Fun and guns in Colorado

[Guest Godless]

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Firearms is not under the 5th.  Firearms is under the 2nd.  There's no "without due process" clause on the 2nd amendment.

So, by that reasoning, background checks should be completely abolished because literally everyone has a right to own a gun, including convicted felons and the criminally insane. Got it. 👍

[Just_A_Guy]

31 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Hah hah.  Funny.

I thought so.  😛

But seriously—why not?  If the 2A is as absolute as you say, on what constitutional basis can a jail tell an inmate that he can’t have a gun on his person whilst incarcerated pre-trial?  Surely his need for self-defense has only increased, now that he’s surrounded by jailbirds.  

You seem to argue that a strict textual approach to the second clause of the Second Amendment prohibits firearm ownership restraints of any kind.  Very well, but from a textualst standpoint you can’t read the second clause of the amendment in isolation from the first clause; and the logical conclusion is that if the suspect isn’t functioning as part of a militia unit, the second clause doesn’t apply.  

Now, if we shift to an originalist rather than a textualist approach (which is my preferred approach, FWIW), then we can go beyond “militia” and start bringing in concepts like self-defense, government’s potential for tyranny, and so on.  But then we also have to look at the framers’ own discourse and praxis.  Did America of the late 18th/19th centuries see gun ownership as more of an inalienable right, than liberty itself?  Were miscreants awaiting trial allowed to keep weapons on their persons whilst incarcerated?  (Joseph Smith doesn’t count, since his guns at Carthage were smuggled to him.   )

If there is some constitutionally justifiable set of circumstances to deprive an individual of a firearm, and if conventional procedural pre-trial safeguards against wrongful inprisonment aren’t constitutionally sufficient to guarantee against wrongful deprivation of arms—then what, if anything, is?

Edited March 27, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Godless said:

So, by that reasoning, background checks should be completely abolished because literally everyone has a right to own a gun, including convicted felons and the criminally insane. Got it. 👍

See, this is why discussions devolve.  Because silly statements such as this is what you get out of a serious idea.

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I thought so.  😛

But seriously—why not?  If the 2A is as absolute as you say, on what constitutional basis can a jail tell an inmate that he can’t have a gun on his person whilst incarcerated pre-trial?  Surely his need for self-defense has only increased, now that he’s surrounded by jailbirds.      

Seriously, that's my exact point.  Limiting firearm ownership is beyond just any property ownership.  Therefore, you have to establish a reason for that person having lost his 2A protections and not just according to 5A.  That is EXACTLY what I'm trying to say here.  In this discussion, you simply assume that a person who is incarcerated has lost his 2A protections.  There is never a time when somebody asks... HOW did he manage to do that?  You're the lawyer, you should be able to explain how he lost his 2A and not just his 5A.

And that's why Colorado does not want to be Utah.  Because they want to be sure your 2A protections can't be taken without having to establish a constitutional reason.

 

20 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You seem to argue that a strict textual approach to the second clause of the Second Amendment prohibits firearm ownership restraints of any kind.   

Very well, but from a textualst standpoint you can’t read the second clause of the amendment in isolation from the first clause; and the logical conclusion is that if the suspect isn’t functioning as part of a militia unit, the second clause doesn’t apply.

I did not posit such a thing so this entire statement is irrelevant.

 

20 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 Now, if we shift to an originalist rather than a textualist approach (which is my preferred approach, FWIW), then we can go beyond “militia” and start bringing in concepts like self-defense, government’s potential for tyranny, and so on.  But then we also have to look at the framers’ own discourse and praxis.  Did America of the late 18th/19th centuries see gun ownership as more of an inalienable right, than liberty itself?  Were miscreants awaiting trial allowed to keep weapons on their persons whilst incarcerated?  (Joseph Smith doesn’t count, since his guns at Carthage were smuggled to him.   )

I was the one who gave you the Constitutional dilemma of the husband whose right to bear arms got removed by the fear of his spouse having been killed in his own home by a violent criminal because he had no means to defend himself.

If you want miscreants awaiting trial to not be allowed weapons on their persons whilst incarcerated you can't just remove his property through 5A.  You have to prove he lost 2A protections as well.

Edited March 27, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Godless]

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

See, this is why discussions devolve.  Because silly statements such as this is what you get out of a serious idea.

Your serious idea is that due process is enough to deny someone their right to liberty and any property that's not a gun, that guns don't count as property under the 5th amendment and get their own additional protection because of the wording of a separate constitutional amendment. Essentially, you're okay with taking away liberty and certain property from an alleged criminal, pending due process of course, but not the one piece of property that can most easily be used to commit a crime. This level of gun worship is precisely why there is a case to be made for altering the wording of 2A (which I don't necessarily support, FWIW).

[Just_A_Guy]

33 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Seriously, that's my exact point.  Limiting firearm ownership is beyond just any property ownership.  Therefore, you have to establish a reason for that person having lost his 2A protections and not just according to 5A.  That is EXACTLY what I'm trying to say here.  In this discussion, you simply assume that a person who is incarcerated has lost his 2A protections.  There is never a time when somebody asks... HOW did he manage to do that?  You're the lawyer, you should be able to explain how he lost his 2A and not just his 5A.

And that's why Colorado does not want to be Utah.  Because they want to be sure the loss of your 2A protections is not just ASSUMED through 5A.

 

I did not posit such a thing so this entire statement is irrelevant.

 

I was the one who gave you the Constitutional dilemma of the husband whose right to bear arms got removed by the fear of his spouse having been killed in his own home by a violent criminal because he had no means to defend himself.

If you want miscreants awaiting trial to not be allowed weapons on their persons whilst incarcerated you can't just remove his property through 5A.  You have to prove he lost 2A protections as well.

I have to be careful here, because criminal procedure isn’t where I specialize and I don’t want to misstate any legal standards.  But conceptually my thought is:  if we lock someone up pre-trial, it’s because a judge believes he poses a risk to someone.  Conceptually that’s the same call a Utah judge makes when entering an ex parte protective order.  Under what set of circumstances would we say “yes, you’re enough of a threat that you shouldn’t be out in public/shouldn’t be around this specific person; but safe enough that there’s no problem with you having guns”?  

By all means correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be making a case that it should be harder to tell a person he can’t have guns than to put him in jail.  But so far I haven’t seen many specifics about how this is supposed to work.  In your mind, from a constitutional standpoint, is the threshold showing for deprivation of firearms something above and beyond “credible risk of imminent harm”? By what standard of proof—probable cause, preponderance, clear and convincing, or beyond a reasonable doubt? Can it be done ex parte on an emergency basis, subject to a right to a hearing within a certain window of time?  These are questions we typically ask when discussing “due process”, but I understood you as saying that the due process clause doesn’t apply to firearm regulation.  So, what does?  

As far as your hypothetical about the DV alleged perp who gets attacked and dies in the ten-day window between the order issuing and the hearing date:  as long as we’re coming up with one-off scenarios, what about the meth addict who gets arrested, detoxes in jail and happens to die right in her cell due to some weird confluence of pre-existing conditions (or by jailhouse suicide, which one of my DCFS parents did over in Uintah county last year).  I think we can agree that bad stuff *might* happen when *any* constitutional right is inappropriately (or, for that matter, justifiably) abridged.  Emotion aside, the questions are a) what the constitution actually requires, and b) what are the likely costs and benefits of any particular constitutionally-permissible regimen.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

Your serious idea is that due process is enough to deny someone their right to liberty and any property that's not a gun, that guns don't count as property under the 5th amendment and get their own additional protection because of the wording of a separate constitutional amendment. Essentially, you're okay with taking away liberty and certain property from an alleged criminal, pending due process of course, but not the one piece of property that can most easily be used to commit a crime. This level of gun worship is precisely why there is a case to be made for altering the wording of 2A (which I don't necessarily support, FWIW).

I made no such assertions.

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I have to be careful here, because criminal procedure isn’t where I specialize and I don’t want to misstate any legal standards.  But conceptually my thought is:  if we lock someone up pre-trial, it’s because a judge believes he poses a risk to someone.  Conceptually that’s the same call a Utah judge makes when entering an ex parte protective order.  Under what set of circumstances would we say “yes, you’re enough of a threat that you shouldn’t be out in public/shouldn’t be around this specific person; but safe enough that there’s no problem with you having guns”?  

Disclaimer:  I'm not a lawyer although my family has been trying to tell me the time I spend reading and pondering law I should've tried to make money out of it.

Conceptually - Enough of a threat to a specific person (protective order) is not the same as Enough of a threat to be out in public (incarceration).

In my opinion, removal of 2A can be made a case for the 2nd but not for the 1st not just because the responsibility for personal defense of the incarcerated is supposed to be taken on by the "warden" but mainly because I see 2A as necessary for the protection of all other rights.  So, conceptually, if you're going to remove someone's right (incarceration), then you're going to have to remove one's ability to protect that right.  And that's why I side with Colorado over Utah.

 

Quote

By all means correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be making a case that it should be harder to tell a person he can’t have guns than to put him in jail.  

I didn't make this assertion.  There's 2A and there's 5A.  One is not harder nor easier than the other.  They simply are.

 

Quote

But so far I haven’t seen many specifics about how this is supposed to work.  In your mind, from a constitutional standpoint, is the threshold showing for deprivation of firearms something above and beyond “credible risk of imminent harm”? By what standard of proof—probable cause, preponderance, clear and convincing, or beyond a reasonable doubt? Can it be done ex parte on an emergency basis, subject to a right to a hearing within a certain window of time?  

2A is distinct from 5A and any of the other rights specified in the Bill of Rights.  Your loss of 2A protections should be made according to the intent of 2A and not anything else.  A firearm can be used to defend or attack (Molly-an Wymer's satirical "I want to buy a Protection Gun not a Murder Gun" may be a joke but it is insightful).  The assertion that it will be used to attack must be proven such that it justifies the removal of one's ability to defend, or that one's ability to defend is clearly made to be a burden/responsibility of another.  So, any legislation made that removes 2A protections have to rise to that level.

 

Quote

As far as your hypothetical about the DV alleged perp who gets attacked and dies in the ten-day window between the order issuing, and the hearing:  as long as we’re coming up with one-off scenarios, what about the meth addict who gets arrested, detoxes in jail and happens to die right in her cell due to some weird confluence of pre-existing conditions (or by jailhouse suicide, which one of my parents did over in Uintah county last year).

The hypothetical was not presented as a "one-off" scenario.  It was presented to display a principle.

Edited March 27, 2019 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In Utah, I can get a protective order ex parte against a member of my family or former romantic partner if I have a well-founded fear of imminent harm.  (I don’t remember the exact legal language, but it’s something along those lines).  It goes to the judge immediately.  If the judge signs it there will be a hearing within ten days, but the order is effective now.  That order, by law, makes the defendant ineligible to possess firearms—he doesn’t have to turn them over to law enforcement, but he has to give them to *someone*.  If the defendant prevails at the hearing, then the whole thing goes away and he can go get his guns back.  It has been thus, I believe, as long as I’ve been practicing (2008).

How is this meaningfully different than the proposed Colorado regimen?

Sounds pretty much like the same thing.  I didn't realize other states had done this, although it does explain when I search for "2nd amendment sanctuary", I get results talking about it happening all over the country. 

 

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So (not trying to be snarky, just exploring the issue) is the idea of jailing an accused criminal pending trial also unconstitutional?  Or do accused offenders have a greater right to gun ownership, than they do to liberty?  

Yes indeed.  They have a greater right to gun ownership, than they do to liberty.  It's enshrined in the constitution:

2nd Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  (But you can lose it if you're a felon, etc.)

8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required" (Logical extension - bail is a thing, and so is denying bail.)  Bail law was based on established English law.  Early 1770's state consitution: "But if a crime be punishable by life or limb, or if it be manslaughter and there be good cause to believe the party guilty thereof, he shall not be admitted to bail."

 

[Just_A_Guy]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Conceptually - Enough of a threat to a specific person (protective order) is not the same as Enough of a threat to be out in public (incarceration).

In my opinion, removal of 2A can be made a case for the 2nd but not for the 1st especially because the responsibility for personal defense of the incarcerated is supposed to be taken on by the warden.  That's why I side with Colorado over Utah.

 

I didn't make this assertion.  There's 2A and there's 5A.  One is not harder nor easier than the other.  They simply are.

 

2A is distinct from 5A and any of the other rights specified in the Bill of Rights.  Your loss of 2A protections should be made according to the intent of 2A and not anything else.  A firearm can be used to defend or attack (Molly-an Wymer's satirical "I want to buy a Protection Gun not a Murder Gun" may be a joke but it is insightful).  The assertion that it will be used to attack must be proven such that it justifies the removal of one's ability to defend, or that one's ability to defend is clearly made to be a burden/responsibility of another.  So, any legislation made that removes 2A protections have to rise to that level.

 

The hypothetical was not presented as a "one-off" scenario.  It was presented to display a principle.

I appreciate the response, but I’m still not getting a lot of specifics here.  On what basis do you say that the 2A is negotiable at all, given that the 2A itself mentions no process by which gun ownership can be limited?  If you concede that the 2A *can* be truncated, but that conventional criminal law due-process protections are insufficient; then a) you aren’t making a textually consistent argument; and b) protestations aside, you are saying it should be harder to take someone’s gun than to put them in jail (well, or I suppose you also might be saying that we put people in jail too easily!).

The standard you propose is an interesting one, but are you saying that even if a petitioner can show by preponderance of the evidence that a defendant wants to hurt/kill a particular victim per se, the petitioner must then go further and produce extrinsic evidence showing that the defendant will (not *would*, but *will*) use a weapon to do it?

[Just_A_Guy]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sounds pretty much like the same thing.  I didn't realize other states had done this, although it does explain when I search for "2nd amendment sanctuary", I get results talking about it happening all over the country. 

 

Yes indeed.  They have a greater right to gun ownership, than they do to liberty.  It's enshrined in the constitution:

2nd Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  (But you can lose it if you're a felon, etc.)

8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required" (Logical extension - bail is a thing, and so is denying bail.)  Bail law was based on established English law.  Early 1770's state consitution: "But if a crime be punishable by life or limb, or if it be manslaughter and there be good cause to believe the party guilty thereof, he shall not be admitted to bail."

 

You seem to be taking the position I attributed to @anatess2—which she says I misstated.   As I argue above, I think that position is problematic from either a textualist or an originalist point of view.  

[anatess2]

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I appreciate the response, but I’m still not getting a lot of specifics here.  

Which is understandable because I didn't talk specifics.  I talked Principles.

 

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 On what basis do you say that the 2A is negotiable at all, given that the 2A itself mentions no process by which gun ownership can be limited?  If you concede that the 2A *can* be truncated, but that conventional criminal law due-process protections are insufficient; then a) you aren’t making a textually consistent argument; and b) protestations aside, you are saying it should be harder to take someone’s gun than to put them in jail (well, or I suppose you also might be saying that we put people in jail too easily!).

Okay.  There's 1A.  So, we concede (I'm fairly certain you do too) that 1A *can* be truncated, right?  1A doesn't mention any process by which the freedoms specified in 1A can be limited.  But we CAN limit it.  And that is by providing just cause for the removal of 1A protections - like yelling Fire in a theater, or this problematic "Hate Speech" laws.  So why would 2A be any different?

Just so we're clear, I am not equating 1A to 2A as in - there's Prison Chaplains for jailbirds, they should have guns too.  That would be silly.  I am simply making the assertion that 1A can only be truncated by giving just cause for removal of 1A protections.  I would hold 2A by the same standard - that it can only be truncated by giving just cause for removal of 2A protections and not just as part of "property" in 5A's due-process.

 

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The standard you propose is an interesting one, but are you saying that even if a petitioner can show by preponderance of the evidence that a defendant wants to hurt/kill a particular victim per se, the petitioner must then go further and produce extrinsic evidence showing that the defendant will (not *would*, but *will*) use a weapon to do it?

That's not addressing 2A at all.  The standard I propose is that before you remove one's 2A protections you first have to prove that he should not have 2A protections for whatever reason you can come up with.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You seem to argue that a strict textual approach to the second clause of the Second Amendment prohibits firearm ownership restraints of any kind.  Very well, but from a textualst standpoint you can’t read the second clause of the amendment in isolation from the first clause; and the logical conclusion is that if the suspect isn’t functioning as part of a militia unit, the second clause doesn’t apply.  

Militias are things that get organized when needed.  They arise from the general populace.  It's important to be able to pull armed people from the general populace, in case of zombie uprising.  They show up from their farms and covens and day jobs, armed with their long guns and short guns and zap guns.  Someone shows up with the key to the town's cannons.  Once organized and regulated, they're necessary to the security of a free state. 

Therefore, even though I'm not currently in a militia (and never have been), the 2nd amendment is an individual right for me to have my guns that I own, so I can be a good American, ready to stand up and heed the call, should one ever arise.  Dang zombies.  Dang King of England.

          

Edited March 27, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[LadyGunnar]

3 hours ago, Godless said:

My take is that if you are on medication for anxiety, depression, or any kind of disorder that lends a person to emotional instability, your right to own a firearm should be evaluated. Probably not a popular opinion, but I think it's worth exploring.

The people that I know who are depressed would not go to a doctor if they thought their guns would be taken away. They would ignore problems and lie to keep their guns. This would make things worse, in my opinion. 

[NeuroTypical]

Indeed.  And I know a person with PTSD, and one with PTSD/ADHD/Depression.  One taught me to hunt, one taught me practical reasoning on how to carry and why.  I'd gladly trust them with my lives, if a situation placed me in the position to choose. 

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Indeed.  And I know a person with PTSD, and one with PTSD/ADHD/Depression.  One taught me to hunt, one taught me practical reasoning on how to carry and why.  I'd gladly trust them with my lives, if a situation placed me in the position to choose. 

The Constitutional Dilemma for mental health vis-a-vis 2A is in the inevitability of Physicians having the power over Constitutional protections.

[Guest Mores]

3 hours ago, Godless said:

My take is that if you are on medication for anxiety, depression, or any kind of disorder that lends a person to emotional instability, your right to own a firearm should be evaluated. Probably not a popular opinion, but I think it's worth exploring.

While most people would agree in spirit, I find this an almost impossible standard to actually codify.  And once codified, that would give mental health specialists an ENORMOUS amount of power.

"Emotional Instability".  I think 90% of the people I know could qualify by that description.  Just "how unstable"?

Anxiety?  That's usually why some people get guns in the first place.  They're in fear for their lives because they are being threatened. 

Depression?  The vast majority of depressed people never actually get violent. I am yet unaware of collected statistics, but those cases I do know about... many talk about it, but never go through with suicide.  It's just that we hear about the ones who actually do go through with it.  And many of them do so because of outside influences (bullying).

And for all these, is it really going to help if they don't have a gun, but have access to the kitchen knife drawer?

While I realize there is a moderately higher chance of someone getting violent with these sorts of mental illnesses, it just isn't enough to make me want to take their rights away from them.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

[1] Okay.  There's 1A.  So, we concede (I'm fairly certain you do too) that 1A *can* be truncated, right?  1A doesn't mention any process by which the freedoms specified in 1A can be limited.  But we CAN limit it.  And that is by providing just cause for the removal of 1A protections - like yelling Fire in a theater, or this problematic "Hate Speech" laws.  So why would 2A be any different?

Just so we're clear, I am not equating 1A to 2A as in - there's Prison Chaplains for jailbirds, they should have guns too.  That would be silly.  I am simply making the assertion that 1A can only be truncated by giving just cause for removal of 1A protections.  I would hold 2A by the same standard - that it can only be truncated by giving just cause for removal of 2A protections and not just as part of "property" in 5A's due-process.

 

[2]That's not addressing 2A at all.  The standard I propose is that before you remove one's 2A protections you first have to prove that he should not have 2A protections for whatever reason you can come up with.

1.  I really like this approach.  What I would note, though, is that those 1A tests are almost entirely judicially-created.  And it’s also worth noting that 1A jurisprudence draws a distinction between punishing illegal forms of speech after the fact, versus imposing a prior restraint on speech; with the latter being nigh-unto impossible in American law.  

2.  I think we agree on that, but why do you say the Colorado (or Utah) regimen fails to provide an adequate mechanism to “prove that a person should not have 2A protections”?

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Militias are things that get organized when needed.  They arise from the general populace.  It's important to be able to pull armed people from the general populace, in case of zombie uprising.  They show up from their farms and covens and day jobs, armed with their long guns and short guns and zap guns.  Someone shows up with the key to the town's cannons.  Once organized and regulated, they're necessary to the security of a free state. 

Therefore, even though I'm not currently in a militia (and never have been), the 2nd amendment is an individual right for me to have my guns that I own, so I can be a good American, ready to stand up and heed the call, should one ever arise.  Dang zombies.  Dang King of England.

          

That’s a fair argument, but that isn’t the modern meaning of “militia”; so you’ve sort of transitioned from textualism into originalism.  Which is fine, but we then run into the sorts of issues I describe above.  

Edited March 27, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Godless]

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Indeed.  And I know a person with PTSD, and one with PTSD/ADHD/Depression.  One taught me to hunt, one taught me practical reasoning on how to carry and why.  I'd gladly trust them with my lives, if a situation placed me in the position to choose. 

 

4 hours ago, Mores said:

While most people would agree in spirit, I find this an almost impossible standard to actually codify.  And once codified, that would give mental health specialists an ENORMOUS amount of power.

"Emotional Instability".  I think 90% of the people I know could qualify by that description.  Just "how unstable"?

Anxiety?  That's usually why some people get guns in the first place.  They're in fear for their lives because they are being threatened. 

Depression?  The vast majority of depressed people never actually get violent. I am yet unaware of collected statistics, but those cases I do know about... many talk about it, but never go through with suicide.  It's just that we hear about the ones who actually do go through with it.  And many of them do so because of outside influences (bullying).

And for all these, is it really going to help if they don't have a gun, but have access to the kitchen knife drawer?

While I realize there is a moderately higher chance of someone getting violent with these sorts of mental illnesses, it just isn't enough to make me want to take their rights away from them.

That's why I said evaluated, not removed by default. And you're right, @Mores, it would be very difficult to codify. A large reason for this is because no two sufferers of mentsl illness are equal. Not all people who suffer from depression, anxiety, and PTSD are at risk for violent behavior. In fact, I'd imagine that a majority of them aren't. And yes, the risk of losing gun ownership rights would certainly disincentivize people from seeking help. It's far from a perfect solution, but it could have some merits.

[askandanswer]

9 hours ago, unixknight said:

I just mean that what I regard as common sense may or may not be the same as what you do, or anyone else.  Even so, people often use the phrase as if it held a universal definition.

Among life's many mysteries

I've often wondered why

A sense that's known as common

Is in such short supply

[Guest Scott]

11 hours ago, Colirio said:

 

If they aren't a convicted felon, is there any reason that someone's right to keep and bear arms should be limited? 

 

Yes.   If they are making threats against someone's life, they shouldn't have a right to own a gun.  My sisters ex has repeatedly threatened to gun down our family (but not me specifically-we live in a different state).   As far as he know, he hasn't been convicted of a felony, but he is prohibited from owning firearms due to mental health issues and other issues which I don't know about.  The problem with this is that he has other family members who have all kinds of access to firearms.  

Someone who is mentally ill and makes threats on others lives should not own a firearm, even if they haven't been convicted of a felony.  

Edited March 28, 2019 by Scott

[Guest Mores]

7 hours ago, Scott said:

Someone who is mentally ill and makes threats on others lives should not own a firearm, even if they haven't been convicted of a felony.  

Broad brush much?  You could learn a thing or two from @Godless.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Mores

[estradling75]

20 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Question about the Colorado law...  What options are in place for someone accused to challenge the accusation in Court?

In the Utah Law the accused will have a court date within 10 days (assuming I understand what @Just_A_Guy posted), does the Colorado offer something similar?

It is a simple fact that when we get accused our rights become limited...  Which is why one of our protected rights is to a speedy trial. 

So does anyone have an answer to my question?

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

So does anyone have an answer to my question?

The Colorado proposal timeline is as follows:

1.) Somebody (petitioner) submits evidence for reasons that somebody (respondent) should lose his 2A rights.

2.) The state has to hold a hearing to adjudicate a 7-day temporary suspension of 2A rights on or the day after the petition is filed.  If the petition passes, then the respondents 2A rights is suspended for 7 days and he has to surrender all his firearms and permits.

3.) Another hearing is set within 7 days of the temporary suspension in which the petitioner provides evidence for the full 182-day suspension of 2A rights be applied. 

4.) If the 182-day suspension is applied, then the respondent has one chance to file a motion in court to restore his 2A rights within those 182 days.

5.)  The petitioner may extend the suspension by filing a motion before the 182 days is up.

The Constitutionality Issue is raised on step 2 because the 7-day temporary suspension can be applied without giving the respondent a chance to argue.  The hearing where the respondent provides a defense is set 7 days later when he has already lost 2A rights for 7 days.

Edited March 28, 2019 by anatess2

[estradling75]

28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The Colorado proposal timeline is as follows:

1.) Somebody (petitioner) submits evidence for reasons that somebody (respondent) should lose his 2A rights.

2.) The state has to hold a hearing to adjudicate a 7-day temporary suspension of 2A rights on or the day after the petition is filed.  If the petition passes, then the respondents 2A rights is suspended for 7 days and he has to surrender all his firearms and permits.

3.) Another hearing is set within 7 days of the temporary suspension in which the petitioner provides evidence for the full 182-day suspension of 2A rights be applied. 

4.) The respondent has one chance to file a motion in court to restore his 2A rights within those 182 days.

5.)  The petitioner may extend the suspension by filing a motion before the 182 days is up.

Thank you @anatess2

So based on these points it seems like 2 and very clearly 3 are places where the defendant should be able to offer a defense.  While 2 might not be practical I see no reason 3 can't happen.  4 by itself seems very limiting if that is the only chance...  Also unlike 2 there does not appear to be a Has to Hold by date for number 4 which could leave the defendant waiting 182 days just to be heard.

I am not against emergency orders or injunctions but they need to have certain about of care and protection for everyone rights and this appears to lack them for the defendant unless he is a part of 3 and/or there is a quick Has to hold by date on 4 (and I do not like the one shot of 4)

Edited March 28, 2019 by estradling75