Red Flag ERPO Bill Creates New “CIVIL” Search Warrant Specific To Colorado Gun Owners

Red Flag ERPO Bill Creates New “CIVIL” Search Warrant Specific To Colorado Gun Owners : Rally for our Rights

Buried deep inside the 30 pages of Colorado’s HB19-1177: “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders bill language is one of the most frightening – and unconstitutional – aspects of the proposed legislation.  They are creating a new type of search warrant in the state that would be specific to gun owners only: a civil search warrant.  This civil search warrant would be issued along with the initial temporary ERPO, meaning the very first contact between law enforcement and the accused would be a search of the home with the goal being to confiscate firearms.

Currently, with very few exceptions, search warrants are only issued for criminal reasons.  According to mountains of existing case law, search warrants are granted by convincing a neutral and detached magistrate that they have probable cause to believe that criminal activity is occurring at the place to be searched or that evidence of a crime may be found there. Anything that strays from this definition is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment.  

Considering ERPO’s would be issued based on accusations by a petitioner over the phone with a $0 filing fee and only requires substantial evidence, this new gun-owner-specific search warrant is more than troubling, it is downright dangerous.  Especially when factoring in who can petition the court for an ERPO, that being: a family member, a spouse, a girlfriend/boyfriend, an ex-spouse, an ex-girlfriend/boyfriend, a roommate, a former roommate, anyone the accused has been intimate with even if they have never resided together, grandparents, stepparents, stepchildren, step-siblings, and anyone in law enforcement. 

The accusations can range from fear someone will harm themselves, or harm others (and not necessarily with a firearm), to simply owning a gun or talking about purchasing one.

I’ve been writing and hitting the airwaves talking about Colorado’s proposed version of a Red Flag Law extensively since the bill was introduced last month, and have said again and again it is one of the most dangerous and overreaching versions I have seen across the country.  This new gun-owner-specific civil search warrant is part of the reason.  Nevertheless, I decided to research if any other states have anything similar tied in with their Red Flag laws, and came up empty handed.  In fact, during my research into civil search warrants, the only examples I could find of them were with intellectual property, and even then they require clear and convincing evidence in order to be granted HB19-1177 only requires substantial evidence to have the warrant issued, and it is not intellectual property being seized – it is real property that is constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment.

So, what’s the difference between “Substantial” and “Clear and Convincing”?

Substantial Evidence: Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”  This level of evidence is often used in administrative cases such as DMV hearings, or determining unemployment benefits.

Clear and Convincing:  The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard goes by descriptions such as “clear, cogent, unequivocal, satisfactory, convincing” evidence. Generally, this standard is reserved for civil lawsuits where something more than money is at stake, such as civil liberties.

Scary stuff, right?  THIS is why nearly half the counties across Colorado have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries, with their sheriffs leading the way.  Most county sheriffs read this bill and say “No Way”.  They understand how unconstitutional it is, as well as how dangerous the outcomes can be for both those being accused and law enforcement officers who will be expected to raid someone’s home based on the same level of evidence needed to approve an unemployment application which can be presented by a scorned lover over the phone for $0.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Watch this video to hear the bill proponents and sponsors explain this new search warrant in detail…

What else is so bad about this bill?  Well, nearly everything.

This year’s bill is being called an “Emergency Risk Protection Order” or ERPO in an attempt to lose the negative “Red Flag” reputation.  It is also being pushed more than ever as being about suicide prevention.  Don’t let any of it fool you.  The devil is in the details; it’s in the 30 pages of bill language.  You can read a complete break down of these 30 pages here, as well as watch a video going through the language line by line.

Here’s what you’ll hear the media say this bill does:

A family member or law enforcement officer would petition a court to request the ability to immediately seize a person’s guns. If a judge signs the order, the weapons can be taken away and the court must hold a hearing within 14 days to determine whether to extend the seizure and bar the person from purchasing more firearms.”

Here’s what they wont tell you: 

• Almost anyone can request an ERPO without even showing their face or providing their address. The definition of “family or household member” is so broad it includes ex-lovers who you have never even lived with!  Or someone *claiming* you once had an affair.  And even old roommates.

• The initial report and hearing can be done over the phone, all while the accused is completely oblivious proceedings are taking place to have his or her firearms confiscated.

• The first time the accused learns someone has reported them will be when local law enforcement shows up at their door with an order AND a search warrant prepared to raid your home – while the accused never even committed a crime.

• 14 days later is the first time the accused will have a chance to defend themselves against this non-crime.

• The guns will be confiscated for 364 days, during which time the accused only has one opportunity to ask the courts to lift the order.

• There is zero accountability for false accusers. In fact, the filing fee is $0! For comparison, requesting a Temporary Restraining Order in Colorado is $97.

• This bill is being touted as a “suicide prevention” bill, when in fact, the fear of having your firearms confiscated will make people terrified to ask for help when they need it.

• It is so rife for abuse, it can easily be used by someone’s stalker or abuser to have their victim disarmed – legally.

• The ERPO will go on a person’s permanent record EVEN if it is dismissed, meaning it will show up on background checks, etc.

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)

 

More Than Half Colorado Counties Say WE WILL NOT COMPLY To Red Flag Law Should It Pass

Colorado Counties Say WE WILL NOT COMPLY To Red Flag Law Should It Pass : Rally for our Rights

(red counties have passed resolutions, yellow counties sheriffs oppose but county has not taken action, gray counties sheriffs support, white is unknown)

UPDATED July 13th, 2019

Recently we reported when two Colorado counties passed resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties, and since then that number has grown to over half of Colorado’s counties that have either passed a resolution or are poised to pass one at an upcoming meeting.  In addition, both the Denver and Aurora Police Unions expressed their opposition in a press release.

Wondering what a Second Amendment Sanctuary County means?  In nearly all of these instances, these efforts are being led by the county sheriff, then joined by the county commissioners, who say no county funds will be used to process ERPO’s or store confiscated weapons, and that the right to keep and bear arms extends to all citizens of the county.  How far will YOUR sheriff go to not comply should HB19-1177 become law?  Well, it varies and I’d suggest asking them yourself for more specific clarificiation.

Here’s the scoop on the current list of Second Amendment Sanctuary counties:

Garfield County: Passed Resolution April 8, 2019
Las Animas County: Passed Resolution April 3, 2019
Phillips County: Passed Resolution April 3, 2019
Morgan County: Issued Statement April 3, 2019
Bent County: Passed Resolution March 27, 2019
Sedgwick County: Passed Resolution March 20, 2019
Montrose County: Passed Resolution March 20, 2019
Mineral County: Passed Resolution March 19, 2019
Lincoln County: Passed Resolution March 19, 2019
Archuleta County: Passed Resolution March 19, 2019
Delta County: Passed Resolution March 19, 2019
Logan County: Passed Resolution March 19, 2019
Huerfano County: Passed Resolution March 19, 2019
Crowley County: Passed Resolution March 18, 2019
Jackson County: Passed Resolution March 14, 2019
Rio Grande County: Passed Resolution March 13, 2019
Elbert County: Passed Resolution March 13, 2019
Alamosa County: Passed Resolution March 13, 2019
Washington County: Passed resolution March 12, 2019
Douglas County: Passed resolution March 12, 2019 (Sheriff not in support)
Dolores County: Passed resolution March 12, 2019
El Paso County: Passed resolution March 12, 2019 (Sheriff may still enforce law or parts of law)
Prowers County: Passed resolution March 11, 2019
Cheyenne County: Passed resolution March 8, 2019
Park County: Passed resolution March 7, 2019
Teller County: Passed resolution March 7, 2019
Baca County: Passed resolution March 6, 2019
Conejos County: Passed resolution March 6, 2019
Kit Carson County: Passed resolution March 6, 2019
Weld County: Passed resolution March 6, 2019
Moffat County: Passed resolution March 5, 2019
Montezuma County: Passed resolution Feb 28, 2019
Custer County: Passed resolution Feb 28, 2019
Kiowa County: Passed resolution Feb 28, 2019
Fremont County: Passed resolution Feb 26, 2019
Rio Blanco County: Passed resolution May 21, 2018
Otero County: Passed resolution in 2013, although they commissioners and sheriff are refusing to draft language specific to HB19-1177

These municipalities have joined with their counties:

Commerce City, CO: Passed resolution June 4, 2019
Craig, CO: Passed resolution March 11, 2019
Canon City, CO: Passed resolution March 18, 2019
Milliken, CO: Passed resolution March 27, 2019
Silver Cliff, CO: Passed resolution April 1, 2019
Lamar, CO: Set to pass resolution
Greeley, CO: Considering

Colorado Counties Say WE WILL NOT COMPLY To Red Flag Law Should It Pass : Rally for our Rights

The following counties are considering implementing similar resolutions or their sheriff is in opposition:

Adams County

Adams County Sheriff Rick Reigenborn stated on Facebook that he has not been up to speed on the Red Flag Bill, but upon further review he agrees Sheriff Reams brings up a lot of important issues, and as written, he opposes the bill as well.  He believes there are many flaws.

Eagle County

In Eagle County the sheriff came out the day the governor signed the bill with a very thorough analysis of why he is now in opposition of the legislation as written.  That can be found here.

Routt County

The Routt County sheriff has publicly stated that he supports the concept of a Red Flag Law, but finds HB19-1177 deeply flawed with many potential problems.

Ouray County

The Ouray county sheriff is against the bill.

Saguache County

In Saguache county, the sheriff has asked the citizens to contact their county commissioners requesting they pass a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution.

Grand County

Grand  County Sheriff is in direct opposition of Colorado’s Red Flag law, calling it unconsituational, and the county commissioners echo his concerns.  They are determining what to do next.

Yuma County

Yuma County Sheriff T.C. Combs is working with the Yuma County Commissioners to pass a resolution making their county a Second Amendment Sanctuary.  They are currently awaiting legal advice before moving to the final vote.  All three county commissioners support the resolution.

Chaffee County

The Chaffee county sheriff said at state senator Kerry Donovan’s town hall that he is in complete opposition of Colorado’s Red Flag bill, and he joined with the commissioners to draft a letter to the legislature pointing out 14 very specific issues with this legislation. The commissioners side stepped the issue at their recent meeting and moved the issue to a public forum.

Pueblo County

The Pueblo County Sheriff has publicly voiced his opposition and two of the three Democrat county commissioner made public statements at their last county commissioner meeting that they have grave concerns with the bill (the third was not present).

Mesa County

Rose Pugliese, chairwoman of the Mesa County Board of Commissioners, said her board passed a comprehensive resolution in 2013 supporting the Second Amendment and she plans to present the newest resolution to the entire board of commissioners in the coming days.  The Mesa County Sheriff has also come out in strong opposition to the Red Flag legislation currently being considered.

Larimer County

In Larimer County, Sheriff Justin Smith has publicly stated his opposition to the current version of the Red Flag bill, and all three county commissioners (including Democrat and former State Senator, John Kefalas) have issued a letter to the Senate asking them to oppose this bill.

Jefferson County

Jefferson County Sheriff Jeff Shrader is also in public opposition to HB19-1177.  The Board of County Commissioners have yet to make a statement.  I will reach out to them as well.

 

In Anticipation Of Red Flag Law, Colorado Counties Declared Gun Rights Sanctuaries En Masse

Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties Colorado Rally for our Rights

UPDATED April 13th, 2019

It’s a battle that’s playing out across the nation: states that are pushing gun control legislation directly against the will of the citizens are witnessing entire counties push back en masse.  In New Mexico 29 out of 33 counties have declared themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries”.  In Oregon, ten counties ran “Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances” on the ballot last election, and it passed in eight of them.  In Washington, 20 counties have said they will not enforce the overreaching laws forced upon law abiding citizens when I-1639 passed last November.  And we’re seeing it pop up other places as well, including Nevada and Illinois.

It should come as no surprise with HB19-1177 – “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders – looming, Colorado is following suit – and the counties are adding up fast.

Have no doubt, this is just the tip of the iceberg as Colorado’s very ugly version of a “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) bill is being rushed through the legislature.  The “Red Flag” bill has passed the state house and senate, and is awaiting the governor’s signature.  Click here to contact him immediately and ask he veto this terrible piece of legislation. And then make sure to sign our petition in support of strategic recalls should this bill pass! 

Wondering what a Second Amendment Sanctuary County means?  In nearly all of these instances, these efforts are being led by the county sheriff, then joined by the county commissioners, who say no county funds will be used to process ERPO’s or store confiscated weapons, and that the right to keep and bear arms extends to all citizens of the county.  How far will YOUR sheriff go to not comply should HB19-1177 become law?  Well, it varies and I’d suggest asking them yourself for more specific clarificiation.

Here’s the scoop on the current list of Second Amendment Sanctuary counties:

Garfield County: Passed Resolution April 8, 2019
Las Animas County: Passed Resolution April 3, 2019
Phillips County: Passed Resolution April 3, 2019
Morgan County: Issued Statement April 3, 2019
Bent County: Passed Resolution March 27, 2019
Sedgwick County: Passed Resolution March 20, 2019
Montrose County: Passed Resolution March 20, 2019
Mineral County: Passed Resolution March 19, 2019
Lincoln County: Passed Resolution March 19, 2019
Archuleta County: Passed Resolution March 19, 2019
Delta County: Passed Resolution March 19, 2019
Logan County: Passed Resolution March 19, 2019
Huerfano County: Passed Resolution March 19, 2019
Crowley County: Passed Resolution March 18, 2019
Jackson County: Passed Resolution March 14, 2019
Rio Grande County: Passed Resolution March 13, 2019
Elbert County: Passed Resolution March 13, 2019
Alamosa County: Passed Resolution March 13, 2019
Washington County: Passed resolution March 12, 2019
Douglas County: Passed resolution March 12, 2019 (Sheriff not in support)
Dolores County: Passed resolution March 12, 2019
El Paso County: Passed resolution March 12, 2019 (Sheriff may still enforce law or parts of law)
Prowers County: Passed resolution March 11, 2019
Cheyenne County: Passed resolution March 8, 2019
Park County: Passed resolution March 7, 2019
Teller County: Passed resolution March 7, 2019
Baca County: Passed resolution March 6, 2019
Conejos County: Passed resolution March 6, 2019
Kit Carson County: Passed resolution March 6, 2019
Weld County: Passed resolution March 6, 2019
Moffat County: Passed resolution March 5, 2019
Montezuma County: Passed resolution Feb 28, 2019
Custer County: Passed resolution Feb 28, 2019
Kiowa County: Passed resolution Feb 28, 2019
Fremont County: Passed resolution Feb 26, 2019
Rio Blanco County: Passed resolution May 21, 2018
Otero County: Passed resolution in 2013, although they commissioners and sheriff are refusing to draft language specific to HB19-1177

These municipalities have joined with their counties:

Craig, CO: Passed resolution March 11, 2019
Canon City, CO: Passed resolution March 18, 2019
Milliken, CO: Passed resolution March 27, 2019
Silver Cliff, CO: Passed resolution April 1, 2019
Lamar, CO: Set to pass resolution
Greeley, CO: Considering

Colorado Counties Say WE WILL NOT COMPLY To Red Flag Law Should It Pass : Rally for our Rights

The following counties are considering implementing similar resolutions or their sheriff is in opposition:

Adams County

Adams County Sheriff Rick Reigenborn stated on Facebook that he has not been up to speed on the Red Flag Bill, but upon further review he agrees Sheriff Reams brings up a lot of important issues, and as written, he opposes the bill as well.  He believes there are many flaws.

Eagle County

In Eagle County the sheriff came out the day the governor signed the bill with a very thorough analysis of why he is now in opposition of the legislation as written.  That can be found here.

Routt County

The Routt County sheriff has publicly stated that he supports the concept of a Red Flag Law, but finds HB19-1177 deeply flawed with many potential problems.

Ouray County

The Ouray county sheriff is against the bill.

Saguache County

In Saguache county, the sheriff has asked the citizens to contact their county commissioners requesting they pass a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution.

Grand County

Grand  County Sheriff is in direct opposition of Colorado’s Red Flag law, calling it unconsituational, and the county commissioners echo his concerns.  They are determining what to do next.

Yuma County

Yuma County Sheriff T.C. Combs is working with the Yuma County Commissioners to pass a resolution making their county a Second Amendment Sanctuary.  They are currently awaiting legal advice before moving to the final vote.  All three county commissioners support the resolution.

Chaffee County

The Chaffee county sheriff said at state senator Kerry Donovan’s town hall that he is in complete opposition of Colorado’s Red Flag bill, and he joined with the commissioners to draft a letter to the legislature pointing out 14 very specific issues with this legislation. The commissioners side stepped the issue at their recent meeting and moved the issue to a public forum.

Pueblo County

The Pueblo County Sheriff has publicly voiced his opposition and two of the three Democrat county commissioner made public statements at their last county commissioner meeting that they have grave concerns with the bill (the third was not present).

Mesa County

Rose Pugliese, chairwoman of the Mesa County Board of Commissioners, said her board passed a comprehensive resolution in 2013 supporting the Second Amendment and she plans to present the newest resolution to the entire board of commissioners in the coming days.  The Mesa County Sheriff has also come out in strong opposition to the Red Flag legislation currently being considered.

Larimer County

In Larimer County, Sheriff Justin Smith has publicly stated his opposition to the current version of the Red Flag bill, and all three county commissioners (including Democrat and former State Senator, John Kefalas) have issued a letter to the Senate asking them to oppose this bill.

Jefferson County

Jefferson County Sheriff Jeff Shrader is also in public opposition to HB19-1177.  The Board of County Commissioners have yet to make a statement.  I will reach out to them as well.

Did I miss any?  If so, let me know in the comment and I’ll add them! 

Want yours added to the list?  Contact your county sheriff and county commissioners and ask them what their position is on such a measure.  If they support it, feel free to contact us and we can help make it happen.

In the meantime, make sure you sign our petition in support of strategic recalls!  Click here.  

 

Two Colorado Counties Declared Gun Rights Sanctuaries As Red Flag Bill Looms

COLORADO'S FREMONT & MONTEZUMA COUNTIES DECLARED GUN RIGHTS SANCTUARIES! Rally for our Rights

Early Tuesday February 26th, two separate Colorado counties voted to declare themselves Second Amendment Sanctuary counties.  Both Fremont and Montezuma counties held their regular Board of County Commissioners meetings and either passed or started the process to pass resolutions stating if Colorado’s HB19-1177: Emergency Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) is passed into law, they will not enforce it.

HB19-1177, which is Colorado’s proposed Red Flag gun control legislation passed the House Judiciary Committee last Thursday after nearly ten hours of testimony for and against.  Dozens of those wishing to testify in opposition to the bill had already left when they were called up to testify at 9 and 10 o’clock at night.  Many of those who were not able to speak had been there since noon.

In Fremont County, Chairman Dwayne McFall led the initiative in direct response to HB19-1177, which he says violates multiple Constitutional amendments.

In Montezuma County, more than 100 people attended and many shared their comments about the Red Flag legislation being considered.  The Board of County Commissioners were said to be transparent and shared a copy of the resolution with those in attendance indicating the county’s position against a Red Flag ERPO law, calling it a dangerous infringement on the Second Amendment and civil liberties.  Montezuma County Sheriff, Steve Nowlin, was also in attendance and supported the resolution.  The final draft of this resolution will be discussed in a Special Meeting on Thursday, February 28th at 6:30 p.m. The public is invited. 

Many other sheriffs in Colorado — including El Paso County Sheriff Bill Elder, Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams, Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell, and Fremont County Sheriff Allen Cooper — say they don’t approve of the bill as written because they believe it infringes on citizens’ rights to due process. Even Democrat Sheriff out of Pueblo County, Kirk Taylor, says he doesn’t believe there are adequate due process protections for gun owners in this year’s version of the bill.

Colorado’s proposed “Red Flag” legislation is one of the worst the U.S. has ever seen. This year’s bill is being called an “Emergency Risk Protection Order” or ERPO in an attempt to lose the negative “Red Flag” reputation.  It is also being pushed more than ever as being about suicide prevention.  Don’t let any of it fool you.  The devil is in the details; it’s in the 30 pages of bill language.  You can read a complete break down of these 30 pages here, as well as watch a video going through the language line by line.

Here’s what you’ll hear the media say this bill does:

A family member or law enforcement officer would petition a court to request the ability to immediately seize a person’s guns. If a judge signs the order, the weapons can be taken away and the court must hold a hearing within 14 days to determine whether to extend the seizure and bar the person from purchasing more firearms.”

Here’s what they wont tell you: 

• Almost anyone can request an ERPO without even showing their face or providing their address. The definition of “family or household member” is so broad it includes ex-lovers who you have never even lived with!  Or someone *claiming* you once had an affair.  And even old roommates.

• The initial report and hearing can be done over the phone, all while the accused is completely oblivious proceedings are taking place to have his or her firearms confiscated.

• The first time the accused learns someone has reported them will be when local law enforcement shows up at their door with an order AND a search warrant prepared to raid your home – while the accused never even committed a crime.

• 14 days later is the first time the accused will have a chance to defend themselves against this non-crime.

• The guns will be confiscated for 364 days, during which time the accused only has one opportunity to ask the courts to lift the order.

• There is zero accountability for false accusers. In fact, the filing fee is $0! For comparison, requesting a Temporary Restraining Order in Colorado is $97.

• This bill is being touted as a “suicide prevention” bill, when in fact, the fear of having your firearms confiscated will make people terrifed to ask for help when they need it.

• It is so rife for abuse, it can easily be used by someone’s stalker or abuser to have their victim disarmed – legally.

• The ERPO will go on a person’s permanent record EVEN if it is dismissed, meaning it will show up on background checks, etc.

I attended the hearing last week to testify in opposition to this bill.  I arrived at noon and was the very last person to be called to testify – nearly ten hours later.  After listening to testimony all day, I decided rather than once again testify to how unconstitutional the bill is or how it lacks due process, I’d instead testify to my own experience having the legal and judicial system used against me as an act of harassment during a 22 months custody battle.

Watch my testimony in the video below:

Ready to recall??  Sign our petition in support of recalling if and when the need arises.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN PETITION.

While Promoting Red Flag Bill, Denver Post Gets Their Suicide By Firearm Facts Grossly Wrong

On Monday Feb 25th, journalist Anna Staver over at the Denver Post released an articled titled “What Colorado can learn from “red flag” gun laws in other states as lawmakers debate passing their own version”.  This article discusses how the opposition and support for Colorado’s proposed “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) bill varies, as well as goes into some detail about the effects of this law on other states.

The bill being considered in Colorado, HB19-1177, passed the State House Judiciary Committee last Thursday after nearly ten hours of testimony for and against it.  The opposing sides continued to testify well into the night, with dozens of gun rights activists being called well after they had left.  Had they all stayed, testimony undoubtedly would have continued into the early morning hours.  The bill will be heard in the House Appropriations Committee this week where no public testimony will be taken, and it is expected to pass.  It could see a vote of the full House Chamber as early as next week.

Proponents of this bill are arguing it as a “suicide prevention measure”, as threat to harm self is one of the reasons for firearms confiscation allowed in the bill.  Never mind the chilling unintended consequences this law would have on those who are feeling suicidal – such as fear of reaching out for help, and escalating an already distressing situation.  But the suicide facts Ms. Staver used in her article are wrong on their face.  Here’s what her article says about suicide:

Suicide prevention

Suicide is the leading type of gun death in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And supporters of Colorado’s extreme risk protection order bill claim it would prevent some of those deaths from happening in the Centennial State.

“What we are doing with this bill is giving law enforcement a tool that they need to save lives,” said Rep. Tom Sullivan, D-Centennial. “The majority of the time it’s going to be someone who is going to do harm to themselves.”

The data supports Sullivan’s assertion that if Colorado allows extreme risk protection orders, the majority of cases will involve suicidal ideation. About 80 percent of the gun seizures in Indiana and 60 percent in Connecticut arose from concerns about suicide.

But did removing those guns prevent violent self-harm?

Aaron Kivisto, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Indianapolis who studied suicide rates in both states, said the answer is yes in Indiana and no in Connecticut.

Kivisto found a 7.5 percent reduction in suicides via gun in the decade following the enactment of Indiana’s law and a 13.7 percent reduction in Connecticut in the “post-Virginia Tech period, when enforcement of the law substantially increased.”

But he found something else in Connecticut: An uptick in non-firearm suicides meant the overall suicide rate was essentially unchanged.

He said he doesn’t know why the two states got two different results, but one possible explanation is the cultural differences between them.

“Taking the gun isn’t the end of the situation. It doesn’t reduce the crisis,” Kivisto said. “It leaves someone in a crisis without a gun.”

Rally for our Rights supporter and gun rights activist, Mario Acevedo of Denver, thought the Indiana numbers didn’t seem accurate.  So he did his own research.  He found that not only were Ms. Staver’s numbers inaccurate, but they were wrong on the white paper she referenced.

Suicide Rates Red Flag ERPO Colorado Rally for our Rights

Here’s the letter Mario sent to Ms. Staver and the Denver Post.  I repeated the same research Mario had done on the CDC’s website and came up with exactly the same numbers he did.  Indiana has one of the fastest increasing rates of suicide in the nation.

Anna Staver
[email protected]

February 25, 2018

Anna,

In your article “Colorado can learn “red flag” lessons from red states,” you mentioned that professor Aaron Kivisto found that Indiana saw a 7.5 percent reduction in gun suicides following the 2005 adoption of their “red lag” gun confiscation law. That sounded off to me since Indiana is a state hit hard by the opioid epidemic and suicides are an unfortunate consequence of such drug abuse. According to the Centers for Disease Control:

In 2005, Indiana had 416 gun suicides, 745 total suicides, and 11.82 suicides per 100K population Age Adjusted Rate.

In 2017, Indiana had 604 gun suicides, 1092 total suicides, and 16.36 suicides per 100K population Age Adjusted Rate.

I don’t know what numbers or methodology Kivisto was using but his findings appear to be completely bogus. You are more than welcome to confirm my numbers at the CDC WISQARS Fatal Injury Reports.

My issue with red flag laws is that there’s a lot of hand waving over the results that cause me to question the purpose of such law. Effective policy, in this case to reduce fatal self-harm, must be based on reality and facts, not simply good intentions or wishes.

Sincerely,

Mario Acevedo
Denver, Colorado

Think they’ll bother to do the research themselves and correct this glaring inaccuracy?  We really shouldn’t have to fact check the fact checkers.  

Mario also contacted the author of the white paper, Aaron Kivisto.  Mr. Kivisto did respond!  But his response gave us a big WTF?  Basically they decided the rate of suicide has decreased because it’s lower than what the projected rates were had the bill not passed.  Do these people have a crystal ball?

Mr. Acevedo,

Thanks for your email. You’re absolutely right that in absolute terms suicides have increased. Our study approached the issue not in terms of absolute reductions, however, but in terms of reductions from the number of suicides that would have been expected in each state had the lot not been passed. In other words, our statistical approach utilized a technique known as the synthetic control methodology. It’s an approach developed by MIT economists to study the effects of policy changes and is currently considered among the most robust methods available to study the impact of policy change. In short, the approach provides a counterfactual – that is, an estimate of what the suicide rate would have been in Indiana had they not enacted the law, as well as in Connecticut had they not enacted the law. These estimates are compared to observed rates, and reductions represent the difference between these estimated and observed values.

The apparent contradiction you were noticing comes from the fact that suicide rates can indeed rise, but not rise at as rapid arete as would be expected. Similarly, there could be an absolute reduction in suicide rates, but a reduction not as fast as would be expected, which would be interpreted as a problematic impact.

I hope that this is helpful.

Aaron Kivisto, Ph.D., HSPP

We here at Rally for our Rights certainly don’t take suicide lightly.  In fact, many of us including myself and Mario have lost loved ones to suicide.  It’s an issue near and dear to our hearts.  Which likely makes this even more infuriating.  Suicide is a serious problem in society and manipulating stats to pass bad legislation is despicable.

Watch this testimony given by 19 year gun rights activist, Haley Marcantonio, during the Red Flag ERPO hearing last week.  What she doesn’t mention in her testimony is her family has been personally touched by suicide, as many of ours have.  The anti-gun community does not get a monopoly on suicide.  This issue has touched millions deeply.

 

Colorado’s Newest Red Flag ERPO Bill Is Worse Than You Think – And Gun Owners Should Be Worried

 

Colorado’s Newest Red Flag ERPO Bill Is Worse Than You Think : Rally for our Rights Colorado

Democrat state lawmakers have introduced a Red Flag Emergency Risk Protection Order (ERPO) bill into the 2019 Colorado legislative session. This bill, HB19-1177, which was introduced Thursday, February 14th, is far worse than a previously introduced bill which died in 2018.  Question everything you hear the media say about this legislation. The devil is in the details.

Here’s the claim of what this bill does:

A family member or law enforcement officer would petition a court to request the ability to immediately seize a person’s guns. If a judge signs the order, the weapons can be taken away and the court must hold a hearing within 14 days to determine whether to extend the seizure and bar the person from purchasing more firearms. The longest a judge could order the seizure of firearms is 364 days. The entire process is a civil, not criminal, proceeding.

Now let’s break down the bill language:

Who can petition the courts? 

According to the bill summary and media reports, only family or household members, and law enforcement can petition the courts. But what is the definition of “family member” and “household member”?

According to the bill language, “family or household member” means:

• Person related by blood, marriage, or adoption;

• Person who has a child in common with the respondent, regardless of whether such person has been married to the respondent or has lived together with the respondent at any time;

•  Person who regularly resides or regularly resided with the respondent within the last six months;

• Domestic partner of the respondent;

• Person who has a biological or legal parent-child relationship with the respondent, including stepparents and stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren;

• Person who is acting or has acted as the respondent’s legal guardian;

• A person in any other relationship described in section 18-6-800.3 (2) with the respondent.  [So, what does 18-6-800.3 (2) say? “Intimate relationship” means a relationship between spouses, former spouses, past or present unmarried couples, or persons who are both the parents of the same child regardless of whether the persons have been married or have lived together at any time.]

Say what?!  This is who they define as a “family member” or “household member”?  This person doesn’t need to be either a family member or a household member.  We’re talking scorned ex’s, those pretending to be scorned ex’s, angry former roommates, those in custody disputes, and so on.  And that’s not even touching on law enforcement’s ability to petition for an ERPO.  Co-worker mad?  All they have to do is make a report to the police that you’re a danger to yourself or another, and they can have your firearms confiscated.

What is needed to file the ERPO petition?

The filing of the ERPO petition can be done either in person or over the phone.  The petition must be filed in the county court of where the accused lives – but since the petitioner can do it over the phone, they don’t even need to be in the same state.  There is NO filing fee.  The petitioner even has the option to not provide their address – for safety, of course – never mind the address could simply be left off any actual order as they do with temporary restraining orders.

Questions that will be asked on the petition include how many firearms the accused has, what types, and where the are located.  This doesn’t only include ownership – it also includes possession, custody, or control.  Petitioners are also asked to disclose if there are any other legal actions pending between parties, such as: current restraining orders, lawsuits, civil suits, custody cases, etc, but the existence of such cases shall not delay or prevent an ERPO from being granted.

And finally, no one is required to tell the accused that a petition is being filed or has been filed.

What happens after the ERPO petition is filed?

Once an ERPO is filed, a hearing will be set either the same day or the next day.  Once again, the petitioner does not need to be present. They can attend this hearing over the phone, while never being required to show proof of any relationship to the accused, and not even provide their address!  At this hearing, the petitioner will be asked to provide a “preponderance” of evidence with the goal being to convince the fact finder judge that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.  Now, remember, this is over the telephone.

What kind of evidence are they looking for?  A recent act or credible threat of violence, even if such act does not involve use of a firearm.  Self harm or threats of self harm within the past year.  A prior violation of a protection order.   A previous ERPO.   Prior domestic violence convictions.  Prior ARREST, not even conviction, of a whole host of other crimes.  Ownership, access to, or intent to purchase a firearm.  Drug or alcohol abuse.  Recent acquisition of a firearm or ammunition.  How do you provide this evidence during a telephone hearing?

At this hearing the court will either approve or deny the ERPO.  If it is denied, they must document reasoning for denial.  Judges will err on the side of caution.  Once the ERPO is approved, a warrant to search the home for weapons is also issued.  All while the only person who has no idea this is happening, is the person being accused of no crime.

How will the ERPO be enacted?

Once the ERPO and warrant are in hand, it’s time for the police to take action.  Considering we see SWAT teams show up to homes where someone is reported to possibly be suicidal, it won’t be pretty.  The county sheriff is required to work with city police.  They will show up at the door without so much as a warning, manually deliver the order, ask the accused to surrender their firearms, and if they refuse or claim to have none, they will search the home.  Honestly, even if firearms are surrendered, they will likely STILL search the home.  Did the petitioner make claim you have firearms at a place of business?  Expect that location to be included on the search warrant.  During this interaction, law enforcement is required to determine if the accused should be put into a 72 hour involuntary commitment hold.

It is not unlikely children, spouses, even co-workers will be present during these raids.

Once the firearms have been confiscated, the accused will be asked if they’d like to sell them, store them with law enforcement, or store them with a FFL.  The accused’s information will also be added to the CBI and NICS database prohibiting them from purchasing guns.

Along with the order that will be delivered upon the accused, a court date for 14 days later is given.  This will be the first opportunity the accused will have to speak on their own behalf.

What happens at the 14 day ERPO hearing? 

Prior to the hearing, the court will appoint an attorney or the accused can obtain their own or they can proceed self represented.  Because no one has been charged with a crime, these are civil cases, not criminal.  This means public defenders are not used, but instead the state would appoint one from a pool of attorneys who have agreed to work these cases.  These are not provided at no cost – unless you qualify as indigent according to the court.  It is unclear what the cost will be.

During this hearing the petitioner and the accused will have the ability to provide evidence, call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, etc.  The petitioner does not need to be present, and can provide sworn affidavits.

At the end of the hearing, the judge will either dismiss the ERPO, and the firearm rights of the accused will be restored and their guns returned.  Or the temporary ERPO will become a permanent ERPO.  This would mean it will remain in effect for 364 days.  The judge has the discretion to schedule hearings sooner than the 364 days if he or she believes the order should be lifted sooner.  The accused also has ONE opportunity during that 364 day period to request a hearing.  If they do request a hearing, the petitioner is alerted and that person can request it be denied.

What happens when the 364 days is up?

Whew, it’s been a long year by this point.  So what happens now?  The petitioner will be alerted that the ERPO is going to expire, and they can request it be extended.  If this happens, another hearing similar to the one at 14 days will take place.  And it begins again…

What are the penalties?

Any person who has in his or her custody or control a firearm or purchases, possesses, or receives a firearm with knowledge that he or she is prohibited from doing so by an ERPO or temporary ERPO is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

What can you do to help stop this? Contact your state lawmakers and urge them to oppose this legislation.  CLICK HERE for information about who to contact.  

Watch the video below as we go line by line through this 30 page bill and highlight everything stated in this article.

Ready to help us fight this ERPO bill in Colorado?  Donate here

And get connected by subscribing to our email list and following us on social media.  Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and we even have a private Facebook group where you can connect with fellow gun rights activists.

Why Common Sense Gun Laws Only Criminalize The Law Abiding

Why Common Sense Gun Laws Only Criminalize The Law Abiding : Rally for our Rights Colorado

The alleged “common sense” gun laws start to sound more and more like denial of rights, firearms seizures and criminalization of law abiding citizens than solutions to gun safety.

For me, and many of my friends, common sense gun laws would include: firearms safety training *gasp* IN SCHOOLS and elsewhere, taught by qualified firearms instructors. It is, well, asinine, to see that in today’s society, when students post pictures of themselves behaving safely or training with firearms, schools suspend, expel or contact police. They should encourage safe training. Common sense, eh?

Additionally, these same hypocrites claim, “Only trained people should BE ALLOWED to have/use firearms.” Okay, so if we even compromise and give them that point, they are hysterical when they encounter pictures or videos of people training. “Look what they are doing! They are preparing for war, to kill people.”

Umm, what do they call training? It no doubt does NOT involve actually handling a firearm.

It is obvious they don’t want law-abiding citizens to be trained in safe weapons handling.

When one of Longmont, CO’s citizens proposed the city recognize a “Firearms Safety Day,” via a proclamation, the mayor (allegedly a strong 2A supporter) nixed it as “too controversial,” and another council member claimed she would walk out and not be part of it. So are they opposed to gun safety? Or in favor of unsafe firearms use?

Clearly, safety training with firearms is obviously NOT considered “common sense.”

Perhaps we should breakdown the deaths involving firearms. According to a recent New York Times article, in 2017 the United States saw 39,773 deaths from firearms. This number INCLUDES self-defense shootings, police shootings of criminals, accidental deaths and – the largest percent – suicides.

Almost 24,000 (60%) were suicides. Tragic, yes, it is. But that should be dealt with through mental health programs and intervention, NOT by attacking the rights of law-abiding citizens. Where is the outcry on that issue? Common sense.

Since doing completely away with the Second Amendment has been so difficult, the big trend now is to deny the First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh and probably more. I am referring to Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO or Red Flag laws). These laws allow virtually anyone to claim to police they feel threatened, overheard scary gossip, or just don’t like you – and police can seize your firearms (actually any “weapons”) for anywhere from weeks to months to forever. No need to prove guilt – you must prove your innocence! 

It’s been asked before, repeatedly, and never answered: How does restricting – nay, infringing – on the rights of law abiding citizens by passing more laws stop criminals? Can someone please explain how lawbreakers will be foiled by more laws? In fact, somewhere over 80% of the recent mass shootings have been in “gun free” zones. Not working too well, eh? Trash them; common sense.

The real problem, as I and others have said before, isn’t firearms. It is NOT “gun violence.” It is violence. Guns can – and do – protect us from violence.

Let’s address the issue of VIOLENCE. Address how to deal with the perpetrators of violence, how to prevent suicide and get help for the chronically depressed. Not demonize our protection from the evil in society.

If the anti-rights crowd wants to sit down and have a REAL conversation about common sense and compromise, I think we would listen. But as long as all they want is to push an agenda and dismantle the United States‘ Constitution….keep your hands off my guns – and my God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights.

Tired of being demonized as a law abiding gun owner?  Help us get these billboards up!  Donate here: www.gofundme.com/gun-rights-billboards

gun rights save lives billboard colorado rally for our rights

Questions Everyone Should Be Asking About Red Flag Emergency Risk Protection Gun Laws

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

If you’re not familiar with Red Flag Laws, also known as Emergency Risk Protection Orders (ERPO),  you’re not paying enough attention.  And if you know what Red Flag Laws are and support them, you’re probably also not paying enough attention.

Red Flag Laws allow an intimate partner, former intimate partner, or family member to make a report to the courts with claims that an individual is going to either hurt themselves or others with a firearm.  Within 24 hours the court hears a preponderance of evidence and issues an order to have the persons gun confiscated.

To some people, this sounds good on the surface.  I mean, who doesn’t want to save lives?  But feel good laws like these do more harm than good, and this one is no exception.  In fact, it may be one of the worst.   These laws lack due process, they grossly violate our right to keep and bear arms, and they would have a chilling effect on free speech.  Not to mention they would prevent people who truly need help from seeking it – especially those who are suicidal.

There are many questions we should be asking.  Here are some that I’ve developed after reading through the language in these proposed bills in many states.

• How can lawmakers ensure a stalker or domestic abuser is prevented from using an ERPO to disarm their victims, potentially putting those in our society who need protection the most in harms way?

• Are there safeguards in place to prevent this from being used as a form of retaliation or as a hate crime – for example being used to disarm a transgender person, a person of color, or a certain religion?

• Why is all information such as accusers, allegations, accusations, etc sealed and require a court order for release?

• Many of these ERPO’s allow the accuser to report via telephone, as well as attend the initial hearing via telephone – making these easier to obtain than a Temporary Protection Order, opening the door to rampant abuse.

• What kind of proof is required that the accuser is or has been in an intimate relationship with the accused, or is a family member?

• What kind of punishment would be in a Red Flag Bill for false accusers?

• Will requiring police to confiscate the guns of people who could be innocent, put law enforcement officers in harms way?

• When these confiscation orders are being carried out, quite likely against someone who is innocent, will that put families and children at risk?

• Why are these laws being promoted as “mental health” laws when in fact they have no mental health components?

• Because the accused who would have their firearms confiscated has not been accused of a crime, they would not be eligible for a public defender to get their firearms back, leaving the poor in our society at a disadvantage.

Do you have other questions that I have missed?  Drop them in the comments.  

Here is how these laws would work:

Step 1: A petitioner (either a current or former intimate partner, or a family member, with no proof required) makes a report via telephone or in person that you have firearms, have bought firearms, or have bought ammunition – and that they have heard you make a threat that you may harm another or yourself.

Step 2: A court hearing is scheduled within 24 hours either over the phone or in person with the petitioner to determine if an Emergency Risk Protection Order (aka Red Flag Order) should be issued.  The one most important person notably missing from this hearing is YOU.  You are not even so much as informed that this hearing is taking place.  During this hearing the judge will hear a “preponderance of evidence” from the petitioner, and only the petitioner, with the goal to convince the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.

Step 3: An Emergency Risk Protection Order (ERPO) is issued.  The sheriff’s department will visit your home and demand you turn over your firearms, and if you refuse to comply, they will be confiscated by force (placing everyone present in a dangerous situation).  YOU will be left alone, without what may be your most important means of self defense – your firearm – because someone just had it confiscated.  It doesn’t matter if you bought that firearm to protect yourself from a stalker, an abuser, or simply to walk home from work late at night. It also doesn’t matter if the person who requested your firearms be confiscated is that same abuser or stalker.

Step 4: Then, and only then, will you be given instructions as to how to defend yourself in court and get your firearms back.

You can read more about Colorado’s 2018 version of the Red Flag Bill here.  A new bill has not yet been introduced for the 2019 legislative session, but it undoubtedly will be.

If you want to be part of the fight to defend your gun rights, please subscribe to our email list and/or make a donation.

Gun Owners Across US Woke Up Criminals In The New Year – And They Did Nothing Wrong

Gun Owners Across US Woke Up Criminals In The New Year - And They Did Nothing Wrong - Rally for our Rights Blog

While the masses across the United States were out ringing in the New Year – some of whom were undoubtedly engaging in illegal activity such as drunk driving and illicit drug use – gun owners in multiple cities and states simply stayed home, watched the ball drop on their TV, and went to bed without incident.  Yet this morning, they are the ones who woke up as criminals.

2018 was a year that put the anti-gun community and gun rights advocates toe to toe.  There is something both sides agree on though – they agree that tragedies like we saw in Parkland, FL are devastating and we don’t want them to happen.  What we disagree on are the solutions.

The gun grabbers have chosen to ignore research that highlights two things: 1.) gun control doesn’t work and 2.) current laws are being ignored.  In nearly every instance of a tragic shooting, a little research into the perpetrators background shows failure and incompetence on the part of government.  So what do the gun grabbers do with this information?  They demand more laws be created that do nothing to curb crime, but instead create a false sense of security and criminalize the law abiding.

Many of those laws went into effect at 12:00am today, January 1st, 2019.  Here are a few of them:

Boulder, CO: If you own a so-called “assault weapon” that you didn’t register with the police department between June 15th and December 31st, 2018, today you are a criminal.  Never mind Boulder has never seen a murder committed with one of the banned firearms, but it has with a baseball bat.

Washington: If you’re under 21 and are in possession of a long gun outside your home, the government has deemed you a criminal before you’re even old enough to drink. Welcome to a life of crime.

Illinois: If you purchase a rifle but you don’t wait 72 hours after the purchase to take possession of it, you are breaking the law.  But who abides by a waiting period?  That’s right, the law abiding.

California:  Similarly to Washington, it is also now illegal to be under the age of 21 and own a shotgun or rifle.  That will certainly deter a violent, evil person from obtaining one. <insert heavy sarcasm>

In addition, several states enacted draconian “Red Flag Laws“, which allow someone’s firearms to be confiscated by law enforcement with little evidence and no due process.  Other states have adopted “Mental Health Laws” which will prevent those who have had certain types of mental health treatment from possessing firearms (with the unintended consequence of making those who own firearms not seek mental health treatment).

Undoubtedly, with anti-gun candidates winning elections across the nation this past November, we’re in a for a doozy of year.  Make sure you’re paying attention.

You can help us continue to fight back with boots on the ground.  Get connected on social media here and/or make a donation here.

When Self Protection Is Needed The Most, Red Flag Laws Can Be Used To Disarm You

red flag law bill ERPO emergency risk protection order colorado rally for our rights womens rights

Red Flag Laws are all the rage these days, almost trendy.  It seems that’s what the anti-gun community cares about when creating laws – being trendy – even though many of these trendy laws make people less safe.  And that’s exactly what Red Flag Laws do.

As a woman who chose to leave an unhealthy marriage only to be harassed and stalked by my ex-husband, and then when he remarried, spent nearly two years in a bitter custody battle as him and his new wife tried to move my daughter across the country, I have unfortunately witnessed how easy it is to manipulate this system.

I have faced temporary restraining orders based on fabricated accusations, police at my door for false reports, and CPS visits multiple times.  Through each encounter, I held my head high, defended myself with poise, and had faith the truth would be on my side.  In my case it was; each time I was victorious.  But it did not come without anxiety and fear.  Since that time, my ex-husband and his new wife have moved away, and I sleep much more soundly at night – with my daughter in the room across the hall.

I no longer have to take a different route home each time I’d meet him to drop off or pick up my daughter because I knew he was following me.  Or be informed by a watchful neighbor that he has been sitting at the end of my street for two hours in sub-zero weather.  I no longer have to wonder if the knock on my door on Saturday morning is the sheriff’s office following up on more false accusations, or the neighbor kid wanting to play with my child. I no longer have to fear what may be next.  I was fortunate that I was still there to worry about those things.  Others were not.

Due to my experiences, when I saw what was hidden inside this year’s Red Flag Bill, I was shocked.  Certainly these politicians know how easy this is to manipulate – and of course, their “job” is to protect people like me.  But when I researched it further, my shock turned to anger.  Not only was this proposed law as easy to get as the temporary protection order my ex-husband had gotten against me at one time, it was easier.  It allows reports by phone, and hearings by phone.  No one even has to show their face.

Red Flag Bills put the most vulnerable in our society at risk.  The same citizens these politicians claim to care about, they are putting at risk.  Domestic violence affects women and men of all demographics, and although 40% of the victims are men (if not more), when it comes to fatalities in domestic and familial incidents, a shocking 97% of the victims are women.

Now the anti-gun, pro-women, newly elected government has made promises to come to our rescue – yet all they are doing is putting us in harms way by opening a door to have OUR means of self protection removed – legally.

Although I use my own experience as a woman as an example, this applies to anyone, regardless of gender or other demographics.  If your life is in harms way, Red Flag Laws can be used to disarm you. And if you manage to beat a system that is stacked against you and get your firearms back, there are no repercussions to the person who falsely reported you.  They walk away unscathed, having wasted time and resources that could have been used to follow up on legitimate threats and crime.

If you’re not familiar with Red Flag Laws, you’re not paying enough attention (seriously, connect with us on social media so you always know what’s up).  Red Flag Laws are already in place in some states, and are undoubtedly coming to yours.  Here’s how a HB19-1177, Colorado’s proposed Red Flag Law would work:

• Almost anyone can request an ERPO without even showing their face or providing their address. The definition of “family or household member” is so broad it includes ex-lovers who you have never even lived with!  Or someone *claiming* you once had an affair.  And even old roommates.

• The initial report and hearing can be done over the phone, all while the accused is completely oblivious proceedings are taking place to have his or her firearms confiscated.  There is no due process at this first hearing – which is the hearing where permission is given to confiscate gun!  Even Colorado Attorney General Weiser admits to the lack of due process.  Watch his testimony here.

• The first time the accused learns someone has reported them will be when local law enforcement shows up at their door with an order AND a search warrant prepared to raid your home – while the accused never even committed a crime.  This search warrant is a BRAND NEW type of warrant that is created in the bill – a gun owner specific civil search warrant.  Read all about that here.

• 14 days later is the first time the accused will have a chance to defend themselves against this non-crime.  The burden of proof will fall on the accused, not on the petitioner who can actually provide affidavits rather than attend court!

• The guns will be confiscated for 364 days, during which time the accused only has one opportunity to ask the courts to lift the order.

• There is zero accountability for false accusers. In fact, the filing fee is $0! For comparison, requesting a Temporary Restraining Order in Colorado is $97.  Attorney General Weiser also admitted false claims will be par for the course. Listen to his statements here

• This bill is being touted as a “suicide prevention” bill, when in fact, the fear of having your firearms confiscated will make people terrified to ask for help when they need it, and will undoubtedly escalate situations rather than deescalate them..

• It is so rife for abuse, it can easily be used by someone’s stalker or abuser to have their victim disarmed – legally.

• The ERPO will go on a person’s permanent record EVEN if it is dismissed, meaning it will show up on background checks, etc.

Read a complete write up of the bill here: www.rallyforourrights.com/colorados-red-flag-erpo-worse-than-you-think

READY TO HELP STOP THIS BILL??  Click here for more detailed info about which legislators to contact.