chaparral wrote:
Grant.Reuter wrote:
Alvin Tostig wrote:
Guffaw wrote:
This is crazy. Colorado has some of the most liberal gun ownership laws around. Aren't the teachers packing? This should be the SAFEST place on earth.I detect a little sarcasm here.
But there have been recent stories about some of the sheriffs in Colorado who are saying they'll go to jail rather than enforcing a new law. The law says something to the effect that if you've got someone who is a threat to themselves or to others, their guns can be taken away. Sounds like a reasonable idea.
"Known as the "Extreme Risk Protection Order," the law will allow a family member, a roommate or law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily seize a person's firearms if they are deemed a risk to themselves or others."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/12/us/colorado-red-flag-gun-laws/index.html
Reasonable maybe, but potentially unconstitutional which is where the issue lies. The problem is who gets to decide what is a risk? If someone has a crazy uncle who is stockpiling for Armageddon, and goes to petition a liberal judge,against gun ownership, is that enough to remove the guns?
The other issue is if everything is kosher from above, it places a big risk on the officers going in to try to forcefully take the guns from the person.
I don't think Sheriffs are the ones who get to decide what is constitutional and what is not. I don't know the what Colorado's constitution says, but I am willing to bet it is not Sheriffs.
Sounds a lot like sanctuary city laws to me.
I don't agree with sheriffs ignoring this law, but I do think there should be a hold on this law until the constitutionality can be determined. It should also be noted that this law was pushed through while ignoring the voters. Another example of elections have consequences. But that doesn't make it right.