MaybeOriginally Posted by HCM
Maybe
Honestly we've been over this ad nauseum on the forum already and I'm not getting into the nuts and bolts again, but feel free to search it out if you're interested. In short, the claim that it's "before due process" is pretty meaningless as it works exactly like the majority of our criminal justice system (as to differentiate from civil, etc). A judge signs off on it. Then it's executed. Then there's a hearing. Note the similarity to an arrest. A judge signs off on it. You get arrested on it. Then there's a hearing/trial. An officer can, in some situations, elect to start the process themselves in both cases, and then it's reviewed by a judge (probable cause hearing for an arrest, admin hearing for Red Flag laws).
The issue with CO's law isn't one of due process as much as who's got standing to start the process.
Were either of the orders signed by a judge to be executed? At least the first one wasn't. An initial hearing was set but no order was ever signed. The biggest difference is probably they are making the news, not how they are being handled.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
The first one from the mom of the deceased suspect’s mom was signed and an ERPO issued then the sheriff refused to execute it when they ascertained who the involved parties were.
The second one from the inmate was denied on presentation to the judge and no ERPO was issued.
While the mechanics of an app and request an ERPO are similar to the mechanics of law-enforcement requesting an arrest warrant, They are not really the same.
On the one hand you have cops and prosecutors who have formal legal training and have conducted an investigation to establish probable cause. They also have a lot of skin in the game to discourage filing false affidavits. First they are normally neutral and detached parties, second they are looking at getting fired and losing a career even if they are not prosecuted for such First they are normally neutral and detached parties, second they are looking at getting fired and losing a career even if they are not prosecuted for such action.
With people Directly requesting ERPO’s. Even for people who actually have a standing you have people with personal grudges and biases, no legal training and who are unlikely to face any sort of consequence for frivolous and malicious filings except in the most egregious of circumstances Because prosecutors and judges will say that To prosecute such people would “put a chill quote on people coming forward. While some jurisdictions are good about prosecuting false your PO, police civilian complaints, false 911 calls, false police reports etc. Manny or not and in many circumstances they are not prosecuted because it turns into he said she said.
I remember initial confusion but per the later media accounts no ERPO was issued. A request for a hearing was granted, and that's what the sheriff refused to serve. No temporary order was requested or granted prior to the hearing. That's also what the court docket showed, but it can no longer be searched since it's done. I think I have screen shots earlier in the thread.
While Smith has said he will not serve the petition against Morris, and a hearing on the red flag case is still scheduled for Thursday, according to online court records. There was not a request for a temporary order in this case,
Hence my complaints earlier such as:
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
There are no surprises here. The BLUF: these laws are a tool designed to take guns away from people, period. Just a tool, like a screwdriver. Just as a screwdriver can be used to both put together a bunkbed for the kids, or to shank a MoFo, these laws can be used as intended, or weaponized. It’s a people thing.
I’m not personally a fan, because I feel that the shanking will outweigh the furniture-making over the long term, but everyone has an opinion.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
The CO ERPO process is ex-party, if the judge in the first case hadn’t signed the order a hearing would never have been scheduled. The judge signed the ERPO and the sheriff refused to serve it in the first case.
In the second the judge denied the initial ex-parts application. Likely because he saw the return address and because of the blow back from the first case.
These things are generally similar to a lot of protection/restraining/anti-harrassment orders (although it varies by state, of course). If certain criteria exists, when a petition is presented, a judge can sign a temporary ex parte order, then set it for hearing to determine whether an order should be put in place for a longer period of time. (Ex parte means only one side is presenting, and the other side hasn't gotten prior notice of the hearing). If the judge does not sign a temporary ex parte order, the matter is set for hearing, and the hearing notice must be served on the respondent.
In Washington, an ex parte order is temporary for fourteen days, then, after a hearing (with prior notice to the person who's guns are being sought), it can be put in place for a year.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94
Here is an article detailing Colorado's process:
https://www.coloradoan.com/story/new...nt/4480034002/
If no temporary order is requested, then the law enforcement agency overseeing the jurisdiction where the respondent resides must serve the notice of hearing and petition to the respondent.
Susan Holmes did not seek a temporary protection order, according to the Colorado Judicial Department and court records. Therefore, no action will be taken in regard to Phillip Morris' weapons unless the judge approves it at the hearing Thursday.
Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith says he will not serve the notice of the petition and hearing to Morris.
Not according to the sheriff, as already quoted, or the court records. See Idahojess' link as well:
You can set a hearing without a temporary order, just like a restraining order, etc.If a temporary order is requested, a judge must conduct either a telephone hearing on the day the petition was filed or in court the next day with the petitioner. The judge will decide in that hearing, based on evidence, whether to grant the temporary request.
If a law enforcement officer seeks a temporary order, a search warrant for weapons is required in the process.
It was confusing during the first media accounts as it made it sound like what you're saying, but later accounts clarified it. Hearing was set, but no temporary order was requested or approved.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Nope, no potential for abuse of red flag orders... not at all (end sarcasm)
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gu...WMFPIeThkrK35Y
Gun Owners of America Applies for a Red Flag Order for Senator Charles Schumer
In the wake of Senator Chuck Schumer’s threat against two Supreme Court Justices…
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you, if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Gun Owners of America have sent a letter and “red flag” order application to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo requesting a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order for the Senator.
It should be interesting to see if a judge will simply dismiss this as unfounded, ruling that Schumer’s public statement was mere political hyperbole. Even after the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court has called Schumer’s statement was “threatening” and “dangerous.”It might be hard for even a New York judge to conclude that Schumer’s tirade wasn’t an actual threat when the Chief Justice and a top lefty law prof have acknowledged that’s exactly what it was.
Naturally, a confiscation order will have to disarm Senator Schumer’s security detail as well, just because he might get access to those guns.
Of course, since this application is based on actual evidence — Schumer’s own recorded words — rather than unsubstantiated feelings, a red flag order isn’t really needed. His very public threat happens to be a violation of New York Consolidated Law § 240.30(1)(a).
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when:
1. With intent to harass another person, the actor either:
(a) communicates, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by computer or any other electronic means, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of communication, a threat to cause physical harm to, or unlawful harm to the property of, such person, or a member of such person’s same family or household as defined in subdivision one of section 530.11 of the criminal procedure law, and the actor knows or reasonably should know that such communication will cause such person to reasonably fear harm to such person’s physical safety or property, or to the physical safety or property of a member of such person’s same family or household; or
Threatening is a Class A misdemeanor good for 12 months in jail. Or, since this threat went out to the world — interstate — 18 U.S. Code § 875 could apply. That one is good for five years.
The other well known problem with red flag orders is that not only do they leave the dangerous person on the street to threaten more people, they don’t get the disturbed Senator the help he so clearly needs.
Hopefully, that state will also invoke § 9.39(a)(2) in order to take him into custody for mental health evaluation and treatment.
2. a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in reasonable fear of serious physical harm.
Some folks just don't realize or care about the consequences of their actions. GOA needs to pull their head out of their ass. Sorry I ever contributed to them a year or two back.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Reply With Quote