Some questions about ERPO's (especially now that they're expanded here in Colorado). Follow the example of some nuns.
Some questions about Colorado's Red Flag Law (now that its extension has become law).
Polis recently signed the extension of Colorado's Red Flag Law into law here in this state, and shortly thereafter, the two articles linked below came out.
This spurred a couple questions in my mind.
What is the process for getting rid of an ERPO? Alternatively, what if someone wants to continue to pursue one against you?
Are people allowed to sue if they think you should have sought one but didn't? This is particularly relevant now that even more people can file ERPO's. For example, could I as a teacher be held liable if I don't file one as the folks in the second link below are trying to do to the El Paso County Sheriff re. the Club Q shooting?
I'm not a lawyer, so none of what I'm going to write should be considered legal advice.
That notwithstanding, I went to the newly-signed bill itself to try and see what I could see. I got all the screenshots I will attach from the third link below.
For the first question, I want you to look at screenshots 1 - 3. By my reading, if you had an ERPO out against you, you can request a rehearing and then present evidence that you are no longer a danger to try and get the ERPO lifted.
When it comes time for the order to expire, the person that swore one out on you will be notified 63 calendar days prior to the expiration of the order and has the chance to ask for it to be renewed. That triggers another hearing where, in theory, the same evidence and standard are used as in the original hearing.
The court can renew the ERPO for up to one year, but there's an interesting wrinkle (and one that, if you had an ERPO out on you, you'd be wise to take note of).
If the person who sought the ERPO wants to renew it and the person against whom the order was issued doesn't show up or contest the order, it can be renewed without a new hearing.
For the second question, take a look at screenshot 4.
Again, I'm not a lawyer and so my mind isn't used to trying to digest legalese; I get heartburn sometimes reading this stuff. Looking at sections 1 and 4 together, I get the picture that no one (including law enforcement) is required to file an ERPO. Then I look again at the article linked second below and ask myself what the folks that are suing are thinking. I'm wondering if I missed something here.
If no one is required to file an ERPO why is there basis for a suit? Is this a statement? If any of you know better, please let me know.
I am ambivalent about Red Flag Laws to be honest with you. I think they're a helpful tool, but as with any tool, how it works and how you use it greatly determine its efficacy and safety ("safety" in the sense here that it protects a Constitutional right).
I am concerned about the developments in the second article below and I'm concerned about the extension of the ability to file ERPO's to more (and more and yet more people). If I read the law right, it should protect against things like this, but people generally don't file lawsuits knowing that they'll lose them.
I can say this too: the credibility of this law for people like me who are supportive but wary will depend greatly on how things like this suit and the return of guns to someone are handled. Done wrong and people like me will start to see more concerns than potential benefit, and the law will lose my (tentative) support.
https://denvergazette.com/news/local/red-flag-order-renewal-upheld-for-man-who-threatened-phil-weiser/article_758c746e-03e1-11ee-89e4-733f9961d483.html?utm_campaign=blox&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
https://coloradosun.com/2023/06/05/club-q-shooting-red-flag-order-lawsuit/
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2023a_170_signed.pdf
My guess is that these nuns and I would disagree about a lot politically.
Even at that I am going to follow their lead, and you should too.
I was talking with someone the other day and out of nowhere remembered a story about a nun (or group of nuns--couldn't remember at the time) who bought shares in companies whose choices they disagreed with so that they were guaranteed a voice at shareholder meetings.
You see, anyone who owns shares is allowed the right to speak and ask questions at share holder meetings. These nuns bought stock so they could speak up in public and take the CEO and others to task on the things they disagreed with--see the story below and the screenshot attached.
I don't agree with their politics. In any way, shape, or form.
But I do respect them and take a lesson from them. I hope to convince you likewise.
First, they are not intimidated by anyone.
Second, they speak up.
Now, here's the good news for you and I. Every month in this state there are opportunities for you to do the same. You don't even have to buy stock. You just have to be a legal resident.
Find a public hearing on an issue that matters to you. Maybe it's the Early Childhood Education board. Maybe it's (as I posted on earlier) the Colorado Division of Insurance. Maybe it's the PUC. There are rulemaking boards all over this state.
Stand up. Speak up. Ask "is this the proper role of government"? State a disagreement with what the body is considering.
If a nun can stand up to those earning millions and running giant corporations, you can do this.
If you have a passion and don't know where to go to find the group to speak to, let me know. We'll try to figure one out together. You can also check out the link to Colorado's DORA (Division of Regulatory Agencies) below the story about the nuns.
I hope you join me in this. I will continue to keep my eyes and ears open and post about hearings and agencies that I may sign up to speak at (again, as with the Colorado Option Division of Insurance thing I posted about earlier).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/17/philadelphia-nuns-capitalism-activism
https://dora.colorado.gov/