Gun Confiscation Archives - Rally for our Rights

Boulder County, CO Poised To Pass Multiple Gun Control Laws

Posted on July 29, 2022August 1, 2022 by Lesley Hollywood

On July 5, 2022 the Boulder County Commissioners passed on first reading a series of anti-Second Amendment ordinances WITHOUT allowing for public comment.

Second reading and decision making will take place on Tuesday, August 2 at 3 p.m.

This meeting WILL allow for public comment.

Email written public comment to commissioners [email protected]

The Boulder County Commissioners are still holding their meetings VIRTUAL ONLY. You can register to provide public comment via Zoom here: https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_3BjkIGKHR5WDJsnxRSLkKQ

From the Boulder County Government website:

During the 2021 Colorado legislative session, state lawmakers passed a law to give localities the flexibility to come up with their own ordinances addressing the sale, purchase, or possession of firearms within their jurisdictions (Colorado Senate Bill 21-256) Boulder County is joining other organizations and governments across the United States in raising awareness of gun violence and is working towards the prevention of gun violence here in Boulder County.

The Boulder County Commissioners view these current efforts to curtail gun violence as a continuation of a long-standing commitment that stems from their previous experience, including positions in education and in the state legislature.

Therefore the Commissioners are proposing the following local ordinances for Boulder County:

1.) An Ordinance Prohibiting the Carrying of Firearms in Sensitive Public Placesy – READ HERE

Prohibits concealed and open carry in Boulder County owned or operated buildings, or the portion of any building being used by Boulder County government.

Public parks, playgrounds, or open space owned by Boulder County.

Any recreation or community center facility owned, operated, or managed by Boulder County.

Within 500 feet of any polling location or a ballot drop box within Boulder County.

The indoor and outdoor premises of any facility licensed to serve alcohol.

A healthcare facility, or substance abuse or mental health provider or facility.

Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship.

A courthouse.

A daycare center or preschool.

2.) An Ordinance Prohibiting the Purchase of Firearms by Anyone Under the Age of Twenty-One – READ HERE

No person under the age of twenty-one in shall purchase a firearm.

No person shall sell a firearm to a person under the age of twenty-one.

3.) An Ordinance Prohibiting the sale and purchase of Assault Weapons, Large Capacity Magazines, and Trigger Activators – READ HERE

No person, corporation or entity shall own, transfer or sell:

Semiautomatic center-fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following characteristics:

A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

A folding or telescoping stock;

A flash suppressor;

A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.

Semiautomatic center-fire pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device and any one of the following:

A threaded barrel;

A second pistol grip, or second other feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

A flash suppressor;

The capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device at some location outside of the pistol grip;

A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded; or

A buffer tube, arm brace, or other part that protrudes horizontally behind the pistol grip.

Semiautomatic center-fire pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to
accept more than 10 rounds.

Semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following features:

A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be
held by the non-trigger hand;

A folding or telescoping stock;

A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; or

An ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Any firearm that has been modified to be operable as an assault weapon as
defined herein;

Any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an
assault weapon, including any combination of parts from which an assault weapon
may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control
of the same person.

“Large-capacity magazine” or “LCD” means any ammunition feeding device with the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds

“Rapid-fire trigger activator” means any device, including a removable manual or powerdriven activating device, constructed so that, when installed in or attached to a semiautomatic firearm:

the rate at which the trigger is activated substantially increases; or

the rate of fire substantially increases.

4.) An Ordinance Requiring a Waiting Period Prior to the Sale of Firearms – READ HERE

Requires a 10 day waiting period between when a firearms dealer initiates a background check and when the purchaser takes possession of the firearm.

5.) An Ordinance to Regulate the Possession of Unfinished Frames and Receivers, and Unserialized Firearms – READ HERE

No person may possess one or more firearms that have not been identified with a serial number by a federal licensee.

Donate & Get A Sticker!

Help us fight the radical gun control extremists throughout Colorado by making a donation of $5 or more and get your choice of one of these weatherproof, scratch resistant stickers that are made in the U.S.A.

CLICK HERE to get yours!

*Contributions are not tax deductible.

CALL TO ACTION: Oppose Gun Control In Colorado

Posted on May 4, 2021May 18, 2021 by Lesley Hollywood

THREE gun control bills have been newly introduced by gun control extremists at the Colorado State Capitol. They have all advanced and are only days away from becoming law unless YOU speak up!

Please contact your State House Reps and State Senators and ask they vote NO on these bills.

CLICK HERE to read our complete breakdown of each of these bills.

HB21-1298 Expand Firearm Background Check Requirements

• Adds 11 misdemeanors to the list of background check disqualifiers.

• Removes the option for FFLs to transfer a firearm to new owner if background check is formally delayed for more than 3 days.

• Extends the time agencies have to review a background check denial from 30 days to 60 days, and allows for indefinite denial without disposition in certain instances.

CLICK HERE to find your State Senator and ask they vote NO on HB21-1298.

Want to take it step further?
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL EVERY STATE SENATOR IN COLORADO

HB21-1299 Office Of Gun Violence Prevention

• Creates a new entity within Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDHPE) called the Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

• This office will be asked to “…increase the awareness of, and educate the general public about, state and federal laws and existing resources relating to gun-violence prevention.” That includes how to safely store guns, how to report a lost or stolen weapon, how to access mental health care and how to utilize Colorado’s Red Flag Law. They will also be tasked with so-called “evidence based” data collection.

• The office will also track and publish what local firearm laws are in place across the state, as they assume SB21-256 will pass (read below about this atrocious bill). They are requesting $3 million dollars for fiscal year 2021-2022.

CLICK HERE to find your State Senator and ask they vote NO on HB21-1299.

Want to take it step further?
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL EVERY STATE SENATOR IN COLORADO

SB21-256 Local Regulation Of Firearms

• Repeals Colorado’s 2003 Firearm Preemption Law and replaces it with language that allows localities and municipalities to create their own firearm laws as long as they are not LESS restrictive than state law.

• This bill would allow for any county or municipality to ban the possession, sale, or transfer of a firearm or firearm accessory within their jurisdiction; and would allow any county, municipality, special district, or college campus to ban concealed carry.

CLICK HERE to find your State House Rep and ask they vote NO on HB21-1299.

Want to take it a step further?
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL STATE HOUSE LAWMAKER GROUP #1
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL STATE HOUSE LAWMAKER GROUP #2
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL STATE HOUSE LAWMAKER GROUP #3

Your donations are needed to help keep Rally for our Rights going and growing, make a contribution today!

Donate here or click the donate button below:
www.rallyforourrights.com/donate

* Contributions are not tax deductible

Questions Everyone Should Be Asking About Red Flag Emergency Risk Protection ERPO Gun Laws : Rally for our Rights Colorado

Fast Tracked Gun Control Bills In Colorado Make FIVE For 2021 Legislative Session

Posted on May 3, 2021May 18, 2021 by Lesley Hollywood

Want the Tl;dr version of the three gun control bills Colorado just introduced? Scroll down to below the graph.

Colorado tends to fly fairly under the radar when it comes to national chatter about gun control. A very libertarian state where guns and weed are common topics of conversation, the last time a major push for gun control took place was in 2013 when expanded background checks and a ban on so-called high capacity magazines passed. That legislation triggered a recall effort that unseated three Democrat legislators and flipped the majority to Republican control in the 2014 general election.

Since that time the only major piece of gun control legislation that has ended up with the governor’s signature was the passage of a Red Flag Extreme Risk Protection Order law in 2019 after similar legislation failed the year prior. The 2020 legislative session was a total meltdown due to COVID and the blessing out of that was gun control was dropped from the agenda. Enter 2021 and the gun control extremists are more motivated than ever to pass more ineffective laws that will do nothing to reduce firearm crime and suicide. Note the chart below shows exactly how the laws Colorado has already passed have had the exact opposite effect than promised. The longer they continue to misdiagnose and mistreat this problem, the longer it will persist.

Already in the first 60 days of the 2021 legislative session, the governor has signed two pieces of gun control: SB21-078 Mandatory Reporting of Lost and Stolen Firearms, and HB21-1106 Mandatory Safe Storage of Firearms. Both of these bills are so poorly written it’s glaringly obvious no one who knows anything about guns even helped to write them as they are full of loopholes. And now, on the tail of the Boulder King Soopers shooting, virtue signaling Democrats have wasted no time exploiting the horrific murders of innocent people by pushing for new laws that they even admit would have done nothing to stop the shooter, but without a doubt make sure it’s harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the evil we continue to face.

Three Gun Control Bills Introduced

On April 29, 2021 a package of three gun control bills were introduced. These bills are being fast tracked, going from committee to debate in the House Chamber on the same day. Ideas so “good” they have to try to hide to proceedings from the public. Here’s the run down of each:

HB21-1298 Expand Firearm Transfer Background Check Requirements

The 2013 background check law already extended the current federal background check requirements to private sales and transfers as well as expanded prohibition to include mental health disqualifiers, dating partners who commit domestic violence, and more. To purchase a firearm in Colorado, the buyer must pass both a NICS background check and a CBI background check.

This new bill would expand upon that even more to include what they consider “Violent Misdemeanors”, with those convicted becoming a prohibited person for 5 years. Of course they always have to go big and include simple harassment (say you caught someone sleeping with your wife and you yelled at them – that’s harassment in Colorado) with more heinous crimes like sexual assault and child abuse. But here’s the kicker – of the list of new 11 qualifying misdemeanors, all but two are a Misdemeanor 3. Why does this matter? Because when form 4473 is completed to submit to a background check, question 21(c) is asked: “Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?” A yes answer on this question is an automatic disqualifier. And both Misdemeanors 1 and 2 carry a maximum penalty of 12 month or more in prison. Misdemeanor 3 carries a maximum of 6 months.

For all my researchers, here are the crimes they are adding, followed by their Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) number, and what level misdemeanor they fall into:

• Assault Third Degree: 18-3-204 – M1
• Menacing: 18-3-206 – M3
• Sexual Assault: 18-3-402 (1)(e) – M1
• Child Abuse: 18-6-401 – M1 7a(V); M2 7b(VI); M2 7b(I); M3 7b(II)
• Violation of Protection Order: 18-6-803.5 – M2 with no prior violations, M1 with prior violations
• Crime Against At Risk Person: 18-6.5-103 – M1
• Harassment: 18-9-111 (1)(a) – M3; M1 if pursuant to 18-9-121(5)(a)&(b)
• Bias Motivated Crime: 18-9-121 – M1
• Cruelty to Animals: 18-9-202 – M1
• Possession of an Illegal Weapon: 18-12-102 – M1
• Unlawfully providing a firearm, other than a handgun, to a juvenile: 18-12-108.7 (3) – M1

This is the only law they claim would have stopped the Boulder shooter, as he bought his firearm legally several days before committing his massacre AND two years prior had been convicted of Third Degree Assault, a M1 that carried up to 18 months in prison. But as I previously mentioned…wouldn’t he already be prohibited based on question 21(c) of his 4473? Why isn’t the Boulder County DA charging him with lying on that form? But it also points to another issue that is never addressed – these background checks systems are only as good as the data put into them.

HB21-1298 also closes what the gun control extremists like to call “The Charleston Loophole”. This so-called loophole allows a FFL to transfer the firearm to the new owner without a background check if the background check is formally delayed for more than 3 days. First, they love to call it the Charleston Loophole so they can exploit more tragedy and ignore the fact the police and FBI knew the Charleston Church Shooter had obtained a firearm when he was prohibited and they did absolutely nothing about it. 6 months later it was used to take lives of innocent people. But giving those same agencies more authority is supposed to fix the problem. And second, FFLs in Colorado don’t transfer guns to those who don’t pass background checks. Call around and ask. There is no shortage of customers who will pass background checks to buy that gun. Additionally, this bill extends the time agencies have to review a background check denial from 30 days to 60 days, and allows for indefinite denial without disposition in certain instances.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE HOUSE REPS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!

If you would like to go a step further and email every member of the Colorado House of Representatives (like the gun grabbers do), we’ve divided them up so you can easily send three emails by clicking the links below and connect with every House Rep across the state. Remember, this includes every State House Rep and some are on your side, but they still need to hear from you so they know how strong the opposition is to these bills!

OPPOSE HB21-1298: (even more) Expanded Firearm Background Checks

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #1
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #2
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #3

HB21-1299 Office Of Gun Violence Prevention

This bill creates a new entity within Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDHPE) called the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Yes, these are the same unelected bureaucrats who have handled COVID in Colorado for the past year. This new entity would have a director and at minimum two full time employees. The responsibilities of this office will be to “…increase the awareness of, and educate the general public about, state and federal laws and existing resources relating to gun-violence prevention.” That includes how to safely store guns, how to report a lost or stolen weapon, how to access mental health care and how to utilize Colorado’s Red Flag Law. This would be done via campaigns using television, radio, internet, direct mail, etc. The office will also be tasked with collecting “evidence based” gun violence data and providing grants to those wishing to promote gun safety in the community – but again, only those with “evidence based” solutions. The office will also track and publish what local firearm laws are in place across the state, as they assume SB21-256 will pass (read below about this atrocious bill). They are requesting $3 million dollars for fiscal year 2021-2022.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE HOUSE REPS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!

OPPOSE HB21-1299: Creates Office of Gun Violence

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #1
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #2
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #3

A few other states have similar offices of gun violence prevention. Three of the most prominent such efforts are New York City Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, and Illinois Gun Violence Prevention Coalition.

What have been the results?

New York City: Since the creation of the New York City Office of Gun Violence Prevention, the city has gone from being one of the safest urban centers in the country to a return of the Death Wish years. In 2020, shootings increased 97% percent and homicides 44%

Maryland: Baltimore remains one of the most dangerous cities in America. In 2020, compared to Denver which documented 60 gun homicides, Baltimore recorded 298. More people in Baltimore were murdered with guns than in the entire state of Colorado.

Illinois: In 2020, Chicago documented 719 gun homicides, an increase of 55% from 2019. Chicago is the murder capital of the US.

SB21-256 Local Regulation Of Firearms

This bill would essentially repeal and replace the Firearm Preemption Law that has been a cornerstone of gun rights here in Colorado since 2003. It’s what got Boulder’s assault weapon ban overturned – although even the sponsors of this bill have said their ban wouldn’t have stopped the Boulder shooter (and newsflash for them, bans don’t stop murderers). Currently localities and municipalities are barred from creating their own gun laws that are more strict (or less strict) than what is current state law. This is because it is unreasonable to expect firearm owners to know hundreds of different laws as they travel over imaginary county and city lines across Colorado, and anything otherwise would create a whole new class of innocent criminals.

SB21-256 repeals that and replaces it with language allowing localities and municipalities to create their own gun laws BUT only if they are more strict than current state law, “…local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law governing or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer or possession of a firearm, ammunition, or firearm component or accessory that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, transfer, or possess under state or federal law.”

It also gives counties, municipalities, special districts and colleges the ability for their governing bodies to prohibit conceal carry, “…a local government, including a special district, or the governing board of an institution of higher education many enact an ordinance, resolution, rule, or other regulation that prohibits a permittee from carrying a concealed handgun in a building or specific area within the local government’s or governing board’s jurisdiction.”

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE HOUSE REPS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!

If you would like to go a step further and email every member of the Colorado State Senate (like the gun grabbers do), we’ve provided a link below. By clicking the link below you can connect with every State Senator across the Colorado. Remember, this includes every State Senator and some are on your side, but they still need to hear from you so they know how strong the opposition is to these bills!

OPPOSE SB21-256: Local Regulation of Firearms

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL EVERY STATE SENATOR

Two other bills we were expecting to see seem to have received the ax this year. Those would be an Assault Weapons Ban and Mandatory Waiting Periods. You can follow all Colorado gun bills as they make their way through both the house and senate chambers on our Legislative Watch page.

HAVE YOU VISITED OUR STORE LATELY?

HR127: It’s Your Money or Your Guns

Posted on February 4, 2021February 5, 2021 by Mario Acevedo

HR 127 has been called “The Gun Apocalypse” and for good reason. Introduced by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson D-TX, this bill is formally known as the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act. What HR127 ultimately does is wipe out the Second Amendment by making gun ownership unaffordable for all but the most affluent. Which is clearly the intent.

It’s ironic that the Democrats who preach criminal justice reform aren’t hesitating, with the stroke of a pen, to turn millions of law-abiding Americans into felons, punishing them with onerous fines and years of incarceration. Despite this, nothing in HR127 will disarm one violent criminal or reduce the gun homicide rampaging through our cities.

There is much about this bill that makes it unworkable and impractical but for the moment, I’ll focus the discussion on what it will cost your wallet.

Pony up, Mr. Gun Owner

This bill requires that every applicant for a gun license must first pay $800 to the US Attorney General for liability insurance. Never mind that as a gun owner, if you have homeowner’s or renter’s insurance, you already have gun accident insurance under the plan’s liability umbrella coverage. This requirement begs many questions such as, what experience does the AG have in managing insurance? How will claims be processed? Does this insurance protect a gun owner against law suits? Does this insurance cover legal expenses? There remain more questions and I’ll turn back to those later.

You’ll also be required to take 24 hours of training to include live firing training. Maybe you can find such training at $50 per hour so you’re talking $1200, minimum.

You want a gun? You must be crazy!

HR127 requires that every gun owner and member of the household undergo an evaluation by a licensed psychologist. Plus, this psychologist must interview any former spouses as well as at least two other family members or associates. Since the standards for these required evaluations are as yet not available, it’s difficult to determine how much they will cost but a reasonable estimate is $1000 each. Assuming three in your household, that’s at least $3000. Add another $1000 for the interviews—another estimate—and we’re talking $4000.

Also consider that HR127 mentions that these licensed psychologists must be approved by the AG. An Internet search shows about 100K licensed psychologists in the country and not every of them will be approved. Consider the evaluations required of gun owners and members of their households plus interviews with the ex’s and associates, that means less than 100K psychologists will be conducting hundreds of millions of evaluations and interviews. By what deadline? Those psychologists already have full schedules so we’re expecting them to take on such an avalanche of new clients on top of that? This situation will create a seller’s market of insane proportions. With that in mind, who knows what you’ll pay for a shrink’s time.

Speaking of pay…who will pay for these evaluations and interviews?

Not the AG, but you.

The psychological evaluation is offered with the premise it will be an accurate predictor of who should or shouldn’t have a gun. But in truth, those giving such evals, highly trained psychologists and psychiatrists, have a miserable record at protecting public safety. The shooters at Thousand Oaks, the Aurora Theater, and the Parkland high school had all been extensively evaluated for exhibiting dangerous behavior prior to the shootings, and yet nothing was done to prevent the ensuing massacres. And sadly, the increasing rate of suicides in this country shows that mental health professionals don’t have a firm grasp at preventing fatal self-harm.

If there is a hint that the AG’s licensed psychologists may bear any liability for a misdiagnosis, then expect the Catch 22 of HR127 to kick in:

We must keep the mentally disturbed from getting a gun

….and only the mentally disturbed would want a gun.

HR127: By the Number$$

How much will HR127 cost you, the law-abiding gun owner, to keep your property? Factor in fees (also unspecified) for the registration of each gun (don’t forget ammo), the permit application, and the permit itself so a lowball estimate for the first gun is:

Insurance: $800
Training: $1200
Psyche eval: $4000
Fees: ???

Total: $6000+

The AG’s Money Grab

Let’s return to the insurance. Assuming 75 million gun owners in this country, let’s say 25 million won’t pay this extortion and thus give up their guns. That means 50 million will jump through the financial hoops. The simple math of 50 million gun owners times $800 each means $40 billion of your money will slosh into the coffers of the AG. That’s a lot of cash. Substantially more than the entire 2020 budget for the US Department of Justice ($29.9B). What happens to all that money? Does it remain in an insurance portfolio…managed by whom? Or does that money get lost in a slush fund?

Currently, every state in the union is experiencing an alarming surge in gun homicide, mostly because of gang and drug-related shootings aggravated by the pandemic lockdowns. Is anyone naive enough to think that any criminal will subject themselves to the provisions of this bill considering they’re not supposed to have guns to begin with? Tragically, HR127 will do nothing to protect anyone from violent crime or make our streets any safer.

Contact your congressperson today and let them know you oppose this bill! Click here to find their contact information.

HAVE YOU CHECKED OUT OUR STORE LATELY?

Gun Rights Face Masks Neck Gaiters Coverings For Sale Republican Conservative Don't Tread On Me Betsy Ross Big Laua

CO Sheriff And Red Flag ERPO Critic Steve Reams Gets ERPO’d By Jail Inmate

Posted on February 28, 2020February 28, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

One of Colorado’s most outspoken critics of Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law, Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams, has been red flagged using the new Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law – and it was an inmate who has been incarcerated in his jail since 2016 on serious drug trafficking charges who filed it – from jail.

On February 25, 2020 the inmate filed the petition. On the petition, which is public record, the inmate claims he falls under the law’s extremely broad definition of ‘household or family member’ by marking the box “I regularly reside or have resided with the respondent in the last 6 months”. I suppose there may be some validity to this, as he is housed in Sheriff Reams’ jail.

In the body of the petition the inmate states that “Sheriff Steve Reams is the rudder of the ship, and that ship being the S.O.G. who carry shotguns inside the jail”. According to the inmate, these deputies carry these “deadly weapons 24 hours a day intimidating and threatening people for the most minor things, such as get on your bed.” You can read the entire petition below.

The Weld County jail S.O.G. (Special Operations Group) is responsible for maintaining order in situations involving enhanced security risk. The “shotguns” they carry are actually devices that fire less-than-lethal projectiles and are only carried by the specialized team of officers.

The petition was dismissed as soon as it landed on the desk of Judge James F. Hartmann, without allowing a temporary hearing where the petitioner would be present but the respondent would not be, and the case decided based on a preponderance of evidence. The judge wrote an in depth statement as part of his dismissal order which in conclusion stated that the petitioner failed to provide any facts that either Sheriff Reams or his deputies were a “significant risk of causing personal injury to themselves or others in the immediate future” as is required by the law, and that the allegations made were not against any specific individual or Sheriff Reams himself, but instead were an attempt to prevent peace officers from carrying firearms within the jail. The judge refused to address the threshold question of whether or not his residency inside the jail made him a qualifying petitioner.

In a radio interview with Peter Boyles of 710 KNUS today, Sheriff Reams said he found out about the petition when the dismissal order was emailed to him while he was out of town. This is because according to the law the person being Red Flagged, the respondent, is not informed of the proceeding until AFTER the first hearing has taken place.

This is the second ERPO filed against a member of law enforcement since the Colorado law took effect January 1, 2020. The first was filed on January 9, 2020 by Fort Collins resident, Susan Holmes, against a Colorado State University Police Officer who fatally shot her son in 2017. Her son was carrying an 11 1/2″ bayonet hunting knife and had lunged at the officer before he was killed. After a circus of a hearing, Holmes was charged with perjury for marking the box on her petition stating she was a ‘household or family member’ because her and the officer had a child in common. It is far less clear if perjury charges in this new case filed against Reams would stick, as “residency” is not really defined within the scope of the law.

Weld County is one of Colorado’s ten largest counties with a large land mass and diverse demographic.

I myself hold law enforcement to high standards when it comes to excessive force, therefore I feel it should be noted Weld is one of only a few counties where the DA refuses to sign off on no-knock raids, and Sheriff Reams has a record of taking swift action in cases of excessive force. In November 2019, two Weld County deputies were fired and one resigned after video surfaced of them using excessive force during an interrogation when the suspect refused to cooperate. Two of them had been with the sheriff’s office for 15 years. One of the deputies was charged with third degree assault.

Sheriff Reams has been sounding the alarm for over a year now on how Colorado’s poorly written Red Flag law can easily be abused and now he has lived it first hand. He made international news when he told CNN he’d rather sit in his own jail in contempt than enforce an unconstitutional and dangerous Red Flag order. Reams has been a great ally to us here at Rally for our Rights, even joining us on stage to speak against the Red Flag ERPO law at rallies as well as teaching seminars on the dangers of the law to gun owners and other concerned citizens. He also helped lead the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement here in Colorado, of which more than half the state’s counties joined.

A burning question of mine that I’ve brought up many times: Why are these free to file? Even a small filing fee would deter the most frivolous of cases. Nothing else in the court system is free to file and even a Temporary Restraining Order is $97.

Proponents of Red Flag laws will undoubtedly point to this case as “working as it intended” since no one had their guns seized or their rights violated. I would argue against that in several ways. First, what an absolute waste of court time and taxpayer resources. Second, how scary is it that these petitions are THIS easy to file? And third, just as we saw in the Susan Holmes case, we’re again seeing how high profile individuals are naturally awarded protection from the abuses of the law. If this had been an average citizen, unknown to the judge, and someone they had let crash on their couch for a couple weeks, we’d have a completely different story to tell. And honestly, that is playing out in Colorado already. This case is the eighteenth ERPO filed in less than two months and a repeal bill has been introduced into the Colorado State Legislature. That bill will get it’s first hearing on March 12, 2020.

To learn more about Colorado’s Red Flag Law, obtain attorney resources, and/or report if you’re Red Flagged, visit www.redflagresourcecenter.com.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Hearing Recap: Red Flag ERPO Denied Against Colorado Police Officer Who Shot Petitioner’s Son

Posted on January 16, 2020January 16, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

Today I attended the Red Flag ERPO hearing of CSU Police Officer Phillip Morris. Susan Holmes is the woman who filed the petition requesting that Morris’ firearm rights be suspended and any firearms he owns be confiscated. Holmes claimed her and Morris have a child in common which would qualify her to file against him. They do not have a child in common based on what you’d think “child in common” means, but turns out there is no legal definition of that term and it can be argued many ways.

In 2017 Morris shot and killed Holmes’ 19 year old knife wielding son (11 1/2″ bayonet hunting knife). The shooting was deemed justified, and I have watched the bodycam footage and I do agree with that assessment.

Susan Holmes discovered a loophole in Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law that allowed her to bypass the initial Temporary ERPO hearing. The way it’s supposed to work is a Temp hearing would be scheduled within 24 hours of her filing, where the judge would determine based on a preponderance of evidence if the facts on the petition were true or not, and he would either approve or deny the Temp ERPO order. Had Susan Holmes gone through this Temp hearing the case would have more than likely been denied based on her claim they had a child in common (but who knows). Turns out it doesn’t matter. This law is so poorly written, if you think you will be denied at the Temp hearing because, say…you lied, you can just bypass it and go right to a full hearing forcing the person being ERPO’d to fight back or risk losing their firearm rights. It doesn’t matter how frivolous any of it is.

The Attorney General’s office sent two of their attorneys to represent Officer Morris, dismissing the attorney who had been appointed to him. I wonder if the AG would do the same for me if I was fraudulently ERPO’d? I won’t hold my breath.

Susan Holmes did not have any legal council with her at the hearing.

Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith refused to serve the petition on Officer Morris calling it a fraud. It was a fraud, but would he also not serve me if I claimed an ERPO on me was a fraud?

The hearing began by the AG’s attorneys who were representing Officer Morris waiving service since the sheriff was refusing to serve Morris. This allowed the hearing to proceed.

Susan Holmes had filed a motion asking the judge to recuse himself based on his history of overseeing cases she was involved in. I’m still not clear what those cases were. The judge denied the motion.

Susan Holmes then stated “I do not recognize you as a judge or your ruling” and she accused him of judicial misconduct. Judge told her she could appeal his decision and/or file a formal misconduct complaint with the court.

Judge was actually really patient with her and thorough in everything he did. Kudos to him because even though this fraud makes a mockery of the court system, this is what happens when the legislature passes laws against the wishes of law enforcement who deal with the courts. You end up with laws that turn the court into a circus, and it’s the judges job to see that through no matter what, and this judge was going to do just that.

Holmes was then given the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses to make her case for the removal of Morris’s firearm rights and the confiscation of his guns. She refused based on the fact she wouldn’t recognize the judge.

Judge turned to Morris’ attorneys from the AG’s office and invited them to present evidence and call witnesses. They began by stating this should have first gone through a Temporary ERPO hearing. Judge stopped them and said no, because that wasn’t the way the petition was filed. This is a permanent hearing. They then begin to argue that there is no standing for Holmes to file the petition because they do not have a “child in common” (although attorney was stumbling over the definition because there really isn’t one). A sworn affidavit from Morris was filed stating he does not have a child with this woman.

Holmes was given the opportunity to respond and make her case for what she believes “child in common” means. Judge asked: “Do you want to address if you have a child in common?” Holmes: “I don’t recognize you as a judge.”

The judge regularly had to read right from the ERPO law to try to make sense of what he was supposed to do.

Judge ruled he cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that they do have a child in common, mainly because Holmes won’t present evidence, so the ERPO was being denied based on her not having standing to file. Holmes can appeal and get a different judge. Holmes last statement was that she was appalled that the AG had stepped in. I was a little bit too. The AG called people like me who said this law could be abused “paranoid” and didn’t care if we were collateral damage.

Holmes started demanding an amendment be added to the ERPO that allows citizens to directly ERPO law enforcement.

I told media this makes it obvious how easily ERPOs can be used maliciously, and if these were average citizens and not a police officer in a high profile case, would the sheriff refuse to serve the petition and would the AG come to the defense? Absolutely not. We’d be on our own – defenseless.

Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law had been in effect for 9 days when Holmes filed, and this is the 5th ERPO in the state. This is going to be a bumpy ride.

To learn more about Colorado’s Red Flag Law, obtain attorney resources, and/or report if you’re Red Flagged, visit www.redflagresourcecenter.com.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

BREAKING: Colorado Mother Who ERPO Red Flagged Cop Who Shot Her Son Posted Her Petition Filing On YouTube

Posted on January 14, 2020January 15, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

This article has been updated to reflect that the Temporary ERPO may not have been granted, but it was not denied and the case has moved forward to a permanent hearing. The judge has signed off on the request for the respondent’s counsel among other things.

This sounds like it should be an Onion article, but sadly it is not. This is the reality of how easily abused Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law has already been in the 14 days since it became law.

On January 9, 2020 a petition was filed by Susan Holmes against Phillip Morris. The petition states that the two have a child in common (a factor that would make Susan a qualifying person to file the ERPO under the law’s broad definition of “family or household member”). If she was not one of the people that fall into the nine categories of “family member”, she would have had to go to law enforcement to request they file on her behalf.

There is a complex history between a Susan Holmes and Phillip Morris in Fort Collins. Phillip Morris is a CSU Police Officer who shot and killed Susan Holmes’ knife wielding son in 2017 and there is no evidence the two have ever had a child in common, as it appears they did not know each other prior to the 2017 incident described below. It is also highly unlikely they have had a child since the incident given the nature of their relationship. The petition cites “ongoing violence and aggression from 2013-2017” as evidence that Morris is a danger to himself or others and an ERPO is needed to ensure he is stripped of any firearms he may own or have access to. It also states there is an ongoing lawsuit. It should be noted 2013 is when Morris was hired by CSU Police.

The ERPO was moved forward by 8th Judicial District Chief Judge Stephen Howard. He signed the request for appointed counsel for the respondent among other things. A Permanent ERPO hearing will take place on January 16, 2020

You can read the entire story here.

What is even more shocking is that Susan Holmes actually posted her filing of the petition and a very long rant on YouTube! She finishes off her ten minute video with “And this is why Colorado citizens should be allowed to file E.R.P.O.’s.”

Watch:

To learn more about Colorado’s Red Flag Law, obtain attorney resources, and/or report if you’re Red Flagged, visit www.redflagresourcecenter.com.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Cop ERPO Red Flagged By Mother of Man He Killed In 2017 Colorado Police Shooting; Mother Claims They Have Child Together

Posted on January 14, 2020January 15, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law went into effect January 1, 2020 and we’re already finding alarming cases that deserve attention. A brand new Red Flag ERPO case out of Fort Collins, Colorado sheds light on exactly how easily this new law can and will be abused.

Here’s what we know:

On January 9, 2020 a petition was filed by Susan Holmes against a Phillip Morris. The petition states that the two have a child in common (a factor that would make Susan a qualifying person to file the ERPO under the law’s broad definition of “family or household member”). If she was not one of the people that fall into the nine categories of “family member”, she would have had to go to law enforcement to request they file on her behalf.

The ERPO was moved forward by 8th Judicial District Chief Judge Stephen Howard. He signed the request for appointed counsel among other things. A Permanent ERPO hearing will take place on January 16, 2020

It is unclear if Morris has surrendered his weapons, was entered in the NICS and CBI databases, and is off duty, as would be required by the law if a temporary ERPO was granted.

There is a long history between Holmes and Morris, and it’s a complicated one.

On July 1, 2017 Susan Holmes contacted police after her son, 19 year old Jeremy Holmes, left her home carrying an 11.25 inch bayonet knife and was talking about killing his brother who lived on the CSU campus. Susan first attempted to contact the brother and his wife but was unsuccessful, so she turned to law enforcement. During the call with police, Susan explained that her son was mentally ill.

CSU Police Officer Phillip Morris was the responding officer.

According to the Larimer County District Attorney and body camera footage, after Morris made contact, Jeremy Holmes began brandishing the knife. Morris can be heard instructing Holmes to drop his knife, even as Holmes continued to walk toward him, forcing the police officer to back up more than 100 feet in about two minutes. Morris told Holmes to drop the knife 36 times. In the video Holmes can be heard saying “kill me now” three times.

At this point, back-up Officer Erin Mast arrived and drew her weapon, also demanding that Holmes drop the knife. As Morris reached to holster his gun and grab his Taser, Holmes charged toward him with the knife. Mast shot Holmes twice, and Morris shot him four times.

Since the incident, Susan Holmes, mother of the deceased, has filed a civil lawsuit against CSU claiming lack of transparency surrounding the details of her son’s death, has run for city council, and campaigns to the point of instigation to change police practices that she believes led to the incident.

Now it appears she is asking to have Officer Phillip Morris’ weapons seized for at least 364 days, which is what would happen if the Permanent ERPO is granted. Morris would have one opportunity to request the court lift the order during those 364 days, and at that time Susan Holmes would be alerted and have the opportunity to ask the judge to deny Morris’ request. When the 364 days is up, again, before the order is lifted, Susan Holmes would be alerted and able to request the ERPO be put into place for another year.

And we must revisit the question that was brought up in the beginning – do these two really have a child together? Is it really that easy for just anyone to file an ERPO petition?

We will be watching the permanent order closely and will provide an update. More information can be found via a quick Larimer County Court Docket search.

37 counties across Colorado have declared Second Amendment Sanctuary status, but although Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith has been an outspoken critic of the new Red Flag ERPO law, Larimer County, where Fort Collins is located, isn’t one of them. That said, even if they had declared 2A Sanctuary Status, that wouldn’t stop the orders from going through the court, nor would it stop enforcement actions within city limits unless the municipality has declared themselves a 2A Sanctuary city. Fort Collins has not done that.

Links to sources and bodycam footage are provided throughout the article so people can draw their own opinions about the police shooting. This article is about the potentially malicious use of an ERPO.

UPDATE: Susan Holmes has posted video of her petition on YouTube! WATCH:

To learn more about Colorado’s Red Flag Law, obtain attorney resources, and/or report if you’re Red Flagged, visit www.redflagresourcecenter.com.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Red Flag Law Now In Effect In Colorado, Here’s What You Need To Know

Posted on January 2, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

On January 1, 2020 Colorado’s Red Flag Extreme Risk Protection Orders ERPO law officially went into effect. This means Red Flag ERPO petitions will start making their way into the courts and orders will be coming out, landing in the hands of law enforcement who will then be responsible for serving them and confiscating firearms – or not.

There is a lot to learn about this downright dangerous and unconstitutional law. The Red Flag Resource Center will be your absolute best resource. Bookmark this site. Share it with your friends and family. This effort is a collaboration between Rally for our Rights, civil rights activists, and legal experts. It has all the information you could need about the law, what to do if you’re Red Flagged, along with attorney resources. They will also be tracking ERPO’s and providing transparency to the public.

Here’s what you need to know if you are Red Flagged:

These are civil cases, not criminal. You have not been charged with a crime. The first court hearing has already taken place without you. This hearing included the petitioner and a judge. If you are receiving the ERPO order, the judge granted it based on the accusations provided by the petitioner.
Law enforcement will come to your home or place of employment to serve the order.
The law enforcement agency who will serve the order and seize the firearms will be your local municipal agency if you reside inside city limits, or your sheriffs office if in unincorporated county.
They will have a TEMPORARY Red Flag ERPO order. This order will have a future court date where the ERPO will either be made permanent or will be dismissed. This court date must be within 14 days of the initial hearing, but it can be less.
They may or may not have a search warrant.
Law enforcement may assess you for a mental health hold.
They may or may not request to take your firearms and/or CCW permit.
If they do not have a search warrant, and do not request to take your firearms, they will provide instructions as to how you can surrender them yourself. Law enforcement agencies are supposed to provide storage but many have said they will not store firearms and/or do not have the space to store firearms.
If you do not surrender your firearms, it is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
When the temporary order is granted, you are put into the NICS and CBI databases as a prohibited buyer.

Since the introduction of this bill in the state legislature, there has been debate about who can actually file a petition. The proponents have said it has to be a family member or law enforcement. We have long stood by our words that the definition of “family member” in the bill language is broad enough to include spouses and ex-spouses, former and current roommates, anyone you’ve dated, grandparents and grandchildren, and so on. When the court finalized the petition and put it on the Colorado Judicial website, everything we’ve said this whole time was vindicated. The images below are of the actual petition. This is all that needs filed. There is no filing fee. You can find all the court forms related to ERPO’s here.

If you or someone you know is Red Flagged, the Red Flag Resource Center wants to know.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

If you or someone you know is Red Flagged, the Red Flag Resource Center wants to know.

Here’s How Colorado Red Flag Orders Will Go Down According To Newly Released Best Practices

Posted on December 4, 2019December 4, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

Colorado’s “Red Flag” ERPO law will go into effect January 1, 2020. Leading up to this, the Colorado Attorney General’s office is responsible for developing law enforcement “best practices” via their POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) Board. Those were just released this week and we’ve included the full text below. It should be noted that Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser admitted during the debate of this legislation that there will be false claims, lack of due process, and collateral damage.

It’s important to note if the person being Red Flagged lives within city limits, it is the responsibility of the CITY police department to do this. If the person is in unincorporated county, it is the responsibility of the COUNTY Sheriff’s Office. This mean 246 different agencies across Colorado will have to figure out how to abide by these guidelines as well as find firearm storage space for confiscated weapons.

There is a very glaring piece missing from these best practices: what to do if someone refuses to comply. Some agencies, such as the Weld County Sheriff’s office and the El Paso County Sheriff’s office have already stated they will not take surrendered firearms or provide storage for them, but they will deliver the order so the person being accused can have the due process they deserve – and they wouldn’t have otherwise since the accused doesn’t know they have been Red Flagged until law enforcement is at their door.

Other agencies such as Douglas County Sheriff’s office have stated they will make sure every Red Flag ERPO order is accompanied with a search warrant, no matter who the petitioner is. Sounds like he’s ready for some legalized SWATTING in the name of his deputy who was killed doing the exact same thing he will soon be asking the rest of his deputies to do on potentially innocent people.

If you’re not familiar with how this law works, click here to read up on it. It’s downright frightening.

ERPO Model Policy: Acceptance, Storage, and Return of Firearms
CRS 13-14.5-101
Deputy Zackari Parrish III Violence Protection Act

Download the PDF here: ERPO Weapon Seizure Policy

I. Purpose:

To provide direction and guidelines for the proper handling and storage of firearms that are surrendered, or seized as a result of an Extreme Risk Protection Order. This policy will also deal with the proper procedure to follow for the return, or disposal of firearms after resolution of the ERPO has been achieved.

II. Scope:

This policy is available for use to all law enforcement agencies in The State of Colorado.

III. Policy:

Colorado Courts may order, pursuant to CRS 13-405.5-101, the surrender, or seizure of firearms. Officers will comply with all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes in regards to the acceptance, storage, and return of all firearms.

IV. Definitions:

A. Respondent- the person who is the subject of the Extreme Risk Protection Order.

B. Extreme Risk Protection Order- Known in this document also as an ERPO. Either a temporary, or continuing order granted pursuant to CRS 13-14.5-101.

C. Firearm- Any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.

D. Antique firearm/Relic- any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898.

E. Federal Firearms Dealer- A Federal Firearms Dealer is a person licensed in the United States, that enables an individual or company engaged in a business pertaining to the manufacture or importation of firearms and ammunition, or the interstate and intrastate sale of firearms.

V. Acceptance of a Firearm:

There are two methods by which you will be in the position to accept weapons based on the issuance of the temporary ERPO. They are by voluntary surrender by the respondent, as directed in the language of the temporary ERPO, or seizure by you, or your agency, during a lawful search pursuant search warrant, plain view search, or consent.

A. Voluntary Firearm surrender – According to orders set by the court in the temporary ERPO, the respondent has 24 hours to surrender all firearm(s) listed in the court order, or in their control or possession. The order will require surrender of the firearm(s) to law enforcement, or a federal firearms dealer for transfer, storage, or sale. They may also be transferred to a family member, if firearm is classified as an antique, or relic.

If the firearms are surrendered to law enforcement, you will give the option to the respondent of where they want the firearm(s) to go. The options allow for a transfer to a federal firearms dealer for storage or sale, or storage with law enforcement. Be advised, this law does not require a federal firearms dealer to accept the firearm, they have the option to refuse. If the respondent indicates no preference, officers will take custody of the firearm for storage at a secure law enforcement facility. If applicable, and set forth in the temporary order, you will also take custody the respondent’s concealed carry permit. You will be required to issue a property receipt accounting for every firearm surrendered to you, and the concealed carry permit, if applicable. You will issue a copy of the inventory of items seized to the respondent prior to termination of the contact. Additionally, you must ensure the original copy of the receipt is filed with the courts, and a copy is retained with your original report. The original receipt for the firearm(s) that have been surrendered must be submitted to the court within 72 hours.

If the firearm in question is an antique, or relic, you may give that firearm to a relative if: the relative does not live with the respondent, and you have verified through a criminal records check, CBI InstaCheck, that the relative is legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm. You must still complete a property receipt for the transfer from storing the firearm until relinquished to the relative. The relative retains a copy of the receipt, the original goes to the court within 72 hours, and a copy submitted with your report.

Once the firearm is in your possession, and proper documentation has been completed, the weapon will be secured, packaged, and stored in accordance with your agency’s existing policies regarding firearm storage, and in accordance with section IV of this policy. The ammunition and any magazines associated with the surrendered firearm(s) will not be taken.

B. Firearm Seizure – If you as the law enforcement officer are the petitioner, and a temporary ERPO is issued, the process begins with
the issuance of the order. Along with the search warrant obtained at the ERPO hearing, you serve the order to the respondent.

After the respondent has been properly served with the ERPO, you shall take custody of the respondent’s firearm(s) pursuant to the previously obtained search warrant, or other lawful search (plain view).

If applicable, and named in the warrant, you will also seize the respondent’s concealed carry permit.

Similar to the voluntary surrender, once you have seized all of the firearms in question, either seized through a lawful search, or in plain view, the respondent will have the option of the disposition of their firearms. They may choose transfer to a federal firearms dealer, or police custody. If they offer no preference the firearms will remain in police custody.

Also, just as with the voluntary surrender of firearm(s), upon completion of your search, a receipt shall be issued to the respondent articulating all items seized. The original will be filed with the court, and a copy filed with your original report. The original to court needs to be submitted within 72 hours.

If after the firearms are in the possession of your agency, another party claims verifiable title to the firearms, the firearms will be released to him or her. You must also confirm that party is eligible to be in possession of firearm(s), via a CBI InstaCheck. This transaction must also be documented, and notification made to the court.

As with the surrendering of weapons, when you are seizing the weapons by order or warrant, you will not seize any ammunition or magazines associated with the firearm(s).

VI. Storage of Firearms

Once the firearms are in the control and care of your agency, they will be stored, and maintained in a substantially similar condition that the firearm was in when it was surrendered. If the respondent makes no choice of the firearm’s disposition, your agency will store the firearm in a similar manner as if surrendered. You will follow your agency’s policy for safe and secure storage of a firearm i.e. unloaded, open action or cylinder secured by lock, or strap. If the respondent opts for the storage of the weapon(s) with a registered Federal Firearms Dealer, your agency will contact a dealer requesting storage on the respondent’s behalf, and assist to facilitate the transfer.

VII. Return of Firearms

If the ERPO or temporary ERPO is terminated, or expires without renewal, your agency, or agency in possession of the respondent’s firearm(s), have no more than three days to return the firearm(s) in your possession to the respondent. The three day window for the return of the firearm(s) will begin upon the completion of an InstaCheck by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Your agency will be notified of the termination of the order by the court. You will then, via a CCIC notification, request the InstaCheck be completed by Colorado Bureau of Investigation. CBI in turn will notify you, again via CCIC, of the status of the respondent.

If the firearm(s) are in the care and custody of a Federal Firearms Dealer, they too have the same window of three days to return the firearm(s) to the respondent. The three day window for the return of the firearm(s) will begin upon the completion of a an InstaCheck by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

If the firearm(s) was/were classified as an antique or relic, and transferred to the care and control of a relative, they are also required to return care and custody of the firearm(s) in no more than three days to the respondent. The three day window for the return of the firearm(s) will begin upon the completion of the InstaCheck by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

If applicable, the respondent’s concealed carry permit will be returned at the same time as the firearm(s).

Any firearm(s) surrendered by the respondent, or taken into custody by a lawful order, that remains unclaimed by the respondent, or lawful owner for at least one year from the date the temporary ERPO, or ERPO expired, whichever is later, becomes property of your agency. The firearm(s) will then be disposed of in accordance with your agency’s policy and procedure for disposal of firearms in police custody.

Full documentation of the disposition of the firearm(s) needs to be submitted to the respondent, to the courts, and in your case disposition report.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Category: Gun Confiscation

Three Gun Control Bills Introduced