MORE gun related laws for CO?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SigSour

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
170
Location
CO.
I didn't even know about this one... this might be the "if you got them on the ropes, don't stop" mentality on the part of the folks who passed the other gun control laws.

Here is the info:

###

Colorado legislators are not finished devouring your constitutional rights. Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse in Denver, state Representative Beth McCann (D-8) will be submitting legislation tomorrow that will nullify the right to due process for gun owners throughout Colorado.

Under this proposed language, your fundamental Second Amendment rights would hinge on the impression you make with doctors (of any sort, whether or not in a mental health specialty), therapists, counselors and social workers. These medical professionals could simply report you, your wife, son or daughter to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and have your name placed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) if they believe you pose a “significant risk” to yourself or others.

Under this proposed language, once your name has been placed on this list, you automatically lose the right to possess a firearm of any type for one full year. You may lose your constitutionally protected Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms all based upon the passing opinion of another. You receive no trial or legal proceeding where you could defend yourself and your inherent rights.

A parent who brings a child in for counseling, a person who attends a stress reduction seminar or someone who calls an employee assistance hotline after a bad day at work could be reported, without any ability to contest or answer concerns, and subject to one year prohibition from owning and possessing a firearm.

Compare this scheme to the revocation process for a driver’s license. Absent some unlawful conduct on the part of the licensee, the state could only revoke a drivers license, for which the licensee has no specific constitutional right, after a hearing proves that the licensee was somehow unqualified to have the license. This means that in Colorado, if this legislation were enacted, your constitutional rights would not compare in importance to the ability of being able to drive a car.

The unconstitutional behavior of anti-gun legislators in Denver can be tolerated no more. They are summarily destroying your hunting and shooting heritage and they are trying to take what is left of your Second Amendment rights in Colorado before the end of this legislative session.
 
Another knee jerk.....round 2 is coming! If you got a anti doctor, veteran,
actively oppose the legislator, look out! Guess this could also include on line opposition to them.......dang, I made another list!
Dan:fire:
 
Last edited:
Why does this turning citizens into spies against each other remind me of a story I read a long time ago. 1984 was not a training manual.
 
another craptastic bill. to be fully enforcable they'll need a registry, seems way too easy to get someone listed on prohibited list and by people who won't be qualified to make such a determination. I see it leading to confiscations as wl

And it certainly will get people thinking twice about seeking help when the may need it.

I'll need to reread the draft that was linked to, but I think I agree with the premise, just not the methods (and ease of getting prohibited) and what it really means for us and the 2A.

I am tired of the focus on firearms too, if you're that unstable and unsafe you shouldn't be allowed to have a Bow, knives, flammable items, a car, etc.
 
A response to an email asking to oppose new gun laws in CO. from The Honorable Lois Court of Colorado, Democrat, central Denver since 2008:


"I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I have supported all the gun safety bills - Lois"


That was the only non-auto generated email response I've received so far.
 
This will make folks visit doctors less often and self medicate or try and use false names.
 
This will make folks visit doctors less often and self medicate or try and use false names.
Click to expand...

Yup. I know a guy trying to run a business solo, raise twin daughters (one of them special needs), and with other family issues on top of life in general. His stress level is pretty high, probably could benefit from anti-anxiety meds. He's certainly not unstable, but his blood pressure is awfully high for a physically fit 31 year old.

But he won't go near a doctor for this very reason. He'd rather risk heart attack or stroke at a younger age than jeopardize his rights due a bunch of Democrats who have molested the constitution to where 100% of the population could be diagnosed with a prohibiting condition if they give a "professional" any information that suggests their world isn't totally peachy keen.
 
So obviously with the president we have and a) his general lack of moral character and spine and b) agreement with these policies, there won't be any federal response to this.

However, in a more absolute sense, I have to wonder just how far out into la-la-land does a state legislature have to go until they have so violated the 14th Amendment, 5th Amendment protections from actions without due process, and the like (without even assuming anyone will actually stand up directly for the 2A) that the federal government (assuming one interested in upholding the Constitution) has to step in and take action?
 
HorseSoldier said:
So obviously with the president we have and a) his general lack of moral character and spine and b) agreement with these policies, there won't be any federal response to this.

However, in a more absolute sense, I have to wonder just how far out into la-la-land does a state legislature have to go until they have so violated the 14th Amendment, 5th Amendment protections from actions without due process, and the like (without even assuming anyone will actually stand up directly for the 2A) that the federal government (assuming one interested in upholding the Constitution) has to step in and take action?
Click to expand...
Well, IANAL, but I think the law has to actually be passed and enforced against someone before anyone can step in and take action. The rights in question have to actually be abridged by the enforcement of the law. The action would be legal action to get the case to court so that the court can rule on constitutionality. Then it can be appealed all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.
 
It sounds horrible; but the more over the top these laws are, the better the chances we have in the ultimate Supreme Court litigation over them - assuming that the 5 Justices from Heller are still there when the lawsuit reaches them. A challenge through state court is often faster than a challenge through the federal system as well.

It is ugly though... If one of the Heller majority gets replaced in the next four years then all bets are off. We could see some really ugly restrictions given the SCOTUS stamp of approval. Even with the Heller 5 in place, we are likely to get a good idea of who the swing vote is by the time this is done.
 
For those who didn't bother to vote in the last election, enjoy the ride.
Click to expand...

Interesting, yet misguided. Read a book on stealing elections. You will never view elections the same ever again. Yes, sometime the people can vote so overwhelmingly that it is impossible to fudge, but most elections are not landslides. Look at the cheating that occurred in 2012...Obama got 90%+ in a bunch of counties, which should not be possible.
 
Fiancee is a social worker...maybe I should ask her to report any government personnel and let them enjoy their heat-free year of self-smiting?
 
Mayvik raises an interesting point. What would happen if a 2a FRIENDLY doc or other professional submitted the names of all the legislators who supported this bill? No actual diagnosis is required, just that they might pose a threat to themselves or to others. Well, I would maintain that voting for these bills does indeed pose a threat to everyone's health and safety. Wonder what the fallout might be?:eek::D:D:D
 
medalguy said:
Mayvik raises an interesting point. What would happen if a 2a FRIENDLY doc or other professional submitted the names of all the legislators who supported this bill? No actual diagnosis is required, just that they might pose a threat to themselves or to others. Well, I would maintain that voting for these bills does indeed pose a threat to everyone's health and safety. Wonder what the fallout might be?:eek::D:D:D
Click to expand...
I wonder what they would do if the names of all the government officials in the state were submitted, including all LEOs?
 
Is there anything in this bill that limits it to residents of Colorado? Could anybody in any state be reported to the CBI and wind up on the NICS prohibited list?
 
the bill text was never made public so no way to know. CBI != NICS though. CO has to have their own version so they can put people in there on a whim and not be subject to Fed oversight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Colorado considers gun ban for people 'suspected' of being dangerous
Replies
12
Views
765
hso
hso
S
  • Locked
A response from my Senator on Gun Control
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Trent
Trent
W
  • Locked
Missouri HB 633
Replies
10
Views
988
trailgator
T
beeenbag
  • Locked
Red Flag laws, and how are they enforced?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Zoogster
Z
W
  • Locked
Illinois Gubernatorial Candidates on Guns
Replies
16
Views
1K
creepiE
C
Back
Top