CO: Weld County sheriff says he will not enforce ‘red flag’ bill if it becomes law

[RugersGR8]

https://kdvr.com/2019/03/26/weld-co...-not-enforce-red-flag-bill-if-it-becomes-law/
Weld County sheriff says he will not enforce ‘red flag’ bill if it becomes law
Posted 10:49 pm, March 26, 2019, by Vicente Arenas

 

[gerhard1]

Good for him. I support the idea if and only if, adequate due process protections are written in to protect the rights of gun-owners. Included in this is a bond requirement to discourage frivolous or malicious reports. Such a law would require a very high degree of proof before any such order could be finalized.

 

[Louro]

Good for him. I support the idea if and only if, adequate due process protections are written in to protect the rights of gun-owners. Included in this is a bond requirement to discourage frivolous or malicious reports. Such a law would require a very high degree of proof before any such order could be finalized.

Agreed, kind of sort of.

 

[swampratt]

https://kdvr.com/2019/03/06/resolution-declares-weld-county-to-be-a-second-amendment-sanctuary/

 

[RugersGR8]

https://patriotpost.us/articles/62135-red-flags-about-red-flag-laws
Red Flags About 'Red Flag' Laws
If due process is protected, that's one thing. The trouble is leftist contempt for our rights.
Nate Jackson · Apr. 2, 2019

..."Sometimes called Gun Violence Restraining Orders or Extreme Risk Protection Orders, these laws allow family, close friends, or coworkers to petition authorities to temporarily remove firearms from individuals they believe are a danger to themselves or others. Colorado is set to join the list of states enacting such laws.

If — and it’s a big IF — due-process rights are protected, we and other conservatives have acknowledged that, in concept, the idea has some merit because of how many red flags mass murderers tend to display."...

 

[Fredkrueger100]

Good for him. I support the idea if and only if, adequate due process protections are written in to protect the rights of gun-owners. Included in this is a bond requirement to discourage frivolous or malicious reports. Such a law would require a very high degree of proof before any such order could be finalized.

It’s unconstitutional no matter what. Due process to decide if it’s ok to strip someone’s 2A rights away? That’s ok with you? I am against it no matter what.

 

[gerhard1]

It’s unconstitutional no matter what. Due process to decide if it’s ok to strip someone’s 2A rights away? That’s ok with you? I am against it no matter what.

I have had this conversation before with others.

Yes; in certain circumstances it is OK with me. I think that the 2A protects an individual right to arms, but it is not an absolute right. Individuals can lose their rights if they convicted of a felony. Personally, I think that most persons, once released, should have his rights restored after a certain period of good behavior. How long this period is depends chiefly on the crime that they are convicted of.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I have had this conversation before with others.

Yes; in certain circumstances it is OK with me. I think that the 2A protects an individual right to arms, but it is not an absolute right. Individuals can lose their rights if they convicted of a felony. Personally, I think that most persons, once released, should have his rights restored after a certain period of good behavior. How long this period is depends chiefly on the crime that they are convicted of.

We have different opinions. I believe the 2A is not a right granted to us by the government. Neither is the 1st. It is an inalienable right and it is absolute. Nowhere in the constitution does it say it’s a limited right. And nowhere does it give the government the right to infringe upon it. What if the government starts restricting speech? What if they start telling people where they can and cannot worship? Because that would be no different than what is happening with the 2A. They have no right to impose restrictions on either of those amendments.

 

[gerhard1]

We have different opinions. I believe the 2A is not a right granted to us by the government. Neither is the 1st. It is an inalienable right and it is absolute. Nowhere in the constitution does it say it’s a limited right. And nowhere does it give the government the right to infringe upon it. What if the government starts restricting speech? What if they start telling people where they can and cannot worship? Because that would be no different than what is happening with the 2A. They have no right to impose restrictions on either of those amendments.

You say that the 2A is absolute. Therefore there can be no restrictions of any kind under any circumstances. Is that a fair statement of your position?

 

[gerhard1]

https://patriotpost.us/articles/62135-red-flags-about-red-flag-laws
Red Flags About 'Red Flag' Laws
If due process is protected, that's one thing. The trouble is leftist contempt for our rights.
Nate Jackson · Apr. 2, 2019

..."Sometimes called Gun Violence Restraining Orders or Extreme Risk Protection Orders, these laws allow family, close friends, or coworkers to petition authorities to temporarily remove firearms from individuals they believe are a danger to themselves or others. Colorado is set to join the list of states enacting such laws.

If — and it’s a big IF — due-process rights are protected, we and other conservatives have acknowledged that, in concept, the idea has some merit because of how many red flags mass murderers tend to display."...

This is why I proposed that the accuser be required to post a bond and be liable for damages if a frivolous or malicious accusation is made. The way they are now, most of these proposals have no penalties if a non-meritorious accusation is made.

Again, I support the stance taken by the sheriff of Weld County. He seems to be a good man.