Controversial Colorado Gun Bill Becomes Law 11 Sheriffs Willing To Choose Jail Over Enforcement

Picture of Colorado Red Flag Law Map

Controversial Colorado Gun Bill Becomes Law 11 Sheriffs Willing To Choose Jail Over Enforcement

Colorado’s controversial “red flag” bill was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis on Friday, with more than half of the state’s counties declaring opposition to it and many sheriffs promising not to enforce it at all.

“This is a moment of progress,” said Colorado House Majority Leader Alec Garnett, one of the legislation’s four sponsors. “Today, we did something that was difficult and that is going to save lives.”

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. Fourteen other states have passed similar legislation.
Still, the law now faces major hurdles, with a pro-gun lobby group promising to challenge it in court. Additionally, a growing number of sheriffs in the state have vowed to ignore the law when it takes effect next year, calling it unconstitutional.

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams told CNN last month that he would rather be found in contempt of court and locked up in his own county jail than carry out a court order to seize a person’s weapon.

At least 10 other sheriffs contacted by CNN are lining up behind Reams, saying they are prepared to go to jail rather than enforce a law they believe would violate a person’s constitutional rights.

“How many judges are going to send all the sheriffs in Colorado who are standing up to this to jail?” wondered Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell, who is among the sheriffs willing to choose jail over enforcement.

Garnett said he wasn’t concerned about sheriffs being locked up.
“What I’m going to lose sleep over is, if that’s the choice that they make, and someone loses their life, someone in crisis goes on a shooting spree, (or) someone commits suicide” because a gun wasn’t taken away, he said.

Laws that remove firearms from those considered a safety risk reduce gun-related suicides, study finds
Already, 38 of Colorado’s 64 counties have officially declared their opposition to the bill, and 35 of them have passed formal resolutions against the law. Many of the resolutions declare the jurisdictions to be Second Amendment “sanctuary” or “preservation” counties, and pledge not to allocate resources to enforcement of the law.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser he is “confident that when and if the time comes, all law enforcement officials will follow the rule of law.”
Reams insists he’s not bluffing. So does Prowers County Sheriff Sam Zordel.
“I’ve already asked the coroner if he wanted to come over (to the jail) and get some training,” he said, explaining that if he becomes an inmate, the coroner would be tasked with running the county jail.

Others took a more measured approach.

“I’m willing to go to my jail for it, the only exception would be a totally extreme case and most sheriffs would agree with that,”

said Park County Sheriff Tom McGraw.

The law is meant to be used only in the most extreme cases, but critics believe it will allow for guns to be taken based on a false accusation. A non-partisan analysis of the bill by Colorado’s Legislative Council Staff predicted that the number of false red flag petitions would be minimal, and that the law would only be used 170 times per year.
California and Washington use similar red flag laws even less than that, though a similar law in Maryland is enforced six times more often than the Colorado estimate.

Legal challenges could be on the way

“Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is going to file a lawsuit against the red flag legislation before the end of the session,” the lobby group’s executive director, Dudley Brown, said. The legislative session ends May 3. Brown also said there could be a second lawsuit filed after the bill becomes law, but declined to provide more details.
Brown is also planning recall efforts of “at least 10” state lawmakers who supported the legislation. Two Colorado lawmakers were successfully recalled in 2013 after supporting controversial background check legislation and a restriction on magazine size.
The El Paso County Sheriff’s office initially said the county would file a lawsuit when the legislation became law. The county now says it is still “in the brainstorming phase” of a potential lawsuit, according to county spokesman Matt Steiner.

According to the Giffords Law Center, which lobbies for tougher gun laws, there have not been any successful legal challenges of any similar state laws. There is, however, an ongoing complaint in an Illinois district court asking for an injunction, arguing that the law violates the Second and 14th amendments.
Assuming Colorado’s law withstands a court challenge, defiant local sheriffs are on a legal collision course with the state. State law enforcement agencies like the Colorado State Patrol do “not have the authority to supersede local control,” and seize the guns instead, according to Shelby Wieman, a spokeswoman for Gov. Polis.
Polis is confident that law enforcement will not ignore court orders to seize weapons, but if they do, it would be for the district courts or the state attorney general to resolve.
Ignoring gun laws versus immigration laws
The declaration of a “sanctuary county” borrows the phrasing used by immigration advocates to describe jurisdictions where local law enforcement does not cooperate with federal immigration authorities, even when undocumented immigrants charged with crimes enter local jails.
If it’s OK to ignore immigration laws, why can’t Colorado counties ignore gun laws?
University of Denver law professor John Campbell said local law enforcement “can’t choose not to enforce their state’s law.” But the enforcement of federal laws, such as immigration legislation, are voluntary for local authorities.
If a sheriff were to ignore a court order to seize a person’s guns and they use them to hurt someone, Campbell believes the sheriff could be held liable. Law enforcement has immunity for genuine mistakes, but not for recklessness or blatantly ignoring their legal duty.
“Those are classic conditions to create liability even when people typically would enjoy immunity,” he said.
While the legal obligation to enforce court-ordered gun seizures is different than enforcing immigration laws, Campbell said the outcomes can be the same — someone getting hurt or killed.

In 2015, 31-year-old Kate Steinle was killed by an undocumented immigrant who was released from jail despite a request from federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to turn him over. A federal appeals court ruled last month that Steinle’s parents cannot sue over San Francisco’s “sanctuary” policy that allowed her killer to avoid deportation and walk free.
Garnett said sheriffs should enforce the new gun law, but wouldn’t make a statement on enforcing immigration law.
“Immigration laws are primarily federal issues and I’m not going to get into that,” he said.

Sheriff Reams acknowledged his risk of liability for ignoring a court-ordered gun seizure, but he’s not worried.

“The person who commits a crime against another is truly the person responsible,” he said, adding that if a person is mentally ill, he would use existing laws to detain them for treatment. “We still intend to deal with the person.”









Colorado Sheriff Willing To Go To Jail Rather Than Enforce Proposed Gun Law

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams

Colorado Sheriff Willing To Go To Jail Rather Than Enforce Proposed Gun Law

CNN: Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams disagrees so much with a gun bill making its way through the Colorado legislature that he’s willing to go to jail rather than enforce it.

“It’s a matter of doing what’s right,” he said.

He’s not the only one who feels so strongly. The controversial “red flag” bill aims to seize guns temporarily from people who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.

Colorado’s state Senate passed the bill Thursday by a single vote, without any Republican support, and the bill is expected to pass the House, possibly this week. With Democratic majorities in both chambers, state Republicans have too few votes to stand in the way.

But more than half of Colorado’s 64 counties officially oppose the bill. Many have even declared themselves Second Amendment “sanctuary” counties in protest.

Failure to enforce a court order to seize a person’s guns could mean sheriffs being found in contempt. A judge could fine them indefinitely, or even send them to jail to force them to comply.

Reams says it’s a sacrifice he’d be forced to make.

What is the bill?

Colorado’s “extreme risk protection order” bill would allow a family member, a roommate, or law enforcement to petition a judge to take someone’s firearms if they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

The push for legislation followed the death of Zack Parrish, the 29-year-old Douglas County sheriff’s deputy killed in 2017 by a man with an arsenal of weapons who authorities said had a history of bizarre behavior, including threats to police.

Parrish’s former boss, Sheriff Tony Spurlock, has been one of the most vocal advocates of the bill and says he believes it could have prevented Parrish’s death. Democratic House Majority Leader Alec Garnett, one of the bill’s primary sponsors, agrees.

The other House sponsor is Rep. Tom Sullivan, whose son, Alex, was killed in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting in 2012.

Garnett says he won’t lose any sleep if Reams or another Colorado sheriff opts for jail instead of enforcement of a court order.

“What I’m going to lose sleep over is, if that’s the choice that they make and someone loses their life, someone in crisis goes on a shooting spree, (or) someone commits suicide” because a gun wasn’t taken away, he said. 

What’s so controversial?

Gun rights activists, and an increasing number of law enforcement leaders, say the bill goes too far.

David Kopel, a constitutional law expert who has written extensively about gun policy in the United States, says he thinks the bill is generally a good idea but that he has serious reservations about how it is written — in part because of outside influence.

“The gun ban lobbies are getting more and more extreme and aggressive,” he said.

The bill allows a judge to order a person’s guns to be seized before the person has a chance to appear in court. The bill does require a second hearing with the gun owner present to be held within 14 days, where the owner could make a case to keep the weapons — but if the owner is unsuccessful, a judge could order the guns seized for as long as a year.

Kopel said it would be difficult to prevent a nightmare scenario in which someone misuses the law to take guns away from a person they intend to target violently.

The burden of proof is low — “preponderance of the evidence,” which is the same standard used in civil cases, and a much lower bar than the criminal standard, “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Reams said he also worries about the potential to aggravate an already volatile person by taking their weapons.

“Going in and taking their guns and leaving the scene, I can’t see how that makes them less of a risk. It just takes one tool away,” said Reams, arguing that a person bent on hurting someone could do it with a knife or a car.

In 2018, a man near Baltimore was killed after officers showed up to seize his weapons based on a court order and “he became irate,” police said.

Garnett dismissed concerns about the bill.

“The opposition is always there. It will always be there and there’s nothing, there’s no amendments or any changes that could be made to bring the sheriff from Weld County onboard,” he said.

He’s right. Reams concedes he would still never support the bill, even with amendments.

a man wearing a suit and tie: Colorado House Majority Leader Alec Garnett© Ken Tillis/CNN Colorado House Majority Leader Alec Garnett

Counties fighting back

A total of 32 counties have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuary, or preservation, counties or passed similar resolutions. Most vow support for their sheriffs and state that no resources or money will be used to enforce unconstitutional laws. Another two counties already had similar resolutions on the books, and one other has sent a letter to the legislature declaring its opposition.

Even Douglas County, where Deputy Parrish was killed, passed a similar resolution pledging that no county resources would be used in the enforcement of the red flag law, despite Sheriff Spurlock’s support for the legislation.

“We’re putting a line in the sand for what we believe right now is support (for) constitutional laws,” said Douglas County Commissioner Roger Partridge at a contentious meeting in March.

“Why would you tell a law enforcement officer they could not enforce the law because you didn’t like it? That’s craziness,” said Spurlock.

“The idea of a sanctuary county is more of a political move than it is a legal move,” said John Campbell, a law professor at the University of Denver.

Campbell said he also believes there could be civil or even criminal liability for a defiant sheriff if they refuse to seize a weapon and that person goes on to commit a crime with it.

What happens next?

The bill wouldn’t officially come into force until next year, but El Paso County is planning to launch a legal challenge as soon as it is signed into law.

In a statement, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said he is “confident that when and if the time comes, all law enforcement officials will follow the rule of law.”

But Reams is steadfast.

“I’ve explained that time and time again,” he said. “I’m not bluffing.”

Judge Blocks California’s Ban On Magazines Holding More Than 10 Rounds

Picture of High Capacity AR-15 Magazines

California Federal Judge On Friday Ruled Against The States Ban On Gun Magazines Capable Of Holding More Than 10 Rounds

A federal judge in California on Friday ruled against the Golden State’s ban on gun magazines that are able to hold more than 10 rounds.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez said the rule violates the Second Amendment and infringes upon citizens’ rights to defend themselves.

“California’s law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny,” he wrote in an 86-page decision.

“California’s ban is far-reaching, absolute, and permanent. The ban on acquisition and possession on magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds, together with the substantial criminal penalties threatening a law-abiding, responsible, citizen who desires such magazines to protect hearth and home, imposes a burden on the constitutional right that this Court judges as severe,” he wrote.

Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee who serves on the bench for the Southern District of California, also wrote that California’s ban unfairly impacts a wide swath of the state’s gun owners, as many choose to use magazines containing over 10 rounds for their defense.

“The magazine ban arbitrarily selects 10 rounds as the magazine capacity over which possession is unlawful. … The ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American citizens for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” he ruled.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), which backed the lawsuit, hailed the decision as a “huge win for gunowners.”

“Judge Benitez took the Second Amendment seriously and came to the conclusion required by the Constitution,” NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox said in a statement. “The same should be true of any court analyzing a ban on a class of arms law-abiding Americans commonly possess for self-defense or other lawful purposes.”

The gun lobbying group acknowledged that the state was likely to appeal Friday’s decision to the 9th Circuit.

California is widely considered to have some of the strictest gun control policies in the country.

“We are committed to defending California’s commonsense gun laws and are reviewing the decision to evaluate next steps,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said in a statement to The Hill.

Look What I Did Here

Picture of Warne Scope Rail and Bobro Acog Mount

Look What I Did at My Day Job! Don’t Tell My Boss

As part of my day job I design and build machines specific to our process. Sometimes I sneak gun stuff into the design. This here is my  latest machine. It takes a continuous strip of paper and moves back and forth creating a spool of paper. Old versions of the machine use tools and screws to secure the tooling. I decided on my new design I would incorporate some firearm technology in the form of a Warne Tikka rail and a Bobro Engineering Acog mount. This has created a tool-less repeatable tool change. It works so well I’m going to incorporate the design into all the older machines. This will be A LOT of Warne rails and Bobro Acog mounts.

This is my own personal inside joke at work and the best part management loves the “reduced downtime and scrap” and “faster changeover”. Also getting my job to support the industry a couple parts at a time.

I wonder how much time will pass before someone comes through the building and recognizes the hardware. On another machine I borrowed something from a revolver. I’ll save that for another day. 

@warnescopemounts @bobroengineering #warnescopemounts #bobroengineering 

Poll-What Are Your Firearm Plans 2019

Tell Us What Your Thinking!

This April will mark nine years of this websites existence. In that time I do not believe we have ever had a user interactive poll. The poll is a serious question of what 2019 is starting to look like from a political and economic standpoint. The poll also represents the personality of those who are both staff and members of this site and the 308 AR forum. Love us or hate us we are definitely the most colorful shooting forum on the web. 

If you wouldn’t mind please answer up to 5 questions below. This helps us to better understand what is important to you so we can keep our content fresh and relevant. Also please feel free to add your own answers. Naturally humorous answers are welcome but please try to answer a few questions seriously. If you choose not to answer you risk Shepp and Robocop going all Jay and Silent Bob on your butts, and trust me you don’t want those hairy mugs knocking on your door.  

What Are Your Firearm Plans For 2019?
  • Add your answer

Please write in your own answers as well. Feel free to add a funny response but please include some real answers. Thanks!

California Democrats Flex Supermajority With Plans To Pursue Gun Tax

California Democrats Flex Super Majority With Plans To Pursue Gun Tax

California Democrats Flex Super Majority With Plans To Pursue Gun Tax

Well it didn’t take long for the Democrats in California to join other similarly anti-gun states to make going after guns their first priority. I think we need to remain extra vigilant as the daily news is dominated and distracted by Trump hate and new anti-gun control proposals may come up without citizens being alerted. I think some of us are in for a rough ride. Fasten your seatbelts folks.

The blue wave that swept through California in the midterm elections gave Democrats a supermajority in both chambers of the state legislature — which means virtually free rein to pursue boundary-pushing liberal policies in the new year.

The state that popularized plastic straw bans and played a critical role in the push for “sanctuary” policies protecting undocumented immigrants may just be getting started.

Having tightened their grip on power in Sacramento, Democrats are on pace to hold 29 of the 40 seats in the state Senate and 60 of 80 in the state Assembly. With a Democratic governor-elect, Gavin Newsom, the veto-proof majorities in the legislature might not be critical on most issues. But they could help ensure passage of any items Newsom might otherwise resist.

Lawmakers already are pushing a number of proposals ahead of the new session in January.  From tighter gun controls to affordable public housing measures, Democrats are readying a raft of bills that would face no meaningful opposition from a depleted Republican minority, provided the party stays united.

“Republicans are politically less relevant in California than they have been in years and it is really up to the Democrats to decide what role they play,” Zev Yaroslavsky, the director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, told Fox News. “But as long as Democrats stay unified, they won’t even need bipartisan support.”

One of the pieces of legislation Democrats are looking to quickly pass is Assembly Bill 18, which among other things looks to tax the sale of handguns and semiautomatic weapons in order to generate funding for gun control programs.

a close up of a flag: Party officials survey the damage after a tough midterm election which left Republicans holding just seven of California's 53 House seats; chief correspondent Jonathan Hunt reports.© Party officials survey the damage after a tough midterm election which left Republicans holding just seven of California’s 53 House seats; chief correspondent Jonathan Hunt reports.

The bill, which was sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Marc Levine, would implement “an excise tax on the sales of handguns and semiautomatic rifles” and then hand over the resulting revenue to the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program (CalVIP).

“California needs to bolster violence prevention initiatives so that they are commensurate with our state’s tough gun laws and as effective as violence prevention programs of other states,” Levine said in a statement earlier this month.

California already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country and, beginning in 2019, state ammunition dealers will be required to maintain logs of all sales – including those of bullets. The state has already restricted online sales of bullets so they can only be delivered to licensed dealers and not someone’s home.

The gun-tax legislation has drawn heavy criticism from gun-rights and hunting groups.

“While the legislation lacks details of how the actual proposal will look, it expresses the intent to place an additional tax on handguns and semi-automatic firearms for distribution to various community-based intervention and prevention programs,” the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action stated on its website. “Once again, lawmakers are saddling lawful gun owners with additional taxes and fees for the misdeeds of criminals.”

Along with guns, California Democrats are also looking to crack on the rise of vaping, or e-cigarette use, among teens.

In November, six state senators led by Democrat Jerry Hill introduced a law to ban store sales of flavored electronic cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products.

“We must stop the appalling epidemic of e-cigarette use by youths,” Hill said in a statement. “Enticed by fruit, candy and other appealing flavors, high school and middle school students throughout the U.S. are vaping in record numbers.”

California’s Democratic supermajority also could take up the immigration debate anew.

In early December, Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula introduced legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants over the age of 19 to enroll in Medi-Cal, the state’s low-income health care program. Around 60 percent of the remaining 3 million uninsured Californians are undocumented, and projections put the price tag for the program at around $3 billion per year.

While incoming Gov. Newsom campaigned on creating a universal health care system in the state, it is unclear if he would support Arambula’s measure, which would take a big chunk of the state’s budget.

Besides immigration measures, California Democrats are looking to deal with the state’s mounting homelessness crisis and its problem of affordable housing.

Two measures attempting to tackle the problems were recently introduced. One introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener would create “right to shelter” for homeless individuals.

“California’s housing crisis, along with our mental health and addiction challenges, are driving people into homelessness, and we must act,” Wiener said. “We must do more to ensure homeless people have access to shelter, as a way to stabilize people’s lives and help them transition to permanent housing.”

Wiener also introduced legislation to give the state more power over land-use decisions and allow developers to bypass local low-density zoning restrictions and build apartment buildings within a half- or quarter-mile of public transit and close to job centers.

While both pieces of legislation are meant to curb homelessness and ease the state’s housing crisis, Republicans and some analysts caution that they could also drain the state’s coffers ahead of a possible economic recession and put Newsom in a tough spot during his first term.

“Hopefully there are enough adults in the legislature to enforce some fiscal discipline,” Yaroslavsky said. “If the state goes broke, it cancels out any of the good that a program can do and the legislature won’t get blamed, it’ll be Newsom.”

Outgoing Gov. Jerry Brown, though, cautioned against presuming the supermajority will have a huge impact. He argued that many Democrats who won were more conservative-leaning, making a two-thirds vote difficult to cobble together on most issues.

“I think the chances of getting the Legislature to vote by two-thirds on new taxes are very, very limited and unlikely,” Brown said, according to The Sacramento Bee.