hb19-1177 Archives - Page 2 of 2 - Rally for our Rights

Why “Red Flag” ERPO Laws Are Not The Solution To Mass Shootings

Posted on August 5, 2019September 12, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

After every public mass shooting, the call for gun control reaches a new pitch. Those on the anti-gun left have gone so far as suggesting banning nearly every modern day semi-automatic firearm and having police go door to door confiscating them. And those on the right are calling for “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Order laws in every state.

But is this really the answer? The suggestion of a door to door gun confiscation would be laughable if these people were joking- but they aren’t. How any politician believes using what they refer to as “weapons of war” to confiscate “weapons of war” will not turn into a war, is beyond me. Even the anti-gun, Bloomberg funded website “The Trace” admits there are at bare minimum 20 million civilian owned, modern day sporting rifles in the US, and nearly all of them have never been used to commit a crime.

So what about “Red Flag” laws? Let’s take a quick look at Red Flag laws and what they do…

“Red Flag” laws are also called ERPO’s or Extreme Risk Protection Orders, a term coined by the anti-gun movement to deter from the negative reputation that came with “Red Flag” legislation. Don’t be fooled though, they are the exact same thing. Red Flag laws have actually been around since 1999, although they are quickly rising in popularity. In fact, Connecticut had a Red Flag law in place when the Sandy Hook shooting happened and California had one in place at the time of the San Bernardino attack, the Thousands Oaks shooting, and the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting.

The proponents and mainstream media will tell you Red Flag ERPO laws allow family or law enforcement to petition the court to have the firearms removed from someone who is proven to be a danger to themselves or others.

To the general public, this sounds pretty benign, and polling reflects that when the law is presented this way.

But what if I phrased it this way: It’s a law that allows an abusive ex to petition the court, over the phone, for $0, to have the firearms confiscated from an individual they wish to disarm. The petition is granted based on the lowest evidentiary threshold used in court, a preponderance of evidence (meaning there is a 51% chance that the accusation is true) and when the temporary order is issued by the court, it is coupled with a search warrant. This means the first time the accused even finds out these proceedings are taking place is when the police are at their door ready to raid their home prepared to take away their means of self defense against the same abusive ex who requested the ERPO – and possibly the means of defense for their children.

Because that is exactly what these laws do. It is legalized swatting that can be done by a laundry list of family members, former and current roommates, and anyone you have ever been intimate with. Don’t believe me? Read through the 30+ pages of HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders that was just signed by the governor here in Colorado.

There is a big difference between supporting the concept of a Red Flag law, and supporting the actual legislation that is being passed. The devil is always in the details.

But do they work?

Well, we already pointed out above three mass shooting in California with one of the broadest Red Flag laws (right behind Colorado’s), as well as Sandy Hook in Connecticut. So, no, they didn’t work to stop killers in those instances and there is zero evidence they have thwarted any attacks elsewhere.

But what about suicide? Proponents will of course tell you yes, they work. States like Indiana pointed to stats showing suicide by firearm was decreasing. Well, turns out it wasn’t. It was still increasing but not at the projected rate, so they consider that a win. In addition, suicide by other methods has skyrocketed and Indiana has dropped from 19th in the country for mental health in 2011, to 45th in 2015, and in both 2016 and 2017 suicide was the tenth leading cause of death for all residents over all demographics, and the leading cause for certain demographics. Their Red Flag law was enacted in 2005.

Why are we seeing these results? Because these laws have nothing to do with mental health, and everything to do with taking away the guns. The bill sponsors here in Colorado even admitted that during the month long debate before the bill passed by ONE SINGLE vote with every Republican and three Democrats voting against it. Watch the video here:

These laws are widely opposed by law enforcement, as they realize the danger they will put their officers and citizens in, as well as the unconstitutionality of the law. In Colorado, more than 50 of the 64 sheriffs opposed the legislation, as did the Denver and Aurora police unions. The ACLU has opposed legislation in other states such as Rhode Island. And people have been killed having these Red Flag orders served, such as happened in Maryland when a woman ERPO’d her brother after a family dispute. She later admitted she did not believe he would have hurt a fly, but he was killed when he refused to turn over his guns. Trading death for death is never the answer. The lives of gun owners do not matter less than the lives of anyone else.

We should also always remember in the “do something” era, passing feel good, knee jerk, virtue signaling legislation is a waste of valuable time and resources that could be used to actually DO SOMETHING, for example Maine passed a completely different proper adjudication law to address the same issue. You can learn about that by listening to this podcast here.

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

(other designs available)

Red Flag ERPO Bill Passes Colorado State Senate BY ONE VOTE!

Posted on March 28, 2019March 29, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders ERPO bill just passed the Colorado state senate by ONE VOTE! 18-17.

All Republicans and one Democrat voted against it in the Senate. It has already passed the House with all Republicans and two Democrats voting NO. Because it does have Senate amendments, it will go back to the house to vote on those amendments before making it’s way to the governor’s desk.

From here, I’ll be working with law enforcement across the state to put pressure on Governor Polis to either veto the bill, or send it back to the legislature for re-consideration. This effort will be BIG! How privileged are those lawmakers to pass law they will never have to enforce, while those who will have to enforce it are saying NO. I will also be working with the sheriffs to request an injunction that would prevent it from becoming law (if signed, it would officially become law on Jan 1, 2020). Pledge your support for recalls here!

CONTACT GOVERNOR JARED POLIS AND ASK HIM TO VETO HB19-1177!

Phone: 303-866-2471
Online Contact: www.colorado.gov/governor/share-your-comments
Facebook: www.facebook.com/PolisForColorado

Just like all of you, I’m furious. This piece of legislation is unbelievably bad. Although I will say in this current hyper-partisan body of government, I am proud of how far we have pushed this narrative, that votes were tough to get, and that Democrats crossed party lines in opposition, right down to it passing by a single vote. We are setting brushfires and this vote has only fueled those fires. We’re just getting started.

Feel free to use this post as a place to sound off. Let us know what you’d like to see next. We have a big event in the works that we’ve been waiting to announce based on this vote. Details coming soon on that.

In Freedom,
Lesley Hollywood, Rally For Our Rights Founder

ERPO Red Flag Passes Colorado Senate Rally for our Rights

MUST WATCH! CO State Senator Kerry Donovan Is Called Out By Her Sheriff Over RED FLAG BILL And Loses It On Constituents!

Posted on March 26, 2019March 26, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

This past Saturday I traveled to Salida, CO attend a town hall hosted by State Senator Kerry Donovan. Donovan is a rural Democrat who has vote with Republicans on gun issues in the past. Her district is largely pro-gun, and she knows it. She also knows HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders ERPO is DANGEROUS POLICY for her gun owning constituents. She should do the right thing and vote NO on this bill. It is her duty as a representative of the communities she represents, including the sheriffs who oppose this legislation on safety grounds.

Last Friday during the “Red Flag” ERPO Senate Floor debate, Donovan stated that she had spoken to Chaffee County Sheriff John Spezze, as well as the county commissioners, and that they DID NOT oppose HB19-1177 and would NOT be adopting Second Amendment Sanctuary status. But at her town hall the truth came out when the sheriff himself stated they had never had a conversation, that he opposed the bill, and that he would be asking his commissioners to seek Second Amendment Sanctuary status. This was backed up by one of the county commissioners. Then she loses it on her constituents..

Colorado HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders ERPO will be going to a final vote any day! Contact these lawmakers by phone and email NOW!

Kerry Donovan
[email protected].us
303-866-4871

Leroy Garcia
[email protected].us
303-866-4878

Rachel Zenzinger
[email protected]
303-866-4840

Here’s Why Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO Bill Is One Of The Most Dangerous In The Nation

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. 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

Colorado AG Admits To False Claims, Lack Of Due Process As “Red Flag” ERPO Bill Heads To Senate Floor

Posted on March 19, 2019March 19, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

Last Friday, March 15th, after nearly ten hours of testimony, HB19-11477: “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders ERPO bill passed out of the Colorado Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee on a 3-2 party line vote. It will be headed to the Senate floor for a full vote in the coming days. Right now it is critical we contact our State Senators and ask them to oppose this bill, HB19-1177. You can find contact info here, or use the copy/paste email list provided below.

During this marathon hearing, we heard testimony after testimony from gun owners discussing everything from personal experiences of domestic violence and stalkers – and fears this law would be used to disarm victims, to recounts of SWAT escalating suicide situations. Concerns the “mentally ill” label in the bill could be used against those in the LGBTQ community, to sound Constitutional arguments. The testimony was powerful – and on point.

Bill proponent, Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock gave a bizarre and unraveling testimony which you can watch here.

But besides Spurlock, one of the most alarming testimonies was given by Colorado State Attorney General Phil Weiser. During his testimony, he nonchalantly admits this bill will be imperfect, that false accusations are just par for the course, and he oddly compares it to copyright infringement claims. I have no idea how he thinks removing copyrighted material from a website based on false claims is at all the same as confiscating an innocent person’s firearms. But apparently he does. He then goes on to make it clear, should this law pass, sheriffs and law enforcement must enforce it until it’s determined to be unconstitutional in the courts, which would be years.

Watch the the video below for his testimony highlights. His full testimony can be found here.

And when you’re done watching the video, email and call these State Senators and ask them to vote NO on HB19-1177:

Leroy Garcia
[email protected]
303-866-4878

Kerry Donovan
[email protected]
303-866-4871

Rachel Zenzinger
[email protected]
303-866-4840

Dominick Moreno
[email protected]
303-866-4857

And copy/paste this entire email list as well:

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

Posted on March 14, 2019December 16, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

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.

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

Here’s what they wont tell you:

• 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.

• 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

(other designs available)

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

Posted on March 13, 2019September 30, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

(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

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

Posted on March 5, 2019April 13, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

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!

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

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

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

Adams County

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

Chaffee County

Pueblo County

Mesa County

Larimer County

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

Posted on February 26, 2019February 26, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

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:

Here’s what they wont tell you:

• 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.

• 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.

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

Posted on February 15, 2019March 27, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

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.

Tag: hb19-1177

Here’s the claim of what this bill does:

Now let’s break down the bill language:

Who can petition the courts?

What is needed to file the ERPO petition?

What happens after the ERPO petition is filed?

How will the ERPO be enacted?

What happens at the 14 day ERPO hearing?

What happens when the 364 days is up?

What are the penalties?