Colorado ERPO Lawsuit

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,366
    SoMD / West PA
    Republican lawmakers and gun owners filed a lawsuit against Colorado Gov. Jared Polis Thursday, claiming he signed a gun bill into law in violation of the state constitution.

    The lawsuit, filed on the second to last day of the 2019 legislative session, seeks to stop Polis from spending “unlawful government expenditures” on the creation of a law that allows police or family members of a gun owner to file an Extreme Risk Protection Order.

    The protection order bars the gun owner from possessing or purchasing guns for nearly a year and requires the surrender of all their firearms and concealed carry permit. The owner must then prove not to be a threat in order to have the guns and permit returned.


    The complaint claims lawmakers failed to read the bill at length before passing it through the House and Senate, a requirement put in place by the state’s founders in 1876 to “prevent, so far as possible, fraud and trickery and deceit and subterfuge in the enactment of bills and to prevent hastily and ill-considered legislation.”

    https://www.courthousenews.com/colorado-gov-faces-lawsuit-over-firearms-protection-law/
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,192
    Davidsonville
    "lawmakers failed to read the bill at length before passing it through the House and Senate"
    Sounds familiar.


    Chances of this one making the journey to SCOTUS?
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    I'm against that law without due process, and I wish them luck, but unfortunately it seems like a pretty flimsy case that will get quickly dismissed unless it ends up in front of a sympathetic judge. They're asking a court to judge internal legislative processes, something courts seem loathe to do, just like they don't like getting in the middle of Executive/Legislative Branch separation of powers-type disputes.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    "lawmakers failed to read the bill at length before passing it through the House and Senate"
    Sounds familiar.


    Chances of this one making the journey to SCOTUS?

    The way it looks to me is they are only challenging the way that the bill was passed, not on the constitutionality of it. So this would not be a case Scotus would take IMO.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,691
    You mean some legislators actually read bills before voting the way they're told?

    Certainly not in Maryland.

    Given the sort of comments I've heard in Annapolis, I question whether some can read, at all.
     

    nedsurf

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 8, 2013
    2,204
    I'm surprised they went so far as to put the burden of proof on the gun owner. That should be challenged.
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,538
    Columbia
    You mean some legislators actually read bills before voting the way they're told?

    Certainly not in Maryland.

    Given the sort of comments I've heard in Annapolis, I question whether some can read, at all.



    I’m sure they can all read, comprehension is an altogether different skill however


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan

    Led by Loveland-based nonprofit, the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the lawsuit includes House Minority Leader Patrick Neville, R-Castle Rock, as well as Reps. Lori Saine, R-Firestone and Dave Williams, R-Colorado Springs, who each objected to the bill passing without being read.

    Others have argued that the law violates not just the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution but more notably the Fifth Amendment.

    “Due process in this bill is not defined in a way that makes sense with the way every other the law is enforced in Colorado,” said Weld County Sheriff Steven Reams, adding that he was willing to go to jail to challenge it.

    “If if my understanding of this law being unconstitutional is correct, if it takes me going to jail to further one of these cases into the courts for ruling, then that’s what I’m willing to do,” Reams told Courthouse News. “I would much rather be held in contempt of court for not going out and issuing one of these red flag orders.”

    https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Rocky-Mountain-52.pdf

    As I understand due process to stand before your accuser in a court to determine that one is a public threat To determine if there is a denial of liberty and property by the government.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Rocky-Mountain-52.pdf

    As I understand due process to stand before your accuser in a court to determine that one is a public threat To determine if there is a denial of liberty and property by the government.

    That's what's so insidious about RF laws. They're not criminal charges, they're civil actions. There is no "accuser", because you're not being accused of a crime, only a "plaintiff", which is the State. All of those nice constitutional protections that apply to people accused of crimes aren't applicable to civil actions. The result of a RF action isn't a conviction, it's a civil court order depriving you of your 2A rights.
     

    adit

    ReMember
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 20, 2013
    19,512
    DE
    That's what's so insidious about RF laws. They're not criminal charges, they're civil actions. There is no "accuser", because you're not being accused of a crime, only a "plaintiff", which is the State. All of those nice constitutional protections that apply to people accused of crimes aren't applicable to civil actions. The result of a RF action isn't a conviction, it's a civil court order depriving you of your 2A rights.

    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    That's what's so insidious about RF laws. They're not criminal charges, they're civil actions. There is no "accuser", because you're not being accused of a crime, only a "plaintiff", which is the State. All of those nice constitutional protections that apply to people accused of crimes aren't applicable to civil actions. The result of a RF action isn't a conviction, it's a civil court order depriving you of your 2A rights.

    These rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, are:
    An unbiased tribunal.
    Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
    Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
    The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
    The right to know opposing evidence.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/procedural-due-process-civil

    https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,934
    Messages
    7,259,590
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom