Yes Virginia, Colorado’s “Red Flag” Law Is Working


Semiautomatic guns for sale.

As the Denver Post’s Elise Schmelzer reports:

In the first 15 days Colorado’s red-flag law has been active, residents and law enforcement have used the controversial statute in five cases to request that guns be removed from a wide range of people: an abusive boyfriend, a suicidal man, the father of a grandchild, a suspect who threatened a mass shooting and a police officer…

The red-flag law, which went into effect Jan. 1, allows family members, household members and law enforcement to request that a judge order the removal of person’s guns if they are a threat to themselves or others. The law caused intense debate in the legislature, including prompting some sheriffs to say they wouldn’t uphold the law because they believe it violates a person’s Second Amendment rights.

Denver7’s Blair Miller reports on the first successful use of the extreme risk protection order (ERPO) law in Denver, in which a man who made threats to hurt himself and his wife has relinquished his guns for a 364-day period:

A Denver probate court on Tuesday approved a 364-day extreme risk protection order for a Denver man who gave up two guns to Denver police in late December after he allegedly threatened himself and his wife with a handgun during and after a dispute.

A Denver police sergeant filed a petition on Jan. 2 for a 14-day temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO) against the 26-year-old man, whom Denver7 is not naming because prosecutors declined to press charges against him. A hearing had been set for Jan. 16 to determine if a longer ERPO would be put in place for the man.

But the man and his attorney came to an agreement on a permanent order, which was filed Tuesday in Denver Probate Court, that the man will allow police to keep custody of his two semi-automatic handguns for a 364-day period that started Tuesday.

Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith.

That’s an undeniably successful outcome, with a gun owner who threatened to kill himself and his wife voluntarily surrendering his guns in advance of the hearing. The Fort Collins Coloradoan reports on another “red flag” case that seems like a model utilization of the law out of Larimer County:

A Fort Collins man accused of sending texts threatening a “master plan” to eventually commit two school campus shootings is likely the first case of Colorado’s new “red flag” law being used in Larimer County.

In texts to his adoptive father in January and March last year, David Gatton, a 31-year-old military veteran, threatened to commit mass shootings, investigators say…

In the texts — which Gatton admitted to sending — he said he was struggling to find work and that if his adoptive parents didn’t stop asking him to pay back money he owed them, he would enact his plan to “kill a lot of people.”

Of the ERPO request cases filed since the law took effect at the beginning of the year, we know of two that have been denied. The first was a request made in conservative Lincoln County, where the sheriff and county government are hostile to the law–as we’ve discussed, a potential flashpoint if a refused request for an ERPO precipitates tragedy. The second case, which has received considerable attention in the last few days, concerns the mother of a young man who was killed by CSU police officers in Fort Collins, in what was determined to be a case of “suicide by cop” and a justified use of force. This ERPO case was dismissed earlier today for lack of standing, since the request falsely claimed that the petitioner and the police officer “shared a child.” The Loveland Reporter-Herald:

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement that the court ruled properly in denying Holmes’ petition.

“What the hearing today demonstrated is that there are protections in the ERPO law to prevent people from abusing it,” Weiser said. [Pols emphasis] “Abuse of this important law undermines the very fabric of its critical purpose, which is to protect public safety.”

During the initial confusion over Susan Holmes’ ERPO petition, which was apparently filed without a request for a temporary order making today the first opportunity for a judge to rule, local gun nuts seized on the as-yet unanswered questions about the case to spread misinformation and general discontent about the new “red flag” law. But in reality, early test cases like this one are necessary to establish precedents that determine how the law will function. The outcome of this particular case, which may include criminal charges for Holmes’ lying under oath, should inspire confidence that the checks and balances in the process to prevent abuse actually do work.

Unfortunately, the true moment to dread–the first improperly denied ERPO that results in preventable loss of life–is still out there waiting to happen. We expect that inevitability, but we do not relish it.

12 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Moderatus says:

    How did the case against the CSU police officer even get in front of a judge?

    Answer: this law can be abused.

    Great job, Democrats!

    • unnamed says:

      The law can be violated too. Just ask your fuhrer.

      Great Job, Republicans!

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Holmes petitioned for an ERPO.  The judge ruled, properly, that Holmes was ineligible to petition for an ERPO. No ERPO was issued. No ERPO was served. 

      Nothing has been abused (… other than in your grammy’s basement), twit.

      The question you should be asking (constantly) instead is, “How come my head is always so far up my ass?” (Hint: It’s where you keep it …)

    • MichaelBowman says:

      How many laws are you abusing by posting this while on Uncle Sam’s clock? 

    • How many Sovereign Citizen lawsuits have been filed? How many unarmed, non-threatening black people have been shot by cops who claim the cover of their office to avoid prosecution? Almost any law can be abused if someone want to get creative enough.

    • Genghis says:

      Yes, and wrongful murder convictions mean we should repeal statutes defining and criminalizing murder. The test, after all, is whether a law "can be abused."

      Moderatus, you are extraordinarily stupid. Just out of curiosity, do you have the mental wherewithal to perform your own toileting, or are taxpayers such as myself paying for a home health care provider who assists you with such tasks?

      • MichaelBowman says:

        I’m guessing Nutter wouldn’t let anyone from home health care (provided free of charge via his gold-plated, taxpayer-provided health insurance plan) touch anything down there cuz it’s a slippery slope. Next thing you know he’s the Grand Marshall for Pueblo Pride. 

    • DavidThi808 says:

      If that's your measure, then anytime someone gets a not guilty verdict in a courtroom, the law they were charged under should be abolished.

  2. DavidThi808 says:

    Elise Schmelzer – please explain this line from your article:

     the father of a grandchild


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.