ERPO Archives - Rally for our Rights

2023 Firearm related legislation from Colorado General Assembly

Posted on March 7, 2023March 8, 2023 by Lesley Hollywood

Follow current legislation on our Legislative Watch page.

Follow Colorado General Assembly at leg.colorado.gov.

The list below is current as of 3/7/23

Public testimony/comment is being accepted both in-person and remotely via Zoom for bills scheduled for committee hearings.

To register for remote testimony visit this link: www2.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2022A/commsumm.nsf/signIn.xsp, at bottom select “remote via Zoom”, select “by committee and hearing item”, select the committee the bill is to be heard in (Senate State, Civic, Military & Veterans Affairs), select date of hearing, select option that includes the bill you would like to testify on, complete registration. To testify on all three bills, you will need to register for each bill individually. You can also submit written testimony via this same link.

To testify in person: Go to the Colorado State Capitol at 200 E Colfax Ave, Denver. If the main north entrance is closed, you may need to use the south entrance through the basement, but the Capitol is open to the public.

SB23-168 Gun Violence Victims’ Access To Judicial System

Repeals limitations of when a firearm industry member can be sued
Defines “firearm industry member” as a person who is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, importation, marketing, or wholesale or retail sale of an “industry product”.
Allows Attorney General to sue “firearm industry members”
Action must be brought within 5 years
Goes into effect Oct 1, 2023

*This bill is scheduled for public hearing in Senate Committee 3/8/23 upon adjournment (approx 10am)

EMAIL SENATE COMMITTEE

SB23-169 Increasing Minimum Age To Purchase and Possess Firearms

Increases age to purchase or possess a firearm to 21
Reduces penalty from felony to misdemeanor to sell or transfer firearm to a juvenile
Exceptions:
Active duty military or peace officer
Taken hunter safety and purchases a firearm that is not a handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle
Gifts from immediate family members
Engaging in training
Under supervision of parents or guardians
Violation is a class 2 misdemeanor for the first offense, and a class 5 felony for subsequent offenses
Goes into effect Oct 1, 2023

*This bill is scheduled for public hearing in Senate Committee 3/8/23 upon adjournment (approx 10am)

EMAIL SENATE COMMITTEE

SB23-170 Extreme Risk Protection Order Petitions (Red Flag)

Expands who can request a ERPO to include licensed medical care providers, licensed mental health-care providers, licensed educators, and district attorneys
Requires the office of gun violence prevention to expend funds annually on a public education campaign regarding the availability of, and the process for requesting, an extreme risk protection order.

*This bill is scheduled for public hearing in Senate Committee 3/8/23 upon adjournment (approx 10am)

EMAIL SENATE COMMITTEE

HB23-1230 Prohibit Assault Weapons In Colorado

Prohibits a person from manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, offering to sell, or transferring ownership of an assault weapon
Prohibits a person from possessing a rapid-fire trigger activator
A violation is a class 2 misdemeanor

Defines assault weapon as:

Any rifle that has a detachable magazine plus either:
- Barrel Shroud
- Pistol grip
- Adjustable stock
- Flash suppressor
- It would basically ban the sale of all AR-15 type rifles in Colorado
Any pistol that has a threaded barrel that allows for the addition of a suppressor would be legal
Any semi-automatic shotgun with a detachable box magazine or fore end pistol grip.

The prohibition does not apply to:

A member of the United States armed forces, a peace officer, or other government officer or agent, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess an assault weapon and does so while acting within the scope of the person’s duties;
The manufacture, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon by a licensed firearms manufacturer to any branch of the United States armed forces or to an entity that employs peace officers for use by that agency or its employees;
The sale or transfer of an assault weapon to a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for the purposes of maintenance, repair, or modification, and the subsequent return of the assault weapon to the lawful owner;
Any federal, state, or local historical society, museum, or institutional collection that is open to the public, provided that the assault weapon is securely housed and unloaded;
A forensic laboratory, or any authorized agent or employee of the laboratory, for use exclusively in the course and scope of authorized activities;
An entity that operates an armored vehicle business and an authorized employee of such entity while in the course and scope of employment;
A licensed gun dealer who has remaining inventory of assault weapons as of July 1, 2023, and sells or transfers the remaining inventory only to a non-Colorado resident and the sale or transfer takes place out-of-state; or
A peace officer.

*This bill has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing

EMAIL HOUSE COMMITTEE

HB23-1165: County Authority To Prohibit Firearms Discharge

Allows county commissioners to prohibit the discharge of firearms in unincorporated areas.
To prohibit must have minimum of 30 dwellings per square mile.
A county ordinance may not prohibit the discharge of firearms in designated areas by peace officers, in indoor shooting galleries in private residences, or at a licensed shooting range

*This bill has passed house chamber with amendments; awaiting Senate schedule

EMAIL SENATE COMMITTEE

HB 23-1219: Waiting Period To Deliver A Firearm

Establishes a waiting period for the delivery of a firearm by a seller to a purchaser.
Sellers must wait three days or until required background checks are completed, whichever occurs later in time.
Violations are civil infractions punishable by a fine of $500 for the first offense and ranging from $500 to $5,000 for subsequent offenses.
Local governments are given authority to establish a waiting period longer than described in the bill.
Goes into effect Oct 1, 2023

*This bill passed House Committee 3/6/2023; awaiting second hearing in full house chamber

CONTACT YOUR HOUSE REPS

HB23-1050: Protection Of Business From Unlawful Entry

Expands immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability to the use of physical force, including deadly physical force, by an owner, manager, or employee of a business when another person makes an unlawful entry into a place of business.
Persons lawfully possessing a firearm within the place of business are similarly protected.
The person using physical force must also have a reasonable belief that the unlawful entrant has committed, is committing, or intends to commit a crime and is likely to use any physical force against any occupant of the building.

*This bill died in first committee

HB23-1044: Second Amendment Preservation Act

Prohibits any entity or person from enforcing federal laws that: levy a special tax, levy, fee, or stamp on a firearm that causes a chilling effect; register or track firearms; register or track the ownership of firearms; forbid the possession, ownership, use or transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens; and order the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens.
Prohibits the state or any political subdivision from hiring law enforcement officers that enforced these laws.
Civil penalty of $50,000 for each violation.

*This bill died in first committee

Questions Everyone Should Be Asking About Red Flag Emergency Risk Protection ERPO Gun Laws : Rally for our Rights Colorado

Fast Tracked Gun Control Bills In Colorado Make FIVE For 2021 Legislative Session

Posted on May 3, 2021May 18, 2021 by Lesley Hollywood

Want the Tl;dr version of the three gun control bills Colorado just introduced? Scroll down to below the graph.

Colorado tends to fly fairly under the radar when it comes to national chatter about gun control. A very libertarian state where guns and weed are common topics of conversation, the last time a major push for gun control took place was in 2013 when expanded background checks and a ban on so-called high capacity magazines passed. That legislation triggered a recall effort that unseated three Democrat legislators and flipped the majority to Republican control in the 2014 general election.

Since that time the only major piece of gun control legislation that has ended up with the governor’s signature was the passage of a Red Flag Extreme Risk Protection Order law in 2019 after similar legislation failed the year prior. The 2020 legislative session was a total meltdown due to COVID and the blessing out of that was gun control was dropped from the agenda. Enter 2021 and the gun control extremists are more motivated than ever to pass more ineffective laws that will do nothing to reduce firearm crime and suicide. Note the chart below shows exactly how the laws Colorado has already passed have had the exact opposite effect than promised. The longer they continue to misdiagnose and mistreat this problem, the longer it will persist.

Already in the first 60 days of the 2021 legislative session, the governor has signed two pieces of gun control: SB21-078 Mandatory Reporting of Lost and Stolen Firearms, and HB21-1106 Mandatory Safe Storage of Firearms. Both of these bills are so poorly written it’s glaringly obvious no one who knows anything about guns even helped to write them as they are full of loopholes. And now, on the tail of the Boulder King Soopers shooting, virtue signaling Democrats have wasted no time exploiting the horrific murders of innocent people by pushing for new laws that they even admit would have done nothing to stop the shooter, but without a doubt make sure it’s harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the evil we continue to face.

Three Gun Control Bills Introduced

On April 29, 2021 a package of three gun control bills were introduced. These bills are being fast tracked, going from committee to debate in the House Chamber on the same day. Ideas so “good” they have to try to hide to proceedings from the public. Here’s the run down of each:

HB21-1298 Expand Firearm Transfer Background Check Requirements

The 2013 background check law already extended the current federal background check requirements to private sales and transfers as well as expanded prohibition to include mental health disqualifiers, dating partners who commit domestic violence, and more. To purchase a firearm in Colorado, the buyer must pass both a NICS background check and a CBI background check.

This new bill would expand upon that even more to include what they consider “Violent Misdemeanors”, with those convicted becoming a prohibited person for 5 years. Of course they always have to go big and include simple harassment (say you caught someone sleeping with your wife and you yelled at them – that’s harassment in Colorado) with more heinous crimes like sexual assault and child abuse. But here’s the kicker – of the list of new 11 qualifying misdemeanors, all but two are a Misdemeanor 3. Why does this matter? Because when form 4473 is completed to submit to a background check, question 21(c) is asked: “Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?” A yes answer on this question is an automatic disqualifier. And both Misdemeanors 1 and 2 carry a maximum penalty of 12 month or more in prison. Misdemeanor 3 carries a maximum of 6 months.

For all my researchers, here are the crimes they are adding, followed by their Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) number, and what level misdemeanor they fall into:

• Assault Third Degree: 18-3-204 – M1
• Menacing: 18-3-206 – M3
• Sexual Assault: 18-3-402 (1)(e) – M1
• Child Abuse: 18-6-401 – M1 7a(V); M2 7b(VI); M2 7b(I); M3 7b(II)
• Violation of Protection Order: 18-6-803.5 – M2 with no prior violations, M1 with prior violations
• Crime Against At Risk Person: 18-6.5-103 – M1
• Harassment: 18-9-111 (1)(a) – M3; M1 if pursuant to 18-9-121(5)(a)&(b)
• Bias Motivated Crime: 18-9-121 – M1
• Cruelty to Animals: 18-9-202 – M1
• Possession of an Illegal Weapon: 18-12-102 – M1
• Unlawfully providing a firearm, other than a handgun, to a juvenile: 18-12-108.7 (3) – M1

This is the only law they claim would have stopped the Boulder shooter, as he bought his firearm legally several days before committing his massacre AND two years prior had been convicted of Third Degree Assault, a M1 that carried up to 18 months in prison. But as I previously mentioned…wouldn’t he already be prohibited based on question 21(c) of his 4473? Why isn’t the Boulder County DA charging him with lying on that form? But it also points to another issue that is never addressed – these background checks systems are only as good as the data put into them.

HB21-1298 also closes what the gun control extremists like to call “The Charleston Loophole”. This so-called loophole allows a FFL to transfer the firearm to the new owner without a background check if the background check is formally delayed for more than 3 days. First, they love to call it the Charleston Loophole so they can exploit more tragedy and ignore the fact the police and FBI knew the Charleston Church Shooter had obtained a firearm when he was prohibited and they did absolutely nothing about it. 6 months later it was used to take lives of innocent people. But giving those same agencies more authority is supposed to fix the problem. And second, FFLs in Colorado don’t transfer guns to those who don’t pass background checks. Call around and ask. There is no shortage of customers who will pass background checks to buy that gun. Additionally, this bill extends the time agencies have to review a background check denial from 30 days to 60 days, and allows for indefinite denial without disposition in certain instances.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE HOUSE REPS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!

If you would like to go a step further and email every member of the Colorado House of Representatives (like the gun grabbers do), we’ve divided them up so you can easily send three emails by clicking the links below and connect with every House Rep across the state. Remember, this includes every State House Rep and some are on your side, but they still need to hear from you so they know how strong the opposition is to these bills!

OPPOSE HB21-1298: (even more) Expanded Firearm Background Checks

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #1
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #2
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #3

HB21-1299 Office Of Gun Violence Prevention

This bill creates a new entity within Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDHPE) called the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Yes, these are the same unelected bureaucrats who have handled COVID in Colorado for the past year. This new entity would have a director and at minimum two full time employees. The responsibilities of this office will be to “…increase the awareness of, and educate the general public about, state and federal laws and existing resources relating to gun-violence prevention.” That includes how to safely store guns, how to report a lost or stolen weapon, how to access mental health care and how to utilize Colorado’s Red Flag Law. This would be done via campaigns using television, radio, internet, direct mail, etc. The office will also be tasked with collecting “evidence based” gun violence data and providing grants to those wishing to promote gun safety in the community – but again, only those with “evidence based” solutions. The office will also track and publish what local firearm laws are in place across the state, as they assume SB21-256 will pass (read below about this atrocious bill). They are requesting $3 million dollars for fiscal year 2021-2022.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE HOUSE REPS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!

OPPOSE HB21-1299: Creates Office of Gun Violence

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #1
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #2
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #3

A few other states have similar offices of gun violence prevention. Three of the most prominent such efforts are New York City Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, and Illinois Gun Violence Prevention Coalition.

What have been the results?

New York City: Since the creation of the New York City Office of Gun Violence Prevention, the city has gone from being one of the safest urban centers in the country to a return of the Death Wish years. In 2020, shootings increased 97% percent and homicides 44%

Maryland: Baltimore remains one of the most dangerous cities in America. In 2020, compared to Denver which documented 60 gun homicides, Baltimore recorded 298. More people in Baltimore were murdered with guns than in the entire state of Colorado.

Illinois: In 2020, Chicago documented 719 gun homicides, an increase of 55% from 2019. Chicago is the murder capital of the US.

SB21-256 Local Regulation Of Firearms

This bill would essentially repeal and replace the Firearm Preemption Law that has been a cornerstone of gun rights here in Colorado since 2003. It’s what got Boulder’s assault weapon ban overturned – although even the sponsors of this bill have said their ban wouldn’t have stopped the Boulder shooter (and newsflash for them, bans don’t stop murderers). Currently localities and municipalities are barred from creating their own gun laws that are more strict (or less strict) than what is current state law. This is because it is unreasonable to expect firearm owners to know hundreds of different laws as they travel over imaginary county and city lines across Colorado, and anything otherwise would create a whole new class of innocent criminals.

SB21-256 repeals that and replaces it with language allowing localities and municipalities to create their own gun laws BUT only if they are more strict than current state law, “…local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law governing or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer or possession of a firearm, ammunition, or firearm component or accessory that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, transfer, or possess under state or federal law.”

It also gives counties, municipalities, special districts and colleges the ability for their governing bodies to prohibit conceal carry, “…a local government, including a special district, or the governing board of an institution of higher education many enact an ordinance, resolution, rule, or other regulation that prohibits a permittee from carrying a concealed handgun in a building or specific area within the local government’s or governing board’s jurisdiction.”

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE HOUSE REPS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!

If you would like to go a step further and email every member of the Colorado State Senate (like the gun grabbers do), we’ve provided a link below. By clicking the link below you can connect with every State Senator across the Colorado. Remember, this includes every State Senator and some are on your side, but they still need to hear from you so they know how strong the opposition is to these bills!

OPPOSE SB21-256: Local Regulation of Firearms

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL EVERY STATE SENATOR

Two other bills we were expecting to see seem to have received the ax this year. Those would be an Assault Weapons Ban and Mandatory Waiting Periods. You can follow all Colorado gun bills as they make their way through both the house and senate chambers on our Legislative Watch page.

HAVE YOU VISITED OUR STORE LATELY?

Red Flag ERPO Critic and CO Sheriff Gets ERPO’d AGAIN By Jail Inmate

Posted on April 16, 2020April 16, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

On Februrary 25,2020 one of Colorado’s most outspoken critics of Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law, Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams, was red flagged using the state’s Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law – and it was an inmate who has been incarcerated in his jail since 2016 on serious drug trafficking charges who filed it – from jail.

That story was nuts.

And now it’s happened again, less than two months later. Same inmate, new ERPO – from jail!

According to a post on Reams’ Facebook page, on April 15, 2020 an Extreme Risk Protection Order petition was filed by inmate Leo Crespin against Sheriff Steve Reams, which is public record. The inmate claims he falls under the law’s extremely broad definition of ‘household or family member’ by marking the box “I regularly reside or have resided with the respondent in the last 6 months”, citing that he lives in Reams’ jail.

In the body of the petition the inmate states that Sheriff Reams arms his S.O.G. officers with 12 gauge shotguns. The Weld County jail S.O.G. (Special Operations Group) is responsible for maintaining order in situations involving enhanced security risk. The “shotguns” they carry are actually devices that fire less-than-lethal projectiles and are only carried by the specialized team of officers.

The petition was immediately dismissed by district court Judge Vicente Vigil.

You can read the petition and the ruling in the images below, but it is along the same lines as the February ERPO that was filed. Read all about that here.

WE’VE GOT FACE MASKS IN OUR STORE!

CO Sheriff And Red Flag ERPO Critic Steve Reams Gets ERPO’d By Jail Inmate

Posted on February 28, 2020February 28, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

One of Colorado’s most outspoken critics of Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law, Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams, has been red flagged using the new Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law – and it was an inmate who has been incarcerated in his jail since 2016 on serious drug trafficking charges who filed it – from jail.

On February 25, 2020 the inmate filed the petition. On the petition, which is public record, the inmate claims he falls under the law’s extremely broad definition of ‘household or family member’ by marking the box “I regularly reside or have resided with the respondent in the last 6 months”. I suppose there may be some validity to this, as he is housed in Sheriff Reams’ jail.

In the body of the petition the inmate states that “Sheriff Steve Reams is the rudder of the ship, and that ship being the S.O.G. who carry shotguns inside the jail”. According to the inmate, these deputies carry these “deadly weapons 24 hours a day intimidating and threatening people for the most minor things, such as get on your bed.” You can read the entire petition below.

The Weld County jail S.O.G. (Special Operations Group) is responsible for maintaining order in situations involving enhanced security risk. The “shotguns” they carry are actually devices that fire less-than-lethal projectiles and are only carried by the specialized team of officers.

The petition was dismissed as soon as it landed on the desk of Judge James F. Hartmann, without allowing a temporary hearing where the petitioner would be present but the respondent would not be, and the case decided based on a preponderance of evidence. The judge wrote an in depth statement as part of his dismissal order which in conclusion stated that the petitioner failed to provide any facts that either Sheriff Reams or his deputies were a “significant risk of causing personal injury to themselves or others in the immediate future” as is required by the law, and that the allegations made were not against any specific individual or Sheriff Reams himself, but instead were an attempt to prevent peace officers from carrying firearms within the jail. The judge refused to address the threshold question of whether or not his residency inside the jail made him a qualifying petitioner.

In a radio interview with Peter Boyles of 710 KNUS today, Sheriff Reams said he found out about the petition when the dismissal order was emailed to him while he was out of town. This is because according to the law the person being Red Flagged, the respondent, is not informed of the proceeding until AFTER the first hearing has taken place.

This is the second ERPO filed against a member of law enforcement since the Colorado law took effect January 1, 2020. The first was filed on January 9, 2020 by Fort Collins resident, Susan Holmes, against a Colorado State University Police Officer who fatally shot her son in 2017. Her son was carrying an 11 1/2″ bayonet hunting knife and had lunged at the officer before he was killed. After a circus of a hearing, Holmes was charged with perjury for marking the box on her petition stating she was a ‘household or family member’ because her and the officer had a child in common. It is far less clear if perjury charges in this new case filed against Reams would stick, as “residency” is not really defined within the scope of the law.

Weld County is one of Colorado’s ten largest counties with a large land mass and diverse demographic.

I myself hold law enforcement to high standards when it comes to excessive force, therefore I feel it should be noted Weld is one of only a few counties where the DA refuses to sign off on no-knock raids, and Sheriff Reams has a record of taking swift action in cases of excessive force. In November 2019, two Weld County deputies were fired and one resigned after video surfaced of them using excessive force during an interrogation when the suspect refused to cooperate. Two of them had been with the sheriff’s office for 15 years. One of the deputies was charged with third degree assault.

Sheriff Reams has been sounding the alarm for over a year now on how Colorado’s poorly written Red Flag law can easily be abused and now he has lived it first hand. He made international news when he told CNN he’d rather sit in his own jail in contempt than enforce an unconstitutional and dangerous Red Flag order. Reams has been a great ally to us here at Rally for our Rights, even joining us on stage to speak against the Red Flag ERPO law at rallies as well as teaching seminars on the dangers of the law to gun owners and other concerned citizens. He also helped lead the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement here in Colorado, of which more than half the state’s counties joined.

A burning question of mine that I’ve brought up many times: Why are these free to file? Even a small filing fee would deter the most frivolous of cases. Nothing else in the court system is free to file and even a Temporary Restraining Order is $97.

Proponents of Red Flag laws will undoubtedly point to this case as “working as it intended” since no one had their guns seized or their rights violated. I would argue against that in several ways. First, what an absolute waste of court time and taxpayer resources. Second, how scary is it that these petitions are THIS easy to file? And third, just as we saw in the Susan Holmes case, we’re again seeing how high profile individuals are naturally awarded protection from the abuses of the law. If this had been an average citizen, unknown to the judge, and someone they had let crash on their couch for a couple weeks, we’d have a completely different story to tell. And honestly, that is playing out in Colorado already. This case is the eighteenth ERPO filed in less than two months and a repeal bill has been introduced into the Colorado State Legislature. That bill will get it’s first hearing on March 12, 2020.

To learn more about Colorado’s Red Flag Law, obtain attorney resources, and/or report if you’re Red Flagged, visit www.redflagresourcecenter.com.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Bill Introduced To Repeal Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO Law

Posted on February 5, 2020February 5, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law has only been in effect since the first of the year and a bill has already hit the state legislature to repeal it. Introduced by Rep Lori Saine, Senator John Cooke and Senator Jim Smallwood, HB20-1271 Repeal Red Flag And Amend 72-hour Hold would effectively repeal the Extreme Risk Protection Order law while simultaneously changing the standard for a 72 hour involuntary hold. It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. No hearing is scheduled yet but because every bill gets a public hearing in Colorado, sparks will surely fly when it does.

The changes to the 72 hour hold would replace the term “imminent” with “extreme risk” which is defined as “a credible and exigent threat of danger to themselves or others through actionable threats of violence or death as a result of current mental health state”. This would give officers more leeway in who they can place in a hold and would remove the person from the crisis, rather than leave a person in crisis while removing one tool harm could be done with.

With the hyper-partisan make up of the state legislature, it is highly unlikely the bill will make it out of committee. That said, it will give activists a megaphone to bring the Red Flag ERPO abuses we’ve already seen front and center.

The highly controversial Red Flag ERPO bill, HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders, passed through the Colorado legislature last year by one single vote and was then signed by Governor Jared Polis. It had bi-partisan opposition. Every Republican and three Democrats voted against it.

Colorado’s ERPO law has been used eight times since it became law.

Three were in Denver…

The first ERPO was filed by a police officer requesting to keep guns that had been voluntarily handed over during a domestic dispute call where the respondent made suicidal statements. The respondent voluntarily agreed to the ERPO before a permanent hearing. We detailed that case here and detailed how an ERPO wasn’t even needed.

Another hit Denver soon after. In this case, the Temporary ERPO was filed by the ex-father in law of the respondent. Ex-father in law claimed respondent had made non-specific threats. Temporary ERPO was granted and a permanent hearing was scheduled for Jan 23, 2020. Respondent did not initially voluntarily surrender his firearms or file the necessary affidavit stating he had personally relinquished them according to what is required by law; this prompted further action from the court at which time the firearms and CCW permit were seized. Respondent is also going through a nasty custody battle which according to him is being financed by the ex-father in law. The case documents include pages and pages of angry, but non-threatening text messages between ex-father in law, respondent, and ex-wife. On Jan 23, the hearing was vacated for two reasons: 1) ex-father in law is not a qualified person to file petition; 2) witnesses were out of town.

The next day another ERPO was filed against the same man by the ex-wife, who is qualified person to file under the law. That permanent case will be heard Feb 5, 2020.

In Larimer County three have now been filed…

The first was filed by the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office on an inmate. He was being held on two felony charges: Inciting Destruction of Life or Property and Retaliation Against a Witness or Victim. The petition stated that the inmate did not own any guns, but while in jail he had told cell mates that when he gets out he “wants to kill 50 people”. The ERPO was initiated in an effort to make him a prohibited buyer if he successfully bonded out. We had lots of questions about this, as if he was released on bond, being a prohibited person is a condition of that bond. After some back and forth with law enforcement and the CBI, it sounds like “it’s too much work” to get him into the CBI database via the bond route, therefore an ERPO was an easy band-aid to that broken piece of law. At the permanent hearing, an attorney for the inmate respondent argued for more time as she believed he may already be adjudicated mentally defective and a prohibited buyer. The permanent hearing was rescheduled for March 5, 2020.

The second Larimer case was filed by 64 year old Susan Holmes against CSU Police Officer Phillip Morris. Morris had shot and killed Holmes’ mentally unstable, knife wielding son in 2017. Body cam footage clearly shows the shooting as justified, and the DA agreed. On her petition, which she discussed in a YouTube video, Holmes stated that her and Morris had a child in common, a fact that made her a person qualified to file. They do not have a child in common. Holmes discovered a loophole in the ERPO law that allowed her to bypass the Temporary ERPO hearing which would have likely denied her at the door, and instead move right into a full permanent orders hearing. That hearing was a circus and the Permanent ERPO was denied in the end. The Larimer county DA then put out an arrest warrant for Holmes based on two charges: Perjury and Attempting to Influence a Public Servant. After nearly two weeks on the run, Holmes was arrested.

And the third Larimer case was denied at the Temporary ERPO hearing, but it’s so absurd it’s worth pointing out. This was our first case of legitimate family members: sister and brother. The petitioner is the sister who is apparently allowing her brother to live with her temporarily. The brother got very upset when someone moved his soap, and allegedly screamed at his sister and their father. Sister felt physically threatened and claimed she had seen a gun in the past but wasn’t sure where it is now or if he still had it. No other information besides the soap incident was provided. The petition was denied. Case closed.

Douglas County tried to do one too…

Douglas County Sheriff’s Office filed a temporary ERPO on an inmate in their jail. The inmate was homeless and owned no guns, but had made suicidal statements while detained. Similar to the thinking of Larimer ERPOing their inmate, this would have made him a prohibited buyer and unable to legally purchase a firearm when released. At the Temporary ERPO hearing it was discovered he was already a prohibited buyer because he’d been Adjudicated Mentally Defective in the past. ERPO denied, case closed.

And one in Lincoln County…

Another was filed in Lincoln County by a woman who claimed a man “whom she’d had relationship with” had made physical and verbal threats to her with a handgun. She also claimed he used alcohol and marijuana. The judge denied the temporary petition but his reasoning was not made public.

To learn more about Colorado’s Red Flag Law, obtain attorney resources, and/or report if you’re Red Flagged, visit www.redflagresourcecenter.com.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

VIDEO: Police Break Down Susan Holmes’ Door To Make Arrest For “Red Flag” ERPO Perjury Charge

Posted on February 4, 2020February 5, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

Susan Holmes has been arrested and it happened during a live stream with YouTuber “timmybmn”. For over 20 minutes, on the uncut version of the video, Holmes discussed her son’s case as well as Red Flag laws. The entire time police can be heard outside. Eventually they break into her home and arrest her while still on the YouTube stream. The arrest occurs approx at the 10:40 timestamp in the video below.

WATCH!

Nine days into Colorado’s atrocious Red Flag ERPO law being on the books, Susan Holmes made national news by filing a petition against a police officer who killed her mentally unstable knife wielding son in 2017. On the petition Susan claimed her and Officer Phillip Morris had a child in common, which made her a qualifying person. “Child in common” has no definition included on the petition. She live streamed the filing of the petition on her YouTube channel. You can watch that here.

Holmes managed to find a loophole in the law that allowed her to skip the Temporary ERPO hearing where the petition likely would have been denied at the door, and go right to a Permanent ERPO hearing instead. This meant a full hearing where both parties were required to be present and both parties would have as much time as needed to present their case. This hearing was a circus and was denied in the end. We were there and you can read our recap here.

On January 23, 2020 the Larimer County DA issued an arrest warrant for Holmes and even added her to the county’s Most Wanted list. Her charges? Perjury and Attempting to Influence a Public Servant. According to Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith, the Perjury charge was based on the false statement on the petition, and the Attempting to Influence a Public Servant charge was because her end goal was to have a judge grant an Extreme Risk Protection Order on Officer Morris.

Let us know your thoughts on this latest development in the comments. Do you think if a civilian had a fraudulent Red Flag ERPO filed against them, the person who filed the false petition would be receiving the same treatment as Susan Holmes?

To learn more about Colorado’s Red Flag Law, obtain attorney resources, and/or report if you’re Red Flagged, visit www.redflagresourcecenter.com.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Hearing Recap: Red Flag ERPO Denied Against Colorado Police Officer Who Shot Petitioner’s Son

Posted on January 16, 2020January 16, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

Today I attended the Red Flag ERPO hearing of CSU Police Officer Phillip Morris. Susan Holmes is the woman who filed the petition requesting that Morris’ firearm rights be suspended and any firearms he owns be confiscated. Holmes claimed her and Morris have a child in common which would qualify her to file against him. They do not have a child in common based on what you’d think “child in common” means, but turns out there is no legal definition of that term and it can be argued many ways.

In 2017 Morris shot and killed Holmes’ 19 year old knife wielding son (11 1/2″ bayonet hunting knife). The shooting was deemed justified, and I have watched the bodycam footage and I do agree with that assessment.

Susan Holmes discovered a loophole in Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law that allowed her to bypass the initial Temporary ERPO hearing. The way it’s supposed to work is a Temp hearing would be scheduled within 24 hours of her filing, where the judge would determine based on a preponderance of evidence if the facts on the petition were true or not, and he would either approve or deny the Temp ERPO order. Had Susan Holmes gone through this Temp hearing the case would have more than likely been denied based on her claim they had a child in common (but who knows). Turns out it doesn’t matter. This law is so poorly written, if you think you will be denied at the Temp hearing because, say…you lied, you can just bypass it and go right to a full hearing forcing the person being ERPO’d to fight back or risk losing their firearm rights. It doesn’t matter how frivolous any of it is.

The Attorney General’s office sent two of their attorneys to represent Officer Morris, dismissing the attorney who had been appointed to him. I wonder if the AG would do the same for me if I was fraudulently ERPO’d? I won’t hold my breath.

Susan Holmes did not have any legal council with her at the hearing.

Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith refused to serve the petition on Officer Morris calling it a fraud. It was a fraud, but would he also not serve me if I claimed an ERPO on me was a fraud?

The hearing began by the AG’s attorneys who were representing Officer Morris waiving service since the sheriff was refusing to serve Morris. This allowed the hearing to proceed.

Susan Holmes had filed a motion asking the judge to recuse himself based on his history of overseeing cases she was involved in. I’m still not clear what those cases were. The judge denied the motion.

Susan Holmes then stated “I do not recognize you as a judge or your ruling” and she accused him of judicial misconduct. Judge told her she could appeal his decision and/or file a formal misconduct complaint with the court.

Judge was actually really patient with her and thorough in everything he did. Kudos to him because even though this fraud makes a mockery of the court system, this is what happens when the legislature passes laws against the wishes of law enforcement who deal with the courts. You end up with laws that turn the court into a circus, and it’s the judges job to see that through no matter what, and this judge was going to do just that.

Holmes was then given the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses to make her case for the removal of Morris’s firearm rights and the confiscation of his guns. She refused based on the fact she wouldn’t recognize the judge.

Judge turned to Morris’ attorneys from the AG’s office and invited them to present evidence and call witnesses. They began by stating this should have first gone through a Temporary ERPO hearing. Judge stopped them and said no, because that wasn’t the way the petition was filed. This is a permanent hearing. They then begin to argue that there is no standing for Holmes to file the petition because they do not have a “child in common” (although attorney was stumbling over the definition because there really isn’t one). A sworn affidavit from Morris was filed stating he does not have a child with this woman.

Holmes was given the opportunity to respond and make her case for what she believes “child in common” means. Judge asked: “Do you want to address if you have a child in common?” Holmes: “I don’t recognize you as a judge.”

The judge regularly had to read right from the ERPO law to try to make sense of what he was supposed to do.

Judge ruled he cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that they do have a child in common, mainly because Holmes won’t present evidence, so the ERPO was being denied based on her not having standing to file. Holmes can appeal and get a different judge. Holmes last statement was that she was appalled that the AG had stepped in. I was a little bit too. The AG called people like me who said this law could be abused “paranoid” and didn’t care if we were collateral damage.

Holmes started demanding an amendment be added to the ERPO that allows citizens to directly ERPO law enforcement.

I told media this makes it obvious how easily ERPOs can be used maliciously, and if these were average citizens and not a police officer in a high profile case, would the sheriff refuse to serve the petition and would the AG come to the defense? Absolutely not. We’d be on our own – defenseless.

Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law had been in effect for 9 days when Holmes filed, and this is the 5th ERPO in the state. This is going to be a bumpy ride.

To learn more about Colorado’s Red Flag Law, obtain attorney resources, and/or report if you’re Red Flagged, visit www.redflagresourcecenter.com.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

BREAKING: Colorado Mother Who ERPO Red Flagged Cop Who Shot Her Son Posted Her Petition Filing On YouTube

Posted on January 14, 2020January 15, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

This article has been updated to reflect that the Temporary ERPO may not have been granted, but it was not denied and the case has moved forward to a permanent hearing. The judge has signed off on the request for the respondent’s counsel among other things.

This sounds like it should be an Onion article, but sadly it is not. This is the reality of how easily abused Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law has already been in the 14 days since it became law.

On January 9, 2020 a petition was filed by Susan Holmes against Phillip Morris. The petition states that the two have a child in common (a factor that would make Susan a qualifying person to file the ERPO under the law’s broad definition of “family or household member”). If she was not one of the people that fall into the nine categories of “family member”, she would have had to go to law enforcement to request they file on her behalf.

There is a complex history between a Susan Holmes and Phillip Morris in Fort Collins. Phillip Morris is a CSU Police Officer who shot and killed Susan Holmes’ knife wielding son in 2017 and there is no evidence the two have ever had a child in common, as it appears they did not know each other prior to the 2017 incident described below. It is also highly unlikely they have had a child since the incident given the nature of their relationship. The petition cites “ongoing violence and aggression from 2013-2017” as evidence that Morris is a danger to himself or others and an ERPO is needed to ensure he is stripped of any firearms he may own or have access to. It also states there is an ongoing lawsuit. It should be noted 2013 is when Morris was hired by CSU Police.

The ERPO was moved forward by 8th Judicial District Chief Judge Stephen Howard. He signed the request for appointed counsel for the respondent among other things. A Permanent ERPO hearing will take place on January 16, 2020

You can read the entire story here.

What is even more shocking is that Susan Holmes actually posted her filing of the petition and a very long rant on YouTube! She finishes off her ten minute video with “And this is why Colorado citizens should be allowed to file E.R.P.O.’s.”

Watch:

To learn more about Colorado’s Red Flag Law, obtain attorney resources, and/or report if you’re Red Flagged, visit www.redflagresourcecenter.com.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Cop ERPO Red Flagged By Mother of Man He Killed In 2017 Colorado Police Shooting; Mother Claims They Have Child Together

Posted on January 14, 2020January 15, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO law went into effect January 1, 2020 and we’re already finding alarming cases that deserve attention. A brand new Red Flag ERPO case out of Fort Collins, Colorado sheds light on exactly how easily this new law can and will be abused.

Here’s what we know:

On January 9, 2020 a petition was filed by Susan Holmes against a Phillip Morris. The petition states that the two have a child in common (a factor that would make Susan a qualifying person to file the ERPO under the law’s broad definition of “family or household member”). If she was not one of the people that fall into the nine categories of “family member”, she would have had to go to law enforcement to request they file on her behalf.

The ERPO was moved forward by 8th Judicial District Chief Judge Stephen Howard. He signed the request for appointed counsel among other things. A Permanent ERPO hearing will take place on January 16, 2020

It is unclear if Morris has surrendered his weapons, was entered in the NICS and CBI databases, and is off duty, as would be required by the law if a temporary ERPO was granted.

There is a long history between Holmes and Morris, and it’s a complicated one.

On July 1, 2017 Susan Holmes contacted police after her son, 19 year old Jeremy Holmes, left her home carrying an 11.25 inch bayonet knife and was talking about killing his brother who lived on the CSU campus. Susan first attempted to contact the brother and his wife but was unsuccessful, so she turned to law enforcement. During the call with police, Susan explained that her son was mentally ill.

CSU Police Officer Phillip Morris was the responding officer.

According to the Larimer County District Attorney and body camera footage, after Morris made contact, Jeremy Holmes began brandishing the knife. Morris can be heard instructing Holmes to drop his knife, even as Holmes continued to walk toward him, forcing the police officer to back up more than 100 feet in about two minutes. Morris told Holmes to drop the knife 36 times. In the video Holmes can be heard saying “kill me now” three times.

At this point, back-up Officer Erin Mast arrived and drew her weapon, also demanding that Holmes drop the knife. As Morris reached to holster his gun and grab his Taser, Holmes charged toward him with the knife. Mast shot Holmes twice, and Morris shot him four times.

Since the incident, Susan Holmes, mother of the deceased, has filed a civil lawsuit against CSU claiming lack of transparency surrounding the details of her son’s death, has run for city council, and campaigns to the point of instigation to change police practices that she believes led to the incident.

Now it appears she is asking to have Officer Phillip Morris’ weapons seized for at least 364 days, which is what would happen if the Permanent ERPO is granted. Morris would have one opportunity to request the court lift the order during those 364 days, and at that time Susan Holmes would be alerted and have the opportunity to ask the judge to deny Morris’ request. When the 364 days is up, again, before the order is lifted, Susan Holmes would be alerted and able to request the ERPO be put into place for another year.

And we must revisit the question that was brought up in the beginning – do these two really have a child together? Is it really that easy for just anyone to file an ERPO petition?

We will be watching the permanent order closely and will provide an update. More information can be found via a quick Larimer County Court Docket search.

37 counties across Colorado have declared Second Amendment Sanctuary status, but although Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith has been an outspoken critic of the new Red Flag ERPO law, Larimer County, where Fort Collins is located, isn’t one of them. That said, even if they had declared 2A Sanctuary Status, that wouldn’t stop the orders from going through the court, nor would it stop enforcement actions within city limits unless the municipality has declared themselves a 2A Sanctuary city. Fort Collins has not done that.

Links to sources and bodycam footage are provided throughout the article so people can draw their own opinions about the police shooting. This article is about the potentially malicious use of an ERPO.

UPDATE: Susan Holmes has posted video of her petition on YouTube! WATCH:

To learn more about Colorado’s Red Flag Law, obtain attorney resources, and/or report if you’re Red Flagged, visit www.redflagresourcecenter.com.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

What We Know About Colorado’s First Red Flag ERPO Case

Posted on January 3, 2020January 3, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

Colorado’s Red Flag Extreme Risk Protection Orders ERPO law just went into effect on January 1, 2020. Today the news broke to the public that the first case had been successfully filed and granted. Sadly, it’s not unlikely the person being ERPO’d also heard about the ERPO against them for the first time on the local news along with the public. That is because the person being accused is not awarded the opportunity to defend themselves at the first hearing, nor are they even aware of it.

Here’s what we know about this unique first case:

Police made contact with a 26 year old man at a SW Denver gas station on December 29. 2019. PD allege he had a cut over his eye, and during a pat down search they discovered he had a loaded 9mm Glock in his waistband.
The man said the cut was from falling down and the gun was because he wanted to “off himself” after an argument with his wife and her sister. PD also allege he was visibly intoxicated.
The man later told PD that the cut was actually from his wife, who had hit him in the face with a bottle.
PD took the man in on a mental health hold due to his suicidal statement.
The firearm was seized and logged into Denver Police Property.
When PD spoke with the wife, she was also visibly intoxicated and admitted to throwing the bottle at her husband. She was booked on 2nd degree assault charges. Her story later changed and she claimed her husband has perpetrated the abuse and that he had pointed his gun at her while making threats.
At the request of PD, the man voluntarily surrendered another firearm while the domestic violence investigation took place. That firearm was a .45 caliber Springfield.
It is also alleged the man told police it was a “good thing they stopped him because he was contemplating doing something bad”.
On January 2, 2020, the Denver District Attorney’s Office declined formal charges on both parties in regards to the domestic violence allegations.

This is where the ERPO comes in:

Because no domestic violence charges were filed, the firearms needed to be returned to the owner. Instead of returning the firearms, the police officer chose to request to continue to hold them through an Extreme Risk Protection Order ERPO citing that the individual may still be suicidal.

So, now we have a potentially suicidal individual, who may or may not also be a victim of domestic violence (or perpetrator), and the police feel they have “done something” by withholding firearms –while leaving the person in crisis with many other tools. Possibly two people in crisis.

Considering this man voluntarily gave up his guns prior to the ERPO and allegedly told the police officer that he was worried he would have harmed himself if he had not, a private solution would be a great option. Imagine if this police officer visited suicide prevention organization Hold My Guns (www.holdmyguns.org) and helped arrange a FFL who would store his firearms until he felt he was in a better place. No courts, no judges, no rights being infringed – just help and compassion.

What will happen now?

On January 16, 2020 the man will go to court where he will have an opportunity to defend himself and request his firearms be returned. The police officer who filed the ERPO petition will also be there to present his case, or he could submit sworn affidavits if unable to attend in person. At that hearing, the judge will make a decision whether or not the accusations are true. This decision will be based on clear and convincing evidence, whereas at the first hearing the decision was based on a preponderance of evidence (meaning one side had more convincing evidence, even though only one side was present).

The man who has been ERPO’d can either retain a private attorney, represent himself, or request the court appoint one. Because this is a civil, not criminal, proceeding, public defenders are not used, but instead attorneys who have volunteered to work these cases for state pay will be called upon.

At the January 16 hearing, the order will either be dismissed or made permanent. If made permanent it will go into effect for 364 days. The person who has been ERPO’d will have one opportunity to ask the courts to lift it during that time. If he was to make that request, the police officer would be alerted and could ask it remain in place. At the end of the 364 days the police officer will also be alerted that it is going to expire and could request the ERPO be renewed for another year.

To learn more about Colorado’s Red Flag law, get attorney resources, and more visit www.redflagresourcecenter.com.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Category: ERPO

Three Gun Control Bills Introduced