Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

Discussion of other state's CHL's & reciprocity

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B


Texas1836
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:45 pm

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#16

Post by Texas1836 » Tue May 22, 2018 8:52 pm

One problem is that a judge will have more incentive to confiscate the firearms than not. If the judge does not confiscate and the subject later commits mass murder, imagine the response. However, if a judge confiscates from a person who is not a threat, no one is going to be up in arms except that person. Not sure how to best address or mitigate for this.


jason812
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:41 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#17

Post by jason812 » Tue May 22, 2018 9:22 pm

ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
:iagree:

How long will the firearm confiscation last? I might be wrong but can't you have a mental breakdown and recover? Sometimes crazy is for life and there are institutions for that.

User avatar

Grundy1133
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:18 pm
Location: Gainesville

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#18

Post by Grundy1133 » Wed May 23, 2018 1:50 am

wasn't colorado trying to pass constitutional carry...? Man this sucks... I guess I can make Colorado off of my places i want to live/own a summer house... shame. it's such a nice place.
Image
NRA Member

User avatar

Allons
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:03 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#19

Post by Allons » Wed May 23, 2018 8:05 am

apostate wrote:
ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
And yet some people seem fine with crazy people killing with explosives or by other means, just as long as they don't use a gun. :roll:
How many times in the last year has a person ran a car into a crowd and killed people, and yet no one is calling to ban vans or cars. People will always find a way to do harm to one or another. I consider a person drinking and driving a crazy person; do I want them to ban beer....NO! and yet drunk drivers will kill more teens this year than school shootings.
EDC'S: Dan Wesson CCO, CZ-P07, XDS-45 MOD 2, SCCY CPX-2 , MP Shield-45
Home Defense: Mossberg 930 SPX
NRA Member
US Army 1988-1999
Image


MechAg94
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1584
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:28 pm

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#20

Post by MechAg94 » Wed May 23, 2018 9:46 am

mojo84 wrote:
Odinvalknir wrote:https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb18-1436

The bill creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in her or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.

I am not arguing or debating this issue one way or another. However, I would like to hear what you think should be done so we can proactively separate those that are mentally ill or unstable from their guns.

Here's an example. You are sitting out on the back porch visiting with a neighbor or your brother in law and he starts talking about how he has people trying to kill him. He is sure his wife has tried to poison him in his sleep because she has been having an affair with a made man from the mafia. He continues on to the point he even starts pointing about windows across the way and asking if you see the people watching them from the windows. He is so sure he is a target he even hired a couple of friends to work as his bodyguards. He is sitting there discussing all of this with a gun on his belt like it's real and when you mention you don't see anyone surveillaning the two of you, he gets defensive and start accusing you of being a plant that is trying to get to him. This fella has several guns he owns and has never shown these delusional schizophrenic tendencies before. He also has never been adjudicated mentally ill.

What do you do to help him get help and to ensure he doesn't kill anyone including his wife he thinks is trying to kill him and his baby that he has decided is from the affair with the mobster? What about when he tells you had have to defend his 2nd Amendment Rights should you try to separate him from his guns? Are we to wait until after he kills someone or shoots some place up thinking he is shielding mobsters?

This may or may not be a hypothetical situation. What remedies do citizens have in order to act fast enough before something really bad happens?
Theoretically, this could help a few people. In reality, it will likely be abused and used to hurt people a lot more often.

You are referring to specific situations and ignoring lots of others. In your case, the person you are referring to should be able to argue their side in court before any action is taken. Due Process is something that should happen prior to the court restricting someone's rights. Yes, some people might harm others or themselves before Due Process occurs. You are talking about using the Govt Power against someone which should not be allowed to happen easily. It isn't worth the perceived benefit. IMO, it should be considered in the same way we consider criminal convictions. Meaning we would rather see 10 criminals go free rather than convict one innocent man.

User avatar

puma guy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5768
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Near San Jacinto

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#21

Post by puma guy » Wed May 23, 2018 9:56 am

philip964 wrote:I lived in Colorado in the early ‘70’s. It was a lot like Texas, only with Marijuana.

Lots of hunters.

It’s probably been Kalifornized since I left.

Could happen here.
I was in Aspen in 1972 for about 6 months. There were three police officers and their main job seemed to be marking tires with chalk for parking violation. The newspaper posted in the lost and found that a baggie of marijuana was found by the park soccer field with instruction on how to reclaim it. That was before the Spyder Savitch memorial target shoot. I went back in 1977 and there were 13 Red Saab police cars PARKED at the police station and no idea how many on patrol. Every other car had a California plate.
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
Image

User avatar

stever1950
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 pm

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#22

Post by stever1950 » Wed May 23, 2018 10:11 am

philip964 wrote:I lived in Colorado in the early ‘70’s. It was a lot like Texas, only with Marijuana.

Lots of hunters.

It’s probably been Kalifornized since I left.

Could happen here.
I moved out in '76, we called it Californicated...
And lots of Texas hunters.
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." John Adams

User avatar

puma guy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5768
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Near San Jacinto

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#23

Post by puma guy » Wed May 23, 2018 10:26 am

stever1950 wrote:
philip964 wrote:I lived in Colorado in the early ‘70’s. It was a lot like Texas, only with Marijuana.

Lots of hunters.

It’s probably been Kalifornized since I left.

Could happen here.
I moved out in '76, we called it Californicated...
And lots of Texas hunters.
On my last visit in 1979 they didn't seem to have much love for Texans. I was called a turkey by a clerk. He'd been in Colorado for all of two years. LOL
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
Image

User avatar

stever1950
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 pm

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#24

Post by stever1950 » Wed May 23, 2018 10:37 am

You're right Puma, he was probably from california...LOL.
Texans tended to use a 100 yard gun to shoot 400, and ordered Coors beer by the case a year ahead to bring back.
I ran across a bunch one time that would stay up late drinking, get up at noon and wondered why they didn't see any deer.
We made fun of Yankees too though. Glad I got smart and moved to Texas.
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." John Adams


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3592
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#25

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Wed May 23, 2018 10:50 am

ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
:iagree:

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be locked up. They should not have access to any weapons, including vehicles, knives, etc.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#26

Post by Papa_Tiger » Wed May 23, 2018 11:02 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
:iagree:

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be locked up. They should not have access to any weapons, including vehicles, knives, etc.
With due process of course...


LTUME1978
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Alvin, TX

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#27

Post by LTUME1978 » Wed May 23, 2018 11:24 am

People need to be careful with this confiscation business. The definition of "dangerous" can easily shift to someone that is a Christian or any other group or organization that is in opposition to the powers in place at the time. There does need to be a way to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands but I think there are plenty of legal measures in place now. However, I have to wonder why this is a relatively new problem relative to the history of our country. I am in my 60's and grew up in a time where there were guns in every home. They were not in gun safes but in cabinets or closets with easy access to anyone. We knew better (as young children/teenagers) to touch a gun without adult supervision. There were no mass shootings that I can remember when I was growing up.

I believe the answer to all problems we are seeing is clearly stated in the Bible. Those that are not Christians may not understand or agree with that statement and I get that.

User avatar

RogueUSMC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1478
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:55 pm
Location: Smith County
Contact:

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#28

Post by RogueUSMC » Wed May 23, 2018 11:51 am

Papa_Tiger wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
:iagree:

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be locked up. They should not have access to any weapons, including vehicles, knives, etc.
With due process of course...
'Due process' meaning a jury of your peers not just a robe on a bench...
A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.
- Napoleon Bonaparte
PFC Paul E. Ison USMC 1916-2001

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8606
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#29

Post by mojo84 » Wed May 23, 2018 2:13 pm

RogueUSMC wrote:
Papa_Tiger wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
:iagree:

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be locked up. They should not have access to any weapons, including vehicles, knives, etc.
With due process of course...
'Due process' meaning a jury of your peers not just a robe on a bench...
So arrest warrants that temporarily take away one's freedom should be ruled on by a jury before being issued instead of a robe on a bench?

User avatar

Allons
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:03 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#30

Post by Allons » Wed May 23, 2018 2:28 pm

mojo84 wrote:
RogueUSMC wrote:
Papa_Tiger wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
:iagree:

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be locked up. They should not have access to any weapons, including vehicles, knives, etc.
With due process of course...
'Due process' meaning a jury of your peers not just a robe on a bench...
So arrest warrants that temporarily take away one's freedom should be ruled on by a jury before being issued instead of a robe on a bench?
:iagree: You might get a liberal judge and see this as a win for them to dis-arm you.
EDC'S: Dan Wesson CCO, CZ-P07, XDS-45 MOD 2, SCCY CPX-2 , MP Shield-45
Home Defense: Mossberg 930 SPX
NRA Member
US Army 1988-1999
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Other States”