Second Amendment Archives - Page 3 of 6

Colorado Legislature Introduces Mandatory Safe Gun Storage Bill

Posted on March 6, 2020March 6, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

In a Facebook post, Colorado State Representative Monica Duran announced that she has introduce a “Safe Gun Storage” bill along with State Representative Kevin Mullica. HB20-1355 Secure Storage of Firearms can be found here.

In Duran’s post, she states:

I am proud to be running Safe Gun Storage alongside Representative Mullica, being introduced today. Gun suicide claims the lives of 23,000 Americans annually, including 1,100 children and teens, making it a public health crisis in the U.S.

In over 80% of youth suicides involving a firearm, the gun belonged to a family member. Approximately 90% of suicide attempts involving a firearm end in death, compared to 4% for attempts not involving a firearm.

Every day, eight children are unintentionally shot or killed by a gun. A study found that households that locked both firearms and ammunition had an 85% lower risk of unintentional gun deaths compared to those who lock neither.

I look forward to improving public safety in our communities with this bill, and thank you to all of the advocates with Moms Demand Action who were able to join us today!

I am proud to be running Safe Gun Storage alongside Representative Mullica, being introduced today. Gun suicide claims…

Posted by State Representative Monica Duran on Friday, March 6, 2020

Constitutionality:

There are obviously some serious questions about what this law will look like and how bill sponsors plan to get around constitutionality.

Attorney Joseph Greenlee of Steamboat Springs has already written about this issue. In a January 8, 2020 article for Complete Colorado he states:

“Safe storage” laws are unconstitutional because they prohibit immediate self-defense in the home. In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring that firearms be kept inoperable in the home, because it “makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” A “safe storage” law is another “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,” and is unconstitutional for the same reason.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has placed strict limitations on the government’s ability to regulate private conduct within the home. For example, the sanctity of the home prevents government from criminalizing the in-home possession of obscene materials (Stanley v. Georgia), homosexual conduct within the home (Lawrence v. Texas), and the use of contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut).

Indeed, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Constitution provides “protection against all governmental invasions of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” How Americans decide to store their arms inside their homes is therefore layers of constitutional protection beyond the reach of government.

Suicide:

A glaring hypocritical statement Duran makes is in relation to suicide. According to the CDC, there were 725 firearm suicides nationwide in 2018 for children aged 17 and under, while for that same age group there were 923 suicides by hanging/suffocation. Colorado’s teen suicide rate has increased by 58% in 3 years and not because of firearms. In 2018 for ages 0-19 there were 95 total suicides in Colorado, 48 of those were by hanging and 47 were by all other means which include intentional overdose, firearm, and others. Simply restricting access to firearms does nothing to address the suicide rate and will only push these teens toward other methods. Until we get to the root cause of suicide, it will not stop.

That said, Colorado’s suicide rates matter and we should all care. There are private organizations who already work with gun owners in crisis or who worry someone in their home may be in crisis. Hold My Guns is a private group who is working to partner with FFL’s and police departments to offer a place people can store firearms during a crisis. There are also multiple suicide prevention hotlines. And recently CU Anschutz unveiled an interactive map that shows out-of-home gun storage facilities for this exact reason. WTTA.org also offers non-crisis support to gun owners.

And then there are the crisis lines:

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: Call 1-800-273-8255, or chat online
Veterans Crisis Line: Call 1-800-273-8255 and press 1, text 838255, or chat online

Accidental Deaths:

Accidents are the result of negligence. Since 1993, gun-accident fatalities have fallen 74 percent. You’ll be hard pressed to find a metric the CDC is tracking that shows such a remarkable trend in the positive direction. For example, you’re fifteen times more likely to be killed as a pedestrian than you will because of a gun accident (2017: 7450 pedestrian vs 486 gun accident). And to make this fact even more remarkable, this reduction in gun accidents happened solely from within the gun community without any intervention from the CDC, the medical establishment, or law enforcement.

Gun owners—and by this I mean law-abiding gun owners since a non-law-abiding gun owner is by definition a criminal—have on their own recognized the need for enhanced gun safety, that alcohol and guns don’t mix, and the need for safe storage to prevent handling by children and to prevent theft. Years ago, safe storage was hiding your guns in the bedroom closet; today gun owners brag about their gun safes.

Don’t take my word for it as the John Hopkins School for Gun Policy and Research says that: “…gun owners who purchase a firearm legally, generally are even more law-abiding than your average person.”

There are also statutes within Colorado Child Abuse law that mandates consequences for parents whose children accidentally cause harm to themselves or others via firearms.

Enforcement:

Lastly, we will need to spend some time reading into the bill language to determine how they intend to enforce this law, as well as who will be required to own a gun safe. Will it be every gun owner regardless of whether or not they have children? That’s like saying every car sold must also include a car seat, regardless if the person purchasing the vehicle and car seat will ever need it.

In addition, we’ve already seen here in Colorado that storage doesn’t stop criminals. The perpetrators in the 2018 STEM School shooting busted into a gun safe using a crow bar and an ax. They then took the guns to the school where they were stopped by an armed security guard after killing one student.

An accompanying piece of legislation is also expected to be introduced: Mandatory Reporting of Lost and Stolen Guns. We can already see how they intend to use these laws together. If you leave your gun in your car while you go into a gun free area such as your child’s school, and it’s stolen, as soon as you report it you will be asked why it wasn’t being “safely stored”, and criminal charges will ensue. This will only mean less people will report their guns stolen out of fear they will punished. Punitive laws don’t work.

Stay tuned for more information as we get it, including when these bills will be scheduled for public testimony. The easiest way to stay up to date is to subscribe to our email list and connect on social media. Click here to get connected.

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)

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)

Here’s How Colorado Red Flag Orders Will Go Down According To Newly Released Best Practices

Posted on December 4, 2019December 4, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

Colorado’s “Red Flag” ERPO law will go into effect January 1, 2020. Leading up to this, the Colorado Attorney General’s office is responsible for developing law enforcement “best practices” via their POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) Board. Those were just released this week and we’ve included the full text below. It should be noted that Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser admitted during the debate of this legislation that there will be false claims, lack of due process, and collateral damage.

It’s important to note if the person being Red Flagged lives within city limits, it is the responsibility of the CITY police department to do this. If the person is in unincorporated county, it is the responsibility of the COUNTY Sheriff’s Office. This mean 246 different agencies across Colorado will have to figure out how to abide by these guidelines as well as find firearm storage space for confiscated weapons.

There is a very glaring piece missing from these best practices: what to do if someone refuses to comply. Some agencies, such as the Weld County Sheriff’s office and the El Paso County Sheriff’s office have already stated they will not take surrendered firearms or provide storage for them, but they will deliver the order so the person being accused can have the due process they deserve – and they wouldn’t have otherwise since the accused doesn’t know they have been Red Flagged until law enforcement is at their door.

Other agencies such as Douglas County Sheriff’s office have stated they will make sure every Red Flag ERPO order is accompanied with a search warrant, no matter who the petitioner is. Sounds like he’s ready for some legalized SWATTING in the name of his deputy who was killed doing the exact same thing he will soon be asking the rest of his deputies to do on potentially innocent people.

If you’re not familiar with how this law works, click here to read up on it. It’s downright frightening.

ERPO Model Policy: Acceptance, Storage, and Return of Firearms
CRS 13-14.5-101
Deputy Zackari Parrish III Violence Protection Act

Download the PDF here: ERPO Weapon Seizure Policy

I. Purpose:

To provide direction and guidelines for the proper handling and storage of firearms that are surrendered, or seized as a result of an Extreme Risk Protection Order. This policy will also deal with the proper procedure to follow for the return, or disposal of firearms after resolution of the ERPO has been achieved.

II. Scope:

This policy is available for use to all law enforcement agencies in The State of Colorado.

III. Policy:

Colorado Courts may order, pursuant to CRS 13-405.5-101, the surrender, or seizure of firearms. Officers will comply with all applicable Colorado Revised Statutes in regards to the acceptance, storage, and return of all firearms.

IV. Definitions:

A. Respondent- the person who is the subject of the Extreme Risk Protection Order.

B. Extreme Risk Protection Order- Known in this document also as an ERPO. Either a temporary, or continuing order granted pursuant to CRS 13-14.5-101.

C. Firearm- Any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.

D. Antique firearm/Relic- any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898.

E. Federal Firearms Dealer- A Federal Firearms Dealer is a person licensed in the United States, that enables an individual or company engaged in a business pertaining to the manufacture or importation of firearms and ammunition, or the interstate and intrastate sale of firearms.

V. Acceptance of a Firearm:

There are two methods by which you will be in the position to accept weapons based on the issuance of the temporary ERPO. They are by voluntary surrender by the respondent, as directed in the language of the temporary ERPO, or seizure by you, or your agency, during a lawful search pursuant search warrant, plain view search, or consent.

A. Voluntary Firearm surrender – According to orders set by the court in the temporary ERPO, the respondent has 24 hours to surrender all firearm(s) listed in the court order, or in their control or possession. The order will require surrender of the firearm(s) to law enforcement, or a federal firearms dealer for transfer, storage, or sale. They may also be transferred to a family member, if firearm is classified as an antique, or relic.

If the firearms are surrendered to law enforcement, you will give the option to the respondent of where they want the firearm(s) to go. The options allow for a transfer to a federal firearms dealer for storage or sale, or storage with law enforcement. Be advised, this law does not require a federal firearms dealer to accept the firearm, they have the option to refuse. If the respondent indicates no preference, officers will take custody of the firearm for storage at a secure law enforcement facility. If applicable, and set forth in the temporary order, you will also take custody the respondent’s concealed carry permit. You will be required to issue a property receipt accounting for every firearm surrendered to you, and the concealed carry permit, if applicable. You will issue a copy of the inventory of items seized to the respondent prior to termination of the contact. Additionally, you must ensure the original copy of the receipt is filed with the courts, and a copy is retained with your original report. The original receipt for the firearm(s) that have been surrendered must be submitted to the court within 72 hours.

If the firearm in question is an antique, or relic, you may give that firearm to a relative if: the relative does not live with the respondent, and you have verified through a criminal records check, CBI InstaCheck, that the relative is legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm. You must still complete a property receipt for the transfer from storing the firearm until relinquished to the relative. The relative retains a copy of the receipt, the original goes to the court within 72 hours, and a copy submitted with your report.

Once the firearm is in your possession, and proper documentation has been completed, the weapon will be secured, packaged, and stored in accordance with your agency’s existing policies regarding firearm storage, and in accordance with section IV of this policy. The ammunition and any magazines associated with the surrendered firearm(s) will not be taken.

B. Firearm Seizure – If you as the law enforcement officer are the petitioner, and a temporary ERPO is issued, the process begins with
the issuance of the order. Along with the search warrant obtained at the ERPO hearing, you serve the order to the respondent.

After the respondent has been properly served with the ERPO, you shall take custody of the respondent’s firearm(s) pursuant to the previously obtained search warrant, or other lawful search (plain view).

If applicable, and named in the warrant, you will also seize the respondent’s concealed carry permit.

Similar to the voluntary surrender, once you have seized all of the firearms in question, either seized through a lawful search, or in plain view, the respondent will have the option of the disposition of their firearms. They may choose transfer to a federal firearms dealer, or police custody. If they offer no preference the firearms will remain in police custody.

Also, just as with the voluntary surrender of firearm(s), upon completion of your search, a receipt shall be issued to the respondent articulating all items seized. The original will be filed with the court, and a copy filed with your original report. The original to court needs to be submitted within 72 hours.

If after the firearms are in the possession of your agency, another party claims verifiable title to the firearms, the firearms will be released to him or her. You must also confirm that party is eligible to be in possession of firearm(s), via a CBI InstaCheck. This transaction must also be documented, and notification made to the court.

As with the surrendering of weapons, when you are seizing the weapons by order or warrant, you will not seize any ammunition or magazines associated with the firearm(s).

VI. Storage of Firearms

Once the firearms are in the control and care of your agency, they will be stored, and maintained in a substantially similar condition that the firearm was in when it was surrendered. If the respondent makes no choice of the firearm’s disposition, your agency will store the firearm in a similar manner as if surrendered. You will follow your agency’s policy for safe and secure storage of a firearm i.e. unloaded, open action or cylinder secured by lock, or strap. If the respondent opts for the storage of the weapon(s) with a registered Federal Firearms Dealer, your agency will contact a dealer requesting storage on the respondent’s behalf, and assist to facilitate the transfer.

VII. Return of Firearms

If the ERPO or temporary ERPO is terminated, or expires without renewal, your agency, or agency in possession of the respondent’s firearm(s), have no more than three days to return the firearm(s) in your possession to the respondent. The three day window for the return of the firearm(s) will begin upon the completion of an InstaCheck by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Your agency will be notified of the termination of the order by the court. You will then, via a CCIC notification, request the InstaCheck be completed by Colorado Bureau of Investigation. CBI in turn will notify you, again via CCIC, of the status of the respondent.

If the firearm(s) are in the care and custody of a Federal Firearms Dealer, they too have the same window of three days to return the firearm(s) to the respondent. The three day window for the return of the firearm(s) will begin upon the completion of a an InstaCheck by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

If the firearm(s) was/were classified as an antique or relic, and transferred to the care and control of a relative, they are also required to return care and custody of the firearm(s) in no more than three days to the respondent. The three day window for the return of the firearm(s) will begin upon the completion of the InstaCheck by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

If applicable, the respondent’s concealed carry permit will be returned at the same time as the firearm(s).

Any firearm(s) surrendered by the respondent, or taken into custody by a lawful order, that remains unclaimed by the respondent, or lawful owner for at least one year from the date the temporary ERPO, or ERPO expired, whichever is later, becomes property of your agency. The firearm(s) will then be disposed of in accordance with your agency’s policy and procedure for disposal of firearms in police custody.

Full documentation of the disposition of the firearm(s) needs to be submitted to the respondent, to the courts, and in your case disposition report.

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)

Debunking CBS “60 Minutes” Segment On Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO Law

Posted on November 20, 2019November 20, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

It seems a day doesn’t go by that we’re not debunking more lies and half truths coming from the mainstream media. The latest is a 60 Minutes segment that aired Sunday. This segment titled “A look at Red Flag laws and the battle over one in Colorado” is chock full of inaccurate facts, omissions, and misinformation. We go over those below.

To watch the full segment, you will have to visit the CBS website and view it there. It is 14 minutes long and free to watch.

You can watch a quick preview of the segment here:

Our take:

1.) There have not been 366 mass shootings this year (learn more: www.rallyforourrights.com/we-are-being-lied-to-about-mass-shootings-again)

2.) California passed their Red Flag law in 2014, not 2016. Now this is a minor discrepancy, but something 60 Minutes absolutely should have gotten correct. If they are going to flub on such a simple fact, what else will they get wrong? Do they not know how to use Google?

3.) Connecticut had a Red Flag law in place when Sandy Hook happened. Theirs was enacted in 1999. Sandy Hook happened in 2012 and was NOT the catalyst to write the law as the segment implies.

4.) Law enforcement is not the only entity who can petition the courts. Spouses, ex-spouses, roommates, former roommates, any relative or step-relative, a Tinder date gone wrong, or someone you had an affair with are all also people who can petition the courts for a Red Flag ERPO. If you don’t fall in to the insanely broad range of people the law defines as “family members”, you can then simply go to a law enforcement officer and have them file the petition for you.

5.) The temporary orders are granted based on a preponderance of evidence – even when law enforcement files the petition. Preponderance quite literally means the more convincing evidence, yet the person being accused is not present at the hearing and doesn’t know it’s taking place, therefore cannot present any evidence at all. The accuser will ALWAYS present the more convincing evidence. How will any of these ever be denied?

5.) It’s despicable how Sheriff Tony Spurlock said “this is a tool to take away guns” then turns around and says “this isn’t about taking away guns, it’s about getting people the help they need” when there is absolutely NO mental health component to the Colorado law.

6.) Watching the Zackari Parrish footage has us wondering how that is any different than serving a Red Flag warrant? How would the outcome change? Also, if they just left him alone that night, what would have happened? Why did Spurlock send his deputies into what he knew could be a gun fight with soft body armor?

7.) Sheriff Steve Reams was thoughtful, reasonable and great in pointing out that we need to be helping people, not simply removing the tool that could do harm. We are thankful for him.

8.) They omit the fact that more than 50 of Colorado’s 64 sheriffs oppose the law as written, as does the Denver Police Union and the Aurora Police Union.

Learn all about Colorado’s Red Flag law here.

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)

Tag: Second Amendment