has no set means of notification that a person is supposed to turn over their firearms. Will this be done by court served papers or a law enforcement agent kicking in a door? Or anything in between? It's a badly written law.
So you would support the law if those minor details were hashed out? I doubt it. I get the sense you're looking for excuses not to support it. I'm sure your lovely gun collection is grateful for the tender consideration. The neighbor lady living in fear of her mentally ill but well-armed partner, not so much.
This is standard practice. They never develop the forms and exact methods of delivery within the bill text. Police departments will have to develop their own procedures for delivering notice. Of course delivery of notice would be prompt, formalized, with multiple ways of documenting receipt.
I would be willing to support the bill if the accused party were able to be present to present their defense at the initial hearing. This would also allow the court to have proper law enforcement present to proceed with the accused if the court finds that the removal of firearms is necessary. It's safer all around. I would also like a provision that if upon further review the removal of firearms was not necessary and or improper, that the return of firearms to the proper owner not need a background check as it currently stand under law, or the fees for the check be waived. That removes an unnecessary burden from those improperly accused.
Defendants are not present for initial Temporary Protection order hearings; they can appear at the next hearing, normally in 14 days. Why should a gun owner have special rights?
Same re: ex parte temporary restraining orders issued in advance of a full preliminary injunction hearing. It's SOP, and in full accord with procedural due process principles.
They shouldn't. I have a problem with the way TPO's are wide open to abuse as well.
Aren't TPO's subject to review? If someone lies under oath, aren't they subject to penalties?
Subject to and actually exposed to are two totally different subjects when it comes to testimony during complaints between couples in a domestic dispute.
We're talking about sworn testimony to get a temporary/emergency restraining order. Where's your evidence that there's a difference between "subect to" and "exposed to"?
When it gets to the "he said, she said" testimonies, someone almost always is lying. Without proof of who it is, it comes down to whoever the judge decides to believe or favors. I've literally seen judges allow one side of a case an entire morning for their testimony and then tell the other side, "This is taking too long, you've got 10 minutes". I have little faith in the judicial system to punish liars in such cases.
So, in your "worst case" scenario, someone could lie (and they'd have to lie about being in fear for their life, not just, "He didn't put the toilet seat down") and the accused would be without their guns for as long as 14 days until their hearing. And that's an unreasonable time, for you?
For some reason Curmudgeon I'm not getting a Reply button to your toilet seat comment. So I'll reply here. I've seen more ridiculous things in family court. And since a TPO removes the firearms already, why does a domestic abuse victim need a second law, if that's all it's about?
A TPO doesn't remove the firearms "already". Show me where it says that in every TPO instance.
You're being unrealistic about the dynamics between abusers and victims. The petitioner must have the ability to make the accusation of threat and request without the respondent present.
Otherwise she (probably she) won't show up.
Under 1177, the respondent may appear anytime within the next 14 days, with court-provided legal representation, and argue that the petition is not founded. I think that you are saying that he (probably he) shouldn't have his guns taken until that happens. Unfortunately, if there is a real threat to the victim's life, this may seal her fate. Is her life worth less than the gun owner's property rights? You still refuse to answer that question, and it is critical.
In my experience, gun collectors are far more attached to their firearms than to their supposed "loved ones". There is more emotional investment. Sad but true.
If you're talking about domestic abuse and threats, there is already a law in place that when a TPO is issued, removes the ability of the accused to possess firearms, why do you need another?
Your experience with gun owners must be quite limited if that's what you've taken away from it.
That's the Federal Law you're referring to, isn't it? And that requires notice to the accused abuser before the hearing, doesn't it?
There are Federal and Colorado State laws on the books in regards to that. And yes that's after a hearing where the accused is supposed to be present.
18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8); vea, por ejemplo, United States v. Bunnell106 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D. Me. 2000), aff'd 280 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2002.)
Right. So, you want the accused abuser there, to be able to intimidate the victim attempting to get a TPO, just so they don't lose their guns?
The TPO removes the ability of the accused to possess firearms, but, critically, it does not provide a process for taking the firearms from the accused's possession.
In my own case, with a domestic violence charge and a TRO in place against my ex husband, police were still not willing to confiscate the 40+ firearms in the home. They unrealistically expected him to "surrender" them.
Luckily, we had neighbors and relatives who were willing to brave possible theft charges and keep the guns. They had no legal footing to do so. Again, this bill provides that legal process.
Regarding my experience with gunheads, it is unfortunately, extensive. I was married to one for 12 years. Most of my ex-in-laws also have gun collections. My son does now (he has his dad's guns). I've shot targets – it's fun. I live in a town where, on my way to work, I could walk to the store and buy sweet feminine pink ammo for the purse gun I don't have.
I pawned a shotgun, and went through a background check. It was $10 at that time. Not really that big a deal. For me, for most women who date men, the possession of an extensive gun collection is a deal-breaker. That man will never be emotionally available to a human being. His heart is committed elsewhere.
And you still haven't answered my question as to whether in your opinion, the risk to the victim's life is a higher priority than the "right" to uninterrupted possession of firearms.
To anybody on the other side of that debate, I would bet the answer is "No". But they're embarrassed to say so.
Hmm, so the TPO doesn't provide a process to remove the guns, just like 1177 doesn't. So the same LEO's who wouldn't remove you're ex husbands firearms under a restraining order would do so under this type of court order?
And every person who owns guns that I know would not even have to think if they had to choose between their firearms and their loved ones.
And I have no problem with removing weapons from those who are proven to be a danger to themselves and others. I disagree that this bill and the automatic presumption of guilt built into it's mechanisms will do anything in that direction beyond the laws we have now.
Look at the revised text. Section 7, page 7, lines 16-22. There is a process:
It's not presumption of guilt. It's safeguarding a victim. Presumption of guilt would mean permanent confiscation of weapons, not two weeks, until the hearing.
Two weeks.
That's two weeks that you think is too much time to be without a weapon when there's a possibility (as determined by a judge) that someone is in danger.
Two. Weeks.
The revised version of 1177 allows for the respondent to meet with a court "of competent jurisdiction" at the same time as the petitioner petitions for the temporary ERPO. It also provides for service to respondent by law enforcement, and specifies the wording of the statement.
Would that satisfy you or do you still have more excuses?
No, that actually works for me. It makes the bill much more palatable for reasonable people.
Good. Thanks for hanging in with the debate.
I could only find one reference to "a court of competent jurisdiction" –
"IF A PETITION -4- 1177 PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-65-106 IS ALSO FILED AGAINST THE 2 RESPONDENT, A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION CAN HEAR THAT PETITION AT THE SAME TIME AS THE HEARING FOR A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR THE HEARING FOR A CONTINUING EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. "
– doesn't this refer specifically to a 27-65-106 petition, which is "Court-ordered evaluation for persons with mental illness"?
I'm not sure if it applies to respondents who aren't mentally ill, but still a danger. I could be wrong.
I think you're right. That provision for a hearing the same day as the temporary ERPO appears to only apply to respondents who seem to be mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others.
Which is smart, as suicidal folks need intervention – elderly white males are the highest suicide demographic in Colorado or anywhere – but it doesn't specify when a non-mentally ill respondent can answer the accusations, other than as soon as possible and within the 14 day span.
The process still is that the petitioner petitions the court. Within 24 hours, the court, on the basis of evidence, either grants or refuses the temporary ERPO.
If granted, the respondent gets a visit from law enforcement, who hand him/her the temporary ERPO, ask for his guns, and give him a notice of hearing within 14 days to see if a permanent ERPO shall be issued. They also give him lists of resources to access for counseling, mental health, etc. The temporary ERPO expires when the permanent ERPO is either issued or denied at the second hearing.
note: it doesn't say anything about law enforcement breaking down the door and rampaging through the house to take guns. We're talking about voluntary surrender.
Thinking about my ex, he probably would have kept one or two "fixer-uppers" back, or hidden them. So it's an imperfect process, but still better than no process at all for taking guns away from dangerous people.
Gee, so no-knock warrants are a bad idea, too? And you oppose auto towing as it allows private businesses (backed up by police, if necessary) to remove a person's property without notification?
No knock warrants are a lousy idea. They get people killed all the time. And comparing this to removal of an improperly parked vehicle from private property is an apples to oranges comparison.
How so? A gun is private property, is it not?
A gun in a persons own home does not infringe on the property rights of another the way an abandoned or improperly parked vehicle does.
And the temporary removal of guns based on a judge's decision is not a denial of due process. It's part of the process.
It's not the right approach
Because the right approach would be more like responsible law abing citizens get left alone, and get to create the laws that they agree to abide by and all intervention, ways, and edpeciespe if it is intrusive , must be after the fact
After someone dies, you mean. Is 779 deaths enough, you think?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/colorado/colorado.htm
Can’t link the text – no editing menu on this reply box.
BREAKING-Senate passed the red flag bill! Polis will sign it.
So now, expect wailing and weeping and gnashing of teeth, proclamations of DOOM and mass confiscation of personal guns. And if Colorado's experience runs true to form for other states that have passed ERPOs, there will be very little impact on gun ownership, and only, perhaps, a few dozen lives saved.
Good job, legislators (except for Senator Garcia – later for you, schmuck). You did the right thing.