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.




Face Masks for Gun Rights : Rally For Our Rights



4 thoughts on “Red Flag ERPO Critic and CO Sheriff Gets ERPO’d AGAIN By Jail Inmate

  1. Lawman says:

    Please explain how Red Flag firearm confiscation passes the constitutional test?

    Miranda vs Arizona (1966) : “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

    Marbury v Madison “that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government … the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. … The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people[.]” – D.C. v. Heller (2008)

    “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 634–35.

    “No surprise then that the Heller two-step has led to rancorous debate within the lower courts. Several judges have noted that the test strays from Heller’s focus on the text and history of the Second Amendment, and defies the Court’s admonition that Second Amendment claims are not to be judged by interest balancing. E.g., Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144, 1176 (9th Cir. 2014) FPC

    In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.” WHICH INCLUDES STATES AND LOCAL TYRANT COUNTIES.

    (“[T]he fundamental right to keep and bear arms is not itself subject to interest balancing. The right categorically exists, subject to such limitations as were present at the time of the Amendment’s ratification.”); United States v. Chovan, FPC

    Jefferson warned that “to take a single step beyond the boundaries” established in the Constitution “is to take possession of a boundless field of power.”

    “Albert Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result.”

    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    “At times, the Constitution’s language can come to resemble a pea covered by a stack of judicial mattresses—a grain of sand no longer visible, though presumably resting deep inside the pearl of judicial elaboration.”
    Firearms Policy Coalition

  2. Lawman says:

    Pompeo says some Governors are Chinese Agents and this helps to clarify why Colorado has illegal gun confiscation rules.

    1. Lawman says:

      And like a Rabbit out of my hat look who’s name pops up.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *