This is Colorado and a new proposed antigun state law that will likely become law.
I believe florida has a similar law on the books.

the Florida House voted in favor of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, which gives police a way to take guns from dangerous people. Two days later, Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law. https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/...has-taken-guns-from-dangerous-people-10602359

Click to expand...

"What is the bill?
Colorado's "extreme risk protection order" bill would allow a family member, a roommate, or law enforcement to petition a judge to take someone's firearms if they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. " https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...a-proposed-gun-law/ar-BBVrgqM?ocid=spartanntp

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams disagrees so much with a gun bill making its way through the Colorado legislature that he's willing to go to jail rather than enforce it.

"It's a matter of doing what's right," he said.
He's not the only one who feels so strongly.
The controversial "red flag" bill aims to seize guns temporarily from people who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.
Colorado's state Senate passed the bill Thursday by a single vote, without any Republican support, and the bill is expected to pass the House, possibly this week. With Democratic majorities in both chambers, state Republicans have too few votes to stand in the way.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In the military, there are "lawful" orders and "unlawful" orders. You are not only 'not required' to follow "unlawful" orders, you are expected to question and clarify. We take an oath with the US Constitution at its core. The litmus test of what is lawful is straightforward. There is a line. You know it when you see it. It must not be crossed.

Law Enforcement officers take a similar oath. At some point, they have a decision to make, too. Just because something is written into law doesn't mean it's "lawful", if that makes sense. Every SCOTUS-overturned piece of legislation is proof of that conundrum.

Sometimes a Citizen endures the hardship of Unconstitutional harassment because they are betting that the law will be overturned and they will get their lives back.

Many gun-owners would/should agree that is not a healthy option when it comes to Unconstitutional firearms confiscation and government overreach. A government that wants to disarm its peaceful Citizens is a government that no longer deserves the law-abiding respect of those Citizens.

There is a line. You know it when you see it. It must not be crossed.

My genuine condolences go out to all LE who make the wrong choice because their legislators failed them and put them in that unenviable position.

Edit to add: that Sheriff, and those like him who would defend what's right, especially when it's the obviously difficult path... those are the LE that a community should rally behind. It's a shame that it would even be an option for him to go to prison for refusing to enforce an Unconstitutional mandate.

What are our gulf coast sheriffs saying about this, and how are they protecting our second amendment rights?

I know, I know. They're so busy fighting crime that they just don't have time to stop and talk about that. Spring break is here, underage kids might have beer, and the tourists are coming. Don't worry, our rights are safe, constitutional oath; all that.

So, if Mohamed's wife calls the sheriff, and says "he has finally had it with the Christians at work, and is loading up his guns and ammo right now", this sheriff is going to ignore the call?


Added:

I wish they had taken my friend's guns:
http://www.northescambia.com/2019/03/officer-involved-shooting-of-davisville-man-ruled-justified

Roaster's Gallery said:

So, if Mohamed's wife calls the sheriff, and says "he has finally had it with the Christians at work, and is loading up his guns and ammo right now", this sheriff is going to ignore the call?

Click to expand...

I have no problem with LE checking up on leads and investigating threats. I have a Fundamental problem with seizing all firearms and ammunition preemptively without evidence and due process.

And no, hearsay accusation and a "Risk Protection Order" are not due process.

Roaster's Gallery said:

So, if Mohamed's wife calls the sheriff, and says "he has finally had it with the Christians at work, and is loading up his guns and ammo right now", this sheriff is going to ignore the call?


Added:

I wish they had taken my friend's guns:
http://www.northescambia.com/2019/03/officer-involved-shooting-of-davisville-man-ruled-justified

Click to expand...

Joel, you have my condolences for the loss of your friend, but respectfully, that drunk-and-armed confrontation would not have been averted by "taking his guns away". He would've still had access to alcohol, his home, his wife, his vehicles, his family, a phone, a knife, a bat, a metal pipe, a brick, you get the point.

The RPO laws are aimed at one very specific tool (firearms), but the justification is supposedly to prevent crime and protect from harm? That's not even possible, even if you put the person in a straight jacket in a room with padded walls.

No. Those laws wouldn't have addressed any fundamental issue that would've saved your friend. They are not magical social medicine. They are only meant as a "gateway law" to further gun-control.

My thoughts are what is best in the long run and violating the constitution and bill of rights especially: "Amendment 4. - Protection from Unreasonable Searches and "is an area where the government should tread very carefully if at all.
It should never be a rubber stamp routine process like is often done for so called domestic violence.

A real problem is since we must defend ourselves from the anti-gunners that we are forced to take no retreat positions that do tie the hands of local law enforcement. I want to see solid evidence prior to seizing anything from anyone.

So, if Mohamed's wife calls the sheriff, and says "he has finally had it with the Christians at work, and is loading up his guns and ammo right now", this sheriff is going to ignore the call?

Click to expand...

The sheriff should not ignore the call for sure. They certainly should be on the way to talk to that fellow & wife while approaching with caution. It is also possible that the wife is trying to set a proactive absolute divorce too. Women, relatives, and others to do make false accusations.

Here is an example of how laws that violate the bill of rights for a stated good purpose can be abused.
A few years I was talking to someone whose child was seized by social services locally in FL. They got child back after the court order had expired and they threatened kidnapping charges. What had happened is that this couple have unique ideas and are sort of survivalists. Family members made complaints that sent child services to inspect the home. No warrant is needed for that. Case worker set file down while doing search of the premises and the wife picked up the file to read it. An altercation occurred over the case worker getting her file back. After that child services staked out the house and were surveilling it. Their plate numbers were recorded. When the couple was out the 3-4 yr child under the care of a baby sitter was seized by armored up armed police. Eventually they got the little girl back and I saw her father with her a couple times. Their word to the child welfare service were that you live at such an address which badly upset them. Friends at the local pd ran those plates for them. Last time I saw him, he and his cousin were removing barrels off P14 actions to make themselves some magnum rifles.

Wouldn't the Baker act do pretty much the exact same thing as this new law? I mean, if a person is feared to be a danger to themselves or others a Baker act has always been the norm?

I fear this new law is just an open door for more gun confiscation.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Alright then - US residents live in a free society, protected by due process. US citizens (and other residents) have a constitutional right to bear arms. A good percentage of these citizens/residents have violent natures, histories, thoughts, etc. Shits gonna happen. Deal with it, and hope it doesn't hit too close to home. Does that summarize the situation?

On a side note - I still don't know why I can't have a bazooka, or surface to air things, or rpgs, stuff like that. How come I can't get those?

Roaster's Gallery said:

Alright then - US residents live in a free society, protected by due process. US citizens (and other residents) have a constitutional right to bear arms. A good percentage of these citizens/residents have violent natures, histories, thoughts, etc. Shits gonna happen. Deal with it, and hope it doesn't hit too close to home. Does that summarize the situation?

On a side note - I still don't know why I can't have a bazooka, or surface to air things, or rpgs, stuff like that. How come I can't get those?

Click to expand...

Cause you are from Alabama ? :bolt::bolt:

John B. said:

Wouldn't the Baker act do pretty much the exact same thing as this new law? I mean, if a person is feared to be a danger to themselves or others a Baker act has always been the norm?

I fear this new law is just an open door for more gun confiscation.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Except the Baker Act has zero teeth.
You can take someone into custody, deliver them to the ER for Psych Consult,
but that joker can walk right the bleep on out of there and Security is not
supposed to stop them, only follow and call LEO's and advise them
that the Baker Act suspect is leaving & which way they're walking down the street.

And...there are a few ways Security can wiggle around that, if they're smart...
like the old, "We don't really need to cuff you to the bed, do we? Or would you like to sit & chat until the doc
can get here to talk with you to make sure you're solid?" Which, you're not actually cuffing them,
just implying that you might...lol Meanwhile you keep a running dialog with them to keep their
mind busy and thinking about getting checked and going home instead of bailing right then!

And from what was seen over the years, most folks who are Baker Acted aren't that bad off,
they just let a situation or two get out of control, and it frazzles up their mind a bit,
but after getting them to think logically and finding solutions (usually obvious ones) they
chill out and end up going home after chatting with the Psych.

Of course there is the occasional screwball that is Beyond a Quick Fix...and that's what
the Psych Ward is for! Once they are adjudicated (Judge Sent) Nuts, they lock 'em up real well.

My God. If people had the omnipotence to line up every other person, stare into their mind and compare the group, the determination of "crazy" or "threat to self or others" wouldn't even have a consensus.

Beliefs, mood, presence of drugs/alcohol/meds/etc, temporary stress from major life events... who cares what a person's snapshot condition is? Does it matter? No crystal ball will determine future events.

Live your life. Keep your situational awareness as best as you can. Be ready to defend yourself and those you care about.
Meanwhile, enjoy your life. Try not to mess with other people's abilities to do the same stuff.

Any evil that slips through the cracks? Shoot it in the face.

Situational awareness? Going to town - put pants on. Back home - take pants off. Visitors coming? - ask if they prefer me to have my pants on.

Roaster's Gallery said:

Situational awareness? Going to town - put pants on. Back home - take pants off. Visitors coming? - ask if they prefer me to have my pants on.

Click to expand...

That's a great start.

elected sheriffs are accountable only to the people...they are the top law enforcement in their own county, as they see the constitution to read and follow..according to the oath they take

Roaster's Gallery said:

Situational awareness? Going to town - put pants on. Back home - take pants off. Visitors coming? - ask if they prefer me to have my pants on.

Click to expand...

I also put on my pants or rather change my pants to the one with in waist band appendix holster with gun attached to the belt. it also has my cell phone on it with keys and wallet.

Snake-Eyes said:

That's a great start.

Click to expand...

I know it is kinda late in the game for me, but I can still learn a few things before I'm through.