Gun Nuts Vow To Help Nuts Keep Their Guns

The Nuge approves.

Colorado Public Radio’s Hayley Sanchez reports from Saturday’s rally at the Colorado state capitol in opposition to the state’s new extreme risk protection order (ERPO) law, which takes effect on January 1–where gun-rights activists have sworn to resist a law supported overwhelmingly by the public, allowing family and law enforcement to petition in court for temporary removal of guns from people who are a significant risk to themselves or others:

The new law allows a family member or law enforcement official to petition a court to temporarily remove guns for up to a year from someone who appears to pose a danger to themself or others.

“We are going to be tracking everything about them,” said Lesley Hollywood, the founder of the group Rally For Our Rights, which hosted the event. “We’ll be tracking which judges are ordering these so come time to elect the judges out, we can do that, too.”

She said the group is going to have resources for attorneys and mental health professionals about the law and will not let her rights be taken away.

“We will not comply with laws that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms,” she said. “It is downright dangerous. It’s unconstitutional.”

It’s a point we’ve made before about “resisting” this law in particular, which is different from other gun control laws in Colorado like the magazine limit which 9NEWS’ Marshall Zelinger found to be widely disregarded by gun dealers–especially in counties where the local sheriff has suggested they won’t enforce the law. “Resisting” the magazine limit is as simple as obtaining an easily obtainable illegal high capacity magazine. In order to “resist” the ERPO law, it’s necessary for a person who has already been ruled in court to be a significant risk to themselves or others to refuse to comply with an order to surrender their guns.

Needless to say, that’s a much bigger deal.

Surrender of firearms on either a temporary or a permanent basis is nothing new in either federal or Colorado law. It happens routinely when a person is convicted of a qualifying crime. In Colorado, a person subject to a protective order in a domestic violence case can be ordered to surrender their guns until the case is resolved. We don’t know if domestic violence and surrender of guns before conviction came up Saturday, but ERPOs operate on a similar legal principle. Should wife beaters also “not comply?”

As we’ve said many times since the ERPO law was passed and the vocal gun-rights minority vowed to “not comply” with the law, in just a few weeks these will no longer be hypothetical discussions. Other states with similar red flag laws on the books are quickly amassing success stories, dangerous people who by any objective reasoning should not possess weapons being disarmed before they can make good on their desires.

We predict it won’t be long before one side in this debate loses definitively.

We hope not too many people get hurt in the meantime.


6 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. 2Jung2Die2Jung2Die says:

    An interesting follow-up question the CPR reporter could have asked – what sort of mental health resources can Lesley Hollywood really offer? Mental health isn't some sort of short-term service and then someone's fixed, not even like legal representation where attorneys deal with a case over a period of time and then it comes to resolution. The State of Colorado has fairly serious problems meeting the state's mental health needs – is Lesley Hollywood really able to make a difference here?

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      I’m pretty sure that Ms. [Hollywood] isn’t talking about “resources” to assist in treatment, but rather “resources” to provide mental health professionals and law enforcement with information excuses to avoid having to participate in enforcing an ERPO . . . 

      . . . i.e., nutter crap and nonsense. 

      • 2Jung2Die2Jung2Die says:

        Yeah, that sounds right Dio, I went a little too fast here. But maybe my general idea of a follow-up question for the CPR reporter to ask isn't completely misguided – what type of resources for mental health professionals can Lesley Hollywood offer, and under what type of expertise or authority can she offer them?

  2. Genghis says:

    Has Ms. "Hollywood" taken care of that unseemly speeding/driving under suspension/driving w/o proof of insurance business yet?

    "Scuse me for pointing and laughing at the constitutional law pontifications of a winger who can't be assed to learn and follow basic traffic regs.

  3. JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

    Democrats already have relatives of gun violence running and winning elections (and staving off RWGN recall efforts).

    Imagine what happens when a sheriff refuses to enforce a court order, and it turns into a tragedy.  There will be a lawsuit for "wrongful death" (and ignoring the law means government immunity is a chancy — at best — defense). After a court decision and required county and personal payouts.  I suspect some relative or friend may develop an interest in running for sheriff, or county commission, or the state legislature. 

    Along the way, I'm curious how a Colorado judge will respond to a sheriff who refuses to enforce a court order.  In a couple of other places where I was acquainted with judges, judges had long memories and a wide variety of tactics to make life more challenging for those who showed contempt of the courts.

  4. Budded says:

    Call me insensitive but these gun-worshipping lawmen can refuse to enforce this law all they want, but don't come to me with your thoughts and prayers when you're gunned down by some crazy fool who should have had his guns taken away via the law you refuse to enforce.

    Keep worshipping the 2a over human life, cowards!

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.