Anti-Gun Groups Giffords And Brady Among Recipients Of Corononavirus Relief

Recently released records from the Small Business Association show two of the country’s most active gun control groups received Coronavirus relief during the pandemic shut down in the form of Paycheck Protection Loans.  The Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence and The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence both received the loans they likely will not need to reimburse.  And if taxpayers funding anti-gun organizations in any fashion isn’t bad enough, the Brady PAC has pledged to spend $4 million dollars helping elect Joe Biden – up to $1 million of it could be our money through this loan.

According to the Free Beacon:

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence received between $350,000 and $1 million on April 10 to support 41 employees, according to the Small Business Administration. The center is the educational arm of the Brady organization, which also features a political advocacy arm, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, as well as the political action committee Brady PAC. In March, the Brady PAC endorsed presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and announced it would spend $4 million to help elect him and other gun-control candidates to office.

Also on the list of recipients is Gabby Giffords political arm, The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.  They received between $150,000 and $350,000.

An advanced search for gun rights organizations turns up none that received the loans, although not all names of those who received loans of less than $150,000 have been released. 

Earlier this year, at the height of the Coronavirus meltdown, congress passed and the president signed the CARES Act which included billions in forgivable Payment Protection Loans meant to help keep small businesses afloat. These loans were meant to keep basic operations functioning and employees on payroll while the United States went into lockdown.  They do not need to be repaid if the business can prove the funds were spent on the business and operations.  That means it is unlikely either Giffords or Brady will be required to repay their loans. 

Red Flag ERPO Critic and CO Sheriff Gets ERPO’d AGAIN By Jail Inmate

Red Flag ERPO Critic and CO Sheriff Gets ERPO'd AGAIN By Jail Inmate

On Februrary 25,2020 one of Colorado’s most outspoken critics of Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law, Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams, was red flagged using the state’s 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.

That story was nuts.

And now it’s happened again, less than two months later.  Same inmate, new ERPO – from jail! 

According to a post on Reams’ Facebook page, on April 15, 2020 an Extreme Risk Protection Order petition was filed by inmate Leo Crespin against Sheriff Steve Reams, 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”, citing that he lives in Reams’ jail.

In the body of the petition the inmate states that Sheriff Reams arms his S.O.G. officers with 12 gauge shotguns.  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 immediately dismissed by district court Judge Vicente Vigil.

You can read the petition and the ruling in the images below, but it is along the same lines as the February ERPO that was filed.  Read all about that here.

 

 

WE’VE GOT FACE MASKS IN OUR STORE!

Face Masks for Gun Rights : Rally For Our Rights

 

 

CO Governor Issues Exec Order Altering Concealed Carry Permit Requirements Amid Coronavirus Outbreak

CO Governor Issues Exec Order Altering Concealed Carry Permit Requirements Amid Coronavirus Outbreak

Amid the recent widespread coronavirus meltdown, most counties in the state of Colorado have halted the issuing of new concealed handgun permits due to government agencies suspending all fingerprinting and other non-essential in-person contact in an effort to comply with public health directives. This included the required fingerprinting while issuing a new concealed handgun permit.

After several county sheriffs urged the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to put a temporary process in place to issue these permits, Colorado Governor Jared Polis included a section related to concealed handgun permits in Executive Order D-2020-029 which was issued on Monday, April 6, 2020. This section of the order alters the requirements to apply for and issue a concealed handgun permit under C.R.S. 18-12-205 by doing two things: suspending the in-person requirements, and eliminating the requirement that the sheriff must take two complete sets of an applicant’s fingerprints to submit to the CBI.  The order goes on to strongly encourage sheriffs to only issue a temporary emergency permit which would expire after 90 days as well as conduct a Colorado Crime Information Center (CCIC)/National Crime Information Center (NCIC) check of each applicant. The governor is also encouraging sheriffs to revisit and reevaluate permits issued under this executive order once the health directives have been lifted.  It appears these are only suggestions and ultimately the process will be left up to the individual county sheriffs to determine on a community level.

Here is the related excerpt of Executive Order D-2020-029:

I.  I temporarily suspend the “in person” requirements related to the application and issuance of permits to carry concealed handguns (Concealed Handgun Permits) contained in C.R.S. §§ 18-12-205(2)(a), (2)(b), (3)(a), (3)(b), and (4)(a). I also temporarily suspend the requirement in C.R.S. § 18-12-205(4)(b) that a sheriff shall take two (2) complete sets of an applicant’s fingerprints to submit to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In assessing each Concealed Handgun Permit application, I strongly encourage sheriffs, in order to maintain safety through social distancing, to first consider issuance of a temporary emergency permit pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-12-209 (valid for an initial period of ninety (90) days) if appropriate, and second, to conduct a Colorado Crime Information Center (CCIC)/National Crime Information Center (NCIC) check of each applicant to determine whether the applicant is eligible to possess a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) before issuing a Concealed Handgun Permit. During the effective period of this Executive Order, sheriffs may issue Concealed Handgun Permits pursuant C.R.S. §§ 18- 12-206 or -209 upon completion of the requirements of C.R.S. § 18-12-205, as modified by this Executive Order. Upon expiration of this Executive Order, I strongly encourage sheriffs to revisit and reevaluate permits granted under this Executive Order for compliance with all of the mandates in C.R.S. § 18-12-205.

With record breaking gun sales in the past thirty days, the limitations of the permitting process for those wishing to obtain a new conceal carry permit has created barriers, and we believe the better deregulation would be an executive order allowing for constitutional carry (allowing for open or conceal carry without a permit). Currently Colorado law only allows for the open carry of a firearm without a permit while conceal carry requires one.

But another barrier that still exists, even with the latest executive order, is the training requirement under C.R.S. 18-12-203(1)(h).  This statute requires the applicant to submit a training certificate from a handgun training class they completed within the ten years prior.  Although the executive order does suspend the requirement to submit the certificate in person, it does not change any of the training requirements – which explicitly requires in-person contact and makes clear online-only courses do not suffice.

According to C.R.S. 18-12-202(5)(III) the training requirement states:

(III)  A firearms safety course or class that is offered and taught by a certified instructor.
(b)  Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection
(5), “handgun training class” does not include any firearms safety course that allows a person to complete the entire course:(I)  Via the internet or an electronic device; or
(II)  In any location other than the physical location where the certified instructor offers the course

This means that applicants MUST be in both close proximity to other individuals and at a place of business in order to obtain this training certificate, all while under the governor’s own stay-at-home order.

Although if the sheriffs are issuing Temporary Emergency Permits it does suspend the training requirement for 90 days.

Another slice of the governor’s most recent executive order is likely related to the backlog CBI is facing with the unprecedented amount of background checks on gun purchases that has created a wait time of several days.

This section of the order waives the requirement that CBI make a determination within 30 days on denied background checks when the transferree claims it was imporperly denied.  Although the order is only good until April 30th or until any extension is lifted, it’s unclear how long CBI would have after it’s lifted.

Here is the related excerpt:

K.  I temporarily suspend the requirement in C.R.S. § 24-33.5-424(5)(b)(II) that CBI render a
final administrative decision regarding the denial of a firearm transfer within thirty (30)
days after receiving information from the transferee that alleges the transfer was
improperly denied, to provide CBI with additional time to complete these duties in light
of the support they are providing to the State during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the
expectation that CBI will fulfill these duties as soon as practicable.

Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith has already put into place how his office plans to utilize the deregulation surrounding this executive order and concealed handgun permits.  According to a post on the Sheriff’s Facebook page, they do intend to run applicants through NCIC as well as complete fingerprinting once the health directives have been lifted.

If you would like to know how your county is handling this, please contact them and then report back to us.  We’ll keep on top of the situation.

WE’VE GOT FACE MASKS IN OUR STORE!

Face Masks for Gun Rights : Rally For Our Rights

Colorado Legislature Introduces Mandatory Safe Gun Storage Bill

Colorado Legislature Introduces Mandatory Safe Gun Storage Bill

In a Facebook post, Colorado State Representative Monica Duran announced that she has introduce a “Safe Gun Storage” bill along with State Representative Kevin Mullica.  HB20-1355 Secure Storage of Firearms can be found here.

In Duran’s post, she states:

I am proud to be running Safe Gun Storage alongside Representative Mullica, being introduced today. Gun suicide claims the lives of 23,000 Americans annually, including 1,100 children and teens, making it a public health crisis in the U.S.

In over 80% of youth suicides involving a firearm, the gun belonged to a family member. Approximately 90% of suicide attempts involving a firearm end in death, compared to 4% for attempts not involving a firearm.

Every day, eight children are unintentionally shot or killed by a gun. A study found that households that locked both firearms and ammunition had an 85% lower risk of unintentional gun deaths compared to those who lock neither.

I look forward to improving public safety in our communities with this bill, and thank you to all of the advocates with Moms Demand Action who were able to join us today!

I am proud to be running Safe Gun Storage alongside Representative Mullica, being introduced today. Gun suicide claims…

Posted by State Representative Monica Duran on Friday, March 6, 2020


Constitutionality:

There are obviously some serious questions about what this law will look like and how bill sponsors plan to get around constitutionality.

Attorney Joseph Greenlee of Steamboat Springs has already written about this issue.  In a January 8, 2020 article for Complete Colorado he states:

“Safe storage” laws are unconstitutional because they prohibit immediate self-defense in the home. In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring that firearms be kept inoperable in the home, because it “makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” A “safe storage” law is another “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,” and is unconstitutional for the same reason.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has placed strict limitations on the government’s ability to regulate private conduct within the home. For example, the sanctity of the home prevents government from criminalizing the in-home possession of obscene materials (Stanley v. Georgia), homosexual conduct within the home (Lawrence v. Texas), and the use of contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut).

Indeed, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Constitution provides “protection against all governmental invasions of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” How Americans decide to store their arms inside their homes is therefore layers of constitutional protection beyond the reach of government.

Suicide:

A glaring hypocritical statement Duran makes is in relation to suicide. According to the CDC, there were 725 firearm suicides nationwide in 2018 for children aged 17 and under, while for that same age group there were 923 suicides by hanging/suffocation.  Colorado’s teen suicide rate has increased by 58% in 3 years and not because of firearms.  In 2018 for ages 0-19 there were 95 total suicides in Colorado, 48 of those were by hanging and 47 were by all other means which include intentional overdose, firearm, and others.  Simply restricting access to firearms does nothing to address the suicide rate and will only push these teens toward other methods.  Until we get to the root cause of suicide, it will not stop.

That said, Colorado’s suicide rates matter and we should all care.  There are private organizations who already work with gun owners in crisis or who worry someone in their home may be in crisis.  Hold My Guns is a private group who is working to partner with FFL’s and police departments to offer a place people can store firearms during a crisis.  There are also multiple suicide prevention hotlines. And recently CU Anschutz unveiled an interactive map that shows out-of-home gun storage facilities for this exact reason.  WTTA.org also offers non-crisis support to gun owners.

And then there are the crisis lines:

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: Call 1-800-273-8255, or chat online
Veterans Crisis Line:  Call 1-800-273-8255 and press 1, text 838255, or chat online

Accidental Deaths:

Accidents are the result of negligence. Since 1993, gun-accident fatalities have fallen 74 percent. You’ll be hard pressed to find a metric the CDC is tracking that shows such a remarkable trend in the positive direction. For example, you’re fifteen times more likely to be killed as a pedestrian than you will because of a gun accident (2017: 7450 pedestrian vs 486 gun accident). And to make this fact even more remarkable, this reduction in gun accidents happened solely from within the gun community without any intervention from the CDC, the medical establishment, or law enforcement.

Gun owners—and by this I mean law-abiding gun owners since a non-law-abiding gun owner is by definition a criminal—have on their own recognized the need for enhanced gun safety, that alcohol and guns don’t mix, and the need for safe storage to prevent handling by children and to prevent theft. Years ago, safe storage was hiding your guns in the bedroom closet; today gun owners brag about their gun safes.

Don’t take my word for it as the John Hopkins School for Gun Policy and Research says that: “…gun owners who purchase a firearm legally, generally are even more law-abiding than your average person.”

There are also statutes within Colorado Child Abuse law that mandates consequences for parents whose children accidentally cause harm to themselves or others via firearms.

Enforcement:

Lastly, we will need to spend some time reading into the bill language to determine how they intend to enforce this law, as well as who will be required to own a gun safe.  Will it be every gun owner regardless of whether or not they have children?  That’s like saying every car sold must also include a car seat, regardless if the person purchasing the vehicle and car seat will ever need it.

In addition, we’ve already seen here in Colorado that storage doesn’t stop criminals.  The perpetrators in the 2018 STEM School shooting busted into a gun safe using a crow bar and an ax.  They then took the guns to the school where they were stopped by an armed security guard after killing one student.

An accompanying piece of legislation is also expected to be introduced: Mandatory Reporting of Lost and Stolen Guns.  We can already see how they intend to use these laws together.  If you leave your gun in your car while you go into a gun free area such as your child’s school, and it’s stolen, as soon as you report it you will be asked why it wasn’t being “safely stored”, and criminal charges will ensue.  This will only mean less people will report their guns stolen out of fear they will punished.  Punitive laws don’t work.

Stay tuned for more information as we get it, including when these bills will be scheduled for public testimony.  The easiest way to stay up to date is to subscribe to our email list and connect on social media.  Click here to get connected.

 

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

No politician who supports gun control should get armed protection paid for by those they are trying to disarm sticker : Rally For Our Rights

(other designs available)

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

CO Sheriff, Red Flag ERPO Critic, Steve Reams Gets ERPO'd By Jail Inmate : Rally For Our Rights

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

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Will Be Defended Sticker - Rally for our Rights

(other designs available)

 

VIDEO: Leftist Protester Wants AK-47 To “Mow Down” Gun Rights Activists

VIDEO: Leftist Protester Wants AK-47 To "Mow Down" Gun Rights Activists

A group called “Longmont Leads With Love” has been protesting every Saturday in the same spot since Trump was elected in 2016.  This group of mostly baby boomers come together in a small commons area at 6th and Main in Longmont, CO.  Their message varies from week to week and person to person, but wanting more gun control is always part of it.  These protests are regularly attended by Longmont City Council members and the city of Longmont even passed a bizarre anti-gun resolution last year.

Recently a handful of Longmont residents decided they were tired of these protesters going unchallenged and started a counter-protest group they’ve coined as “Longmont Leads With Logic“.  So now, while the so-called “Love” group protests, you will find the “Logic” group on the opposite side of the street with signs, flags, and some even openly carrying firearms.

In an attempt to better understand what the “Love” group wants, people from the other side attempt to have conversations with them.  This exchange was caught on video.  A woman dressed in a Handmaid’s Tale costume, who was apparently protesting Trump’s boot on her neck, stated that if she had an AK-47, she’d mow down all the counter-protesters across the street.  Not very “loving” if you ask us.

WATCH!

 

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

No politician who supports gun control should get armed protection paid for by those they are trying to disarm sticker : Rally For Our Rights

(other designs available)

Bill Introduced To Repeal Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO Law

Bill Introduced To Repeal Colorado's Red Flag ERPO Law

Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law has only been in effect since the first of the year and a bill has already hit the state legislature to repeal it.  Introduced by Rep Lori Saine, Senator John Cooke and Senator Jim Smallwood, HB20-1271 Repeal Red Flag And Amend 72-hour Hold would effectively repeal the Extreme Risk Protection Order law while simultaneously changing the standard for a 72 hour involuntary hold.  It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.  No hearing is scheduled yet but because every bill gets a public hearing in Colorado, sparks will surely fly when it does.

The changes to the 72 hour hold would replace the term “imminent” with “extreme risk” which is defined as “a credible and exigent threat of danger to themselves or others through actionable threats of violence or death as a result of current mental health state”.  This would give officers more leeway in who they can place in a hold and would remove the person from the crisis, rather than leave a person in crisis while removing one tool harm could be done with.

With the hyper-partisan make up of the state legislature, it is highly unlikely the bill will make it out of committee.  That said, it will give activists a megaphone to bring the Red Flag ERPO abuses we’ve already seen front and center.

The highly controversial Red Flag ERPO bill, HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders, passed through the Colorado legislature last year by one single vote and was then signed by Governor Jared Polis.  It had bi-partisan opposition. Every Republican and three Democrats voted against it.

Colorado’s ERPO law has been used eight times since it became law.

Three were in Denver…

The first ERPO was filed by a police officer requesting to keep guns that had been voluntarily handed over during a domestic dispute call where the respondent made suicidal statements. The respondent voluntarily agreed to the ERPO before a permanent hearing. We detailed that case here and detailed how an ERPO wasn’t even needed.

Another hit Denver soon after.  In this case, the Temporary ERPO was filed by the ex-father in law of the respondent.  Ex-father in law claimed respondent had made non-specific threats.  Temporary ERPO was granted and a permanent hearing was scheduled for Jan 23, 2020.  Respondent did not initially voluntarily surrender his firearms or file the necessary affidavit stating he had personally relinquished them according to what is required by law; this prompted further action from the court at which time the firearms and CCW permit were seized. Respondent is also going through a nasty custody battle which according to him is being financed by the ex-father in law.  The case documents include pages and pages of angry, but non-threatening text messages between ex-father in law, respondent, and ex-wife.  On Jan 23, the hearing was vacated for two reasons: 1) ex-father in law is not a qualified person to file petition; 2) witnesses were out of town.

The next day another ERPO was filed against the same man by the ex-wife, who is qualified person to file under the law. That permanent case will be heard Feb 5, 2020.

In Larimer County three have now been filed… 

The first was filed by the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office on an inmate.  He was being held on two felony charges: Inciting Destruction of Life or Property and Retaliation Against a Witness or Victim.  The petition stated that the inmate did not own any guns, but while in jail he had told cell mates that when he gets out he “wants to kill 50 people”.   The ERPO was initiated in an effort to make him a prohibited buyer if he successfully bonded out.  We had lots of questions about this, as if he was released on bond, being a prohibited person is a condition of that bond.  After some back and forth with law enforcement and the CBI, it sounds like “it’s too much work” to get him into the CBI database via the bond route, therefore an ERPO was an easy band-aid to that broken piece of law. At the permanent hearing, an attorney for the inmate respondent argued for more time as she believed he may already be adjudicated mentally defective and a prohibited buyer.  The permanent hearing was rescheduled for March 5, 2020.

The second Larimer case was filed by 64 year old Susan Holmes against CSU Police Officer Phillip Morris.  Morris had shot and killed Holmes’ mentally unstable, knife wielding son in 2017.  Body cam footage clearly shows the shooting as justified, and the DA agreed.  On her petition, which she discussed in a YouTube video, Holmes stated that her and Morris had a child in common, a fact that made her a person qualified to file.  They do not have a child in common.  Holmes discovered a loophole in the ERPO law that allowed her to bypass the Temporary ERPO hearing which would have likely denied her at the door, and instead move right into a full permanent orders hearing.  That hearing was a circus and the Permanent ERPO was denied in the end.  The Larimer county DA then put out an arrest warrant for Holmes based on two charges: Perjury and Attempting to Influence a Public Servant.  After nearly two weeks on the run, Holmes was arrested.

And the third Larimer case was denied at the Temporary ERPO hearing, but it’s so absurd it’s worth pointing out.  This was our first case of legitimate family members: sister and brother.  The petitioner is the sister who is apparently allowing her brother to live with her temporarily.  The brother got very upset when someone moved his soap, and allegedly screamed at his sister and their father.  Sister felt physically threatened and claimed she had seen a gun in the past but wasn’t sure where it is now or if he still had it.  No other information besides the soap incident was provided.  The petition was denied.  Case closed.

Douglas County tried to do one too…

Douglas County Sheriff’s Office filed a temporary ERPO on an inmate in their jail.  The inmate was homeless and owned no guns, but had made suicidal statements while detained.  Similar to the thinking of Larimer ERPOing their inmate, this would have made him a prohibited buyer and unable to legally purchase a firearm when released.  At the Temporary ERPO hearing it was discovered he was already a prohibited buyer because he’d been Adjudicated Mentally Defective in the past.  ERPO denied, case closed.

And one in Lincoln County…

Another was filed in Lincoln County by a woman who claimed a man “whom she’d had relationship with” had made physical and verbal threats to her with a handgun.  She also claimed he used alcohol and marijuana. The judge denied the temporary petition but his reasoning was not made public.

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

No politician who supports gun control should get armed protection paid for by those they are trying to disarm sticker : Rally For Our Rights

(other designs available)

VIDEO: Police Break Down Susan Holmes’ Door To Make Arrest For “Red Flag” ERPO Perjury Charge

VIDEO: Police Break Down Susan Holmes’ Door To Make Arrest For “Red Flag” ERPO Perjury Charge

Susan Holmes has been arrested and it happened during a live stream with YouTuber “timmybmn”.  For over 20 minutes, on the uncut version of the video, Holmes discussed her son’s case as well as Red Flag laws.  The entire time police can be heard outside.  Eventually they break into her home and arrest her while still on the YouTube stream.  The arrest occurs approx at the 10:40 timestamp in the video below.

WATCH!

Nine days into Colorado’s atrocious Red Flag ERPO law being on the books, Susan Holmes made national news by filing a petition against a police officer who killed her mentally unstable knife wielding son in 2017.  On the petition Susan claimed her and Officer Phillip Morris had a child in common, which made her a qualifying person.  “Child in common” has no definition included on the petition.  She live streamed the filing of the petition on her YouTube channel.  You can watch that here.

Holmes managed to find a loophole in the law that allowed her to skip the Temporary ERPO hearing where the petition likely would have been denied at the door, and go right to a Permanent ERPO hearing instead.  This meant a full hearing where both parties were required to be present and both parties would have as much time as needed to present their case. This hearing was a circus and was denied in the end.  We were there and you can read our recap here.

On January 23, 2020 the Larimer County DA issued an arrest warrant for Holmes and even added her to the county’s Most Wanted list.  Her charges? Perjury and Attempting to Influence a Public Servant.  According to Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith, the Perjury charge was based on the false statement on the petition, and the Attempting to Influence a Public Servant charge was because her end goal was to have a judge grant an Extreme Risk Protection Order on Officer Morris.

Let us know your thoughts on this latest development in the comments.  Do you think if a civilian had a fraudulent Red Flag ERPO filed against them, the person who filed the false petition would be receiving the same treatment as Susan Holmes?

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

No politician who supports gun control should get armed protection paid for by those they are trying to disarm sticker : Rally For Our Rights

(other designs available)

Virginia Gun Rights Rally Brings 22,000+ People, Guns, Energy – And No Violence

In an inspiring show of solidarity, tens of thousands of gun rights advocates from all walks of life attended a Second Amendment Rally in Richmond, Virginia today.

The rally was part of the Virginia Citizens Defense League’s annual lobby day.  This year it garnered national attention after anti-gun Democrats swept all branches of the legislature last November and promised to pass some of the most egregious gun control the state had ever seen.

Just last week three gun control bills passed the State Senate including expanded background checks to include private sales, one handgun purchase per month limit, and giving local control to the municipalities to prohibit firearms in permitted events or events that should be permitted.  Those bills will now move on to the House of Delegates where anti-gun lawmakers have a large majority.  Governor Ralph Northam has promised to sign the bills.  There are several other gun control measures that may still be introduced this session, including an assault weapons ban and a Red Flag bill.

Leading up to the event, Governor Northam banned firearms inside the capitol and Declared a State of Emergency due to what he was sure would turn to violence.  Potential attendees were being painted as white supremacists and even Nazis by the mainstream media and the gun grabbing groups.  There were whispers that Antifa would show up to disrupt the event and provoke violence.  Then there were suggestions that Antifa was coming to join in solidarity.

You seem to be confused. The Nazi’s are the ones who want to TAKE the guns. That would you be you, your ilk, and your government pawns. #IStandWithVirginia #VirginiaSTRONG #VirginiaRally #2A #SecondAmendmnt #GunRights #Virginia2A

— Rally For Our Rights (@RallyRights) January 20, 2020

As the event started, it quickly became apparent none of that was true as over 22,000 people, many openly carrying firearms, streamed into the city, surrounding the capitol that was enclosed by a fence.  If you wanted to get through the fence onto the capitol grounds, there was as long list of rules and prohibited items.  In the end, those who were armed stayed outside the fence and those who were not could proceed inside onto government grounds.

Check out this exchange between attendees…”United we stand…”

The MSM told you that the #VirginiaRally pro-2A rally in Virginia was really a “white supremacist” rally that would be drought with violence. I guarantee you won’t see this man on @MSNBC or on @CNN – when a black person carries legally they ignore them!pic.twitter.com/GkUsjsIOTy

— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) January 20, 2020

And as the mainstream media tried to paint the picture of this rally being Charlottesville 2, those on the ground set the record straight.  WATCH!

The hard to swallow truth for these anti-gun lawmakers in Virginia is that gun rights transcends traditional partisan politics and reaches into the hearts of millions.

The right to an armed defense is one of the most critical rights of all – regardless of sex, race, creed, class, sexual orientation, or age.  Gun rights are human rights.

But the real question is what will happen next. My hopes is this fired people up and they’re ready to take it out at the ballot box come 2020 elections. 

Enjoy these images from today’s event.

And we’ve got all your Virginia Second Amendment Rally 2020 merchandise!  Including unisex tees and hoodies, women’s fit tees, mugs and stickers.  All proceeds directly support the fight to defend your guns rights! 

Check it out here: www.rallyforourrights.com/store-4/virginia-2020

Virginia Second Amendment Rally shirts mugs stickers hoodies

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

No politician who supports gun control should get armed protection paid for by those they are trying to disarm sticker : Rally For Our Rights

(other designs available)

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

Red Flag ERPO Denied Against Police Officer Who Shot Petitioner's Son : Rally For Our Rights
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

No politician who supports gun control should get armed protection paid for by those they are trying to disarm sticker : Rally For Our Rights

(other designs available)