- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Colorado enacts 'red flag' law to seize guns from those deemed dangerous
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:39 pm
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:39 pm
LINK
So, in Colorado, the land of freedom and liberty, you can get high as frick, but careful if you’re having a little depression in your life and see a doctor about it. as the gestapo might knock on your door to sieze your weapons, but then maybe if you keep yourself high you won’t care. Could that be the end game? Keep them stoned, and they won’t care anymore?
Seems more than just a little ambiguous and open for abuse and an excuse to strip people of their 2nd amendment rights at will.
How long before Louisiana gets on board the regress train to oblivion?
quote:
Colorado became the 15th state on Friday to adopt a “red flag” gun law, allowing firearms to be seized from people determined to pose a danger -- just weeks after dozens of county sheriffs had vowed not to enforce the law, with some local leaders establishing what they called Second Amendment "sanctuary counties."
quote:
Van Beek charged that the law treats accused gun owners like "criminals," discourages individuals from seeking mental health treatment, and ignores the reality that "a disturbed mind will not be deterred by the removal of their guns."
Noting that cities with strict gun laws still experience high murder rates, van Beek asserted: "By removing guns from someone intent on committing suicide or murder, we still have the danger of someone who may be unbalanced, now, angrier than before, and looking for another means … explosives, poisons, knives, car incidents of mowing down groups of unsuspecting innocent."
quote:
Colorado’s law, approved by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, allows family, household members or law enforcement to petition a court to have guns seized or surrendered based on a showing that someone poses a danger under the "preponderance of the evidence," a civil standard which means that the defendant is more likely than not to be a threat.
"In other words, there is just over a 50/50 chance of accuracy," van Beek wrote, noting that someone's guns could be seized even without a mental health professional making a determination of any kind. "Like the flip of a coin. Couldn’t that apply to just about anything a person does?"
A subsequent court hearing could extend a gun seizure up to 364 days, and gun owners can only retain their guns if they meet a burden of demonstrating by "clear and convincing evidence" -- a much higher standard -- that they are not in fact a threat. Gun owners, van Beek said, are "guilty until proven innocent" under this framework.
So, in Colorado, the land of freedom and liberty, you can get high as frick, but careful if you’re having a little depression in your life and see a doctor about it. as the gestapo might knock on your door to sieze your weapons, but then maybe if you keep yourself high you won’t care. Could that be the end game? Keep them stoned, and they won’t care anymore?
Seems more than just a little ambiguous and open for abuse and an excuse to strip people of their 2nd amendment rights at will.
How long before Louisiana gets on board the regress train to oblivion?
This post was edited on 4/14/19 at 6:36 pm
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:40 pm to Mike da Tigah
Gonna be destroyed in the Supreme Court
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:41 pm to Uncle Don
quote:
Gonna be destroyed in the Supreme Court
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:44 pm to Mike da Tigah
I remember when Colorado was a very conservative red state. California transplants changed that it 20 years. Hope Texas fares better.
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:45 pm to Mike da Tigah
Legal marijuana is a globalist method to disarm the public
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:46 pm to Uncle Don
It may get destroyed In The USSC, but what is really curious to me is what kind of dastardly anti-American pile of human feces proposes this kind of legislation and then votes to have it become law? The mere fact that it made it this far is very disturbing to anybody who believes inAmerica and what we are founded upon.
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:46 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
So, in Colorado, the land of freedom and liberty, you can get high as frick, but careful if you’re having a little depression in your life and see a doctor about it. as the gestapo might knock on your door to siege your weapons, but then maybe if you keep yourself high you won’t care. Could that be the end game? Keep them stoned, and they won’t care anymore?
You know the Feds have already been infringing on weed+guns? People who have never touched marijuana and got a medical card but haven't even used it have been denied their gun rights.
We need to put more gun cases before the Supreme Court. Gorsuch wants to fix this shite I know.
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:47 pm to Mike da Tigah
While I see this law as easily abused. I have to agree there are some people that don’t need to own guns.
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:48 pm to Mike da Tigah
Hunter S. Thompson is rolling over in his grave.
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:52 pm to HueyP
quote:
While I see this law as easily abused. I have to agree there are some people that don’t need to own guns.
We’ve had both guns and mental issues in this country since it became a country, and it’s only NOW that we have an issue with gun violence in mass shootings.
I tend to lean to it not being guns or mental issues that’s the issue. Perhaps the drugs doctors keep pouring out for people to ingest? That’s another constant with all of these nut jobs shooting up schools.
We brought guns to school in our cars when I was in HS, and not once was anyone concerned or even thought that someone might shoot up the school, and it wasn’t an issue back then either, but then again, we also weren’t all popping anti-depressants either.
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:53 pm to Mike da Tigah
It’s likely unconstitutional and extremely susceptible to abuse, but in theory this is a type of gun control I could get behind as a conservative
1) it is not punitive. It affects those people deemed dangerous by a close family member/friend with extraordinary evidence to give to a judge.
2) the law allows those accused by a family member/friend to contest the claims.
3) these laws are not that different from restraining orders in family law
The great benefit of a law like this, IF BIG IF properly applied, is that it gives concerned family and friends an avenue other than FBI, which shows time and time again to be a shitty assessor of threat level
Also, this law recognizes
1) inherent right of self defense.....the law does not restrict gun ownership because of the actions of a few
2) inherent rise of due process....there needs to be clear evidence to grant the restraining order
It is not a collective punishment
1) it is not punitive. It affects those people deemed dangerous by a close family member/friend with extraordinary evidence to give to a judge.
2) the law allows those accused by a family member/friend to contest the claims.
3) these laws are not that different from restraining orders in family law
The great benefit of a law like this, IF BIG IF properly applied, is that it gives concerned family and friends an avenue other than FBI, which shows time and time again to be a shitty assessor of threat level
Also, this law recognizes
1) inherent right of self defense.....the law does not restrict gun ownership because of the actions of a few
2) inherent rise of due process....there needs to be clear evidence to grant the restraining order
It is not a collective punishment
Posted on 4/14/19 at 5:59 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
1) it is not punitive. It affects those people deemed dangerous by a close family member/friend with extraordinary evidence to give to a judge.
So a disagreement with a family friend or spouse results in the government disarming you and leaving you vulnerable. Wonderful.
quote:
2) the law allows those accused by a family member/friend to contest the claims.
So guilty until proven innocent, and at the discretion of the government whether you are disarmed.
quote:
3) these laws are not that different from restraining orders in family law
Except giving it even more perverse incentives for abuse.
quote:
It is not a collective punishment
It gives them the leverage to say it's okay to disarm law-abiding citizens.
No thanks David Hogg.
Posted on 4/14/19 at 6:01 pm to Mike da Tigah
People with depression, in all likelihood, should probably not have guns.
Posted on 4/14/19 at 6:05 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
People with depression, in all likelihood, should probably not have guns.
So, only 1 in 6 Americans on antidepressants get to get fricked out of their 2nd amendment rights?
Having a tough time lately? Lost your job? Divorced? Well, clearly you must be depressed. No guns for you. Hand em over.
You people are very dangerous. Much more so than an armed populous
This post was edited on 4/14/19 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 4/14/19 at 6:06 pm to Mike da Tigah
Gorsuch, Kav you're up
Posted on 4/14/19 at 6:07 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
People with depression, in all likelihood, should probably not have guns.
Enacting a law stripping a group of people of their rights sounds like a great way to ensure people never go to the psychiatrist to get the help they need.
Posted on 4/14/19 at 6:07 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
with some local leaders establishing what they called Second Amendment "sanctuary counties."
Turnabout is fair play
Posted on 4/14/19 at 6:08 pm to Mike da Tigah
The government luckily only knows about the ones purchased from stores. That's why it's essential to keep private sales legal. What guns? Sold those to Jimmy in a Walmart parking lot.
Posted on 4/14/19 at 6:08 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
The mere fact that it made it this far is very disturbing to anybody who believes inAmerica and what we are founded upon.
The Progressives believe in the new Amerikka. One governed by women and minorities with the white male patriarchy is a subservient role. You have to disarm those evil white men gradually by degree. They see their goals as incremental ones. Slowly condition the masses to the righteousness and inevitability of their cause.
Posted on 4/14/19 at 6:15 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
We brought guns to school in our cars when I was in HS, and not once was anyone concerned or even thought that someone might shoot up the school, and it wasn’t an issue back then either, but then again, we also weren’t all popping anti-depressants either.
This was quite common at Central Private in the 80s. Our principal would have his hunting rifle on a rack in his truck at school
Popular
Back to top


19








