Name: Colorado’s red flag law is one year old. Here’s who’s using the law to confiscate guns — and why.
Brand: denverpost.com
SKU: denverpost-com-209
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Colorado’s red flag law is one year old. Here’s who’s using the law to confiscate guns — and why.

preview

By | and | | The Denver PostThe 61-year-old Douglas County man claimed to be ex-special forces, a sniper who’d worked for the CIA.He called police to his home more than once, told them he’d been shot while checking the mail, or that he’d awoken to find silencer-toting hitmen in his bedroom. He bragged about shooting someone and threatened others. He held conversations with no one and routinely wore a tactical vest labeled “deputy sheriff” while stopping citizens to ask if everything was OK.And he owned at least 59 guns and 50,000 rounds of ammunition, Douglas County sheriff’s investigators discovered this June, when they were granted an extreme risk protection order to seize the man’s firearms for his and others’ safety under Colorado’s now 1-year-old red flag law.In its first year, the controversial law has proven to be a useful tool for law enforcement and fears of widespread misuse have been largely unrealized, a Denver Post review found. The majority of permanent extreme risk protection orders granted by judges were requested by law enforcement, and even sheriffs who expressed concerns about the law have used it to diffuse potential danger.“It has been used very appropriately and very sparingly across the state,” Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock said.At least 112 petitions for extreme risk protection orders were filed under Colorado’s red flag law in 2020, and in 46 cases, judges granted permanent protection orders that required people to turn over their guns to authorities or blocked them from buying guns for 364 days, according to data provided by the Colorado Judicial Department. That’s fewer than the 170 petitions a year that legislative staff estimated would be filed.The law is the result of a lengthy and hard-fought legislative process that prompted marathon hearings and heated debates among lawmakers and law enforcement. Gun rights groups that feared the law would be abused filed lawsuits.Spurlock’s support of the bill — the Deputy Zackari Parrish III Violence Prevention Act, named after one of his deputies killed in a shooting — sparked an effort to recall him.&nbsp;But the lawsuits failed and the recall effort floundered.A year later, data shows that most people who were forced to give up their guns for a year were dealing with either mental health problems or substance abuse, according to the Post’s review of the petitions, which showed such issues documented in 36 of the 46 cases with year-long orders.“We think it’s an effective tool,” Denver police Lt. Adam Hernandez said. “We believe that this particular legislation has prevented some from committing suicide and has helped prevent crimes of violence against members of our community.”After the third time an Arapahoe County man made serious threats of killing himself, his wife sought an extreme risk protection order to keep him from legally purchasing another gun.The woman, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect the privacy of her husband, said law enforcement had used mental health holds on her husband before, but that the temporary nature of those holds did not keep him safe for long.Her husband agreed it was a good idea and did not fight the protection order. His wife credits the law as part of the reason he’s still alive.“He kept finding different ways to get a gun, so the red flag law was our only recourse,” she said.Just over a third of the permanent orders were issued after people made threats of suicide, and another third after people threatened to kill others, according to court records. The remainder included cases with threats of both suicide and homicide, or cases in which reckless use of a gun was considered likely.Lakewood police in April seized a rifle and a handgun from a 47-year-old veteran who threatened to shoot himself and police officers. In September, a Boulder man about to turn 21 was blocked from buying guns after he posted online that he wanted to buy an AR-15 and kill women at a sorority house. Denver police took two guns from a 37-year-old man who was suicidal.“There is no doubt in my mind those (orders) we received, those individuals were in incredible distress and tragedy could have occurred either on themselves or a family member,” Spurlock said of three cases in his jurisdiction. “And those people are alive today. Those people are functioning in our society and cooperating with the system. They’re in treatment.”Even law enforcement agencies in counties that passed resolutions opposing the law ended up using it.“Be it further resolved that in coordination with the Archuleta County Sheriff, the Board commits to resist the bill in its current and subsequent forms to protect the Second Amendment rights of all lawful gun owners in the state, and not just in Archuleta County,” the in an April 2, 2019, resolution.Nine months later, an Archuleta County sheriff’s deputy filed for an extreme risk protection order against a woman who said she would kill herself and would kill law enforcement. A judge granted the order. Archuleta County Sheriff Rich Valdez did not return an email or a phone call requesting an interview.Another sheriff who previously said the law would infringe on people’s constitutional rights but later filed a petition for an extreme risk protection order said the law has merits if used properly. Dolores County Sheriff Don Wilson said he found the application and court process to be strict and straightforward.“It’s good if it’s used in the right way,” Wilson said. “But it can also be used maliciously.”Nearly all of the 46 cases in which a judge granted a 364-day protection order were initiated by law enforcement officers, according to data provided by the Colorado Judicial Department. Petitions filed by family members ended with long-term orders only six times, the records show. Most of the petitions that were denied, on the other hand, were filed by family members, roommates and other lay people, the data shows.That likely reflects law enforcement’s credibility and familiarity with the court system, Colorado Springs attorney Steven Visser said.“They probably know what they need to put in there, sort of like asking for a search warrant, they know what terms to use and they know what to put forth, as far as evidence is concerned, in order to have a greater chance they will be allowed to move forward,” he said.Denver police, who filed the highest number of petitions of any law enforcement agency, have not encountered any instances when someone refused to hand over their guns, Hernandez said. Denver police detectives investigated 62 situations that could have warranted extreme risk protection orders and filed 22 petitions for year-long orders, all of which were approved by a judge.“We’re not going in there with a tremendous amount of force or any force, we’re going in there to keep people safe, to keep our community safe,” Hernandez said.A review of 30 denied petitions shows that judges often found the requesters didn’t show credible threats, were too vague, made procedural errors or failed to provide all the required information.One woman in Denver filed 10 petitions in one day against three people. All were dismissed when the woman failed to appear in court or failed to fill in missing information on the petitions.Spurlock said groundless petitions that are denied by judges show the courts are successfully protecting people from false complaints. In February, an inmate in the Weld County Jail filed a petition against Sheriff Steve Reams, but it was immediately dismissed. Another woman who is facing perjury charges for lying on her request.“The system worked,” Spurlock said. “There were a couple cases where there were false cases filed by citizens. The court looked at the law and did not issue those.”Keith Coleman, an attorney in Greeley, said he represented a man in one extreme risk protection case that seemed to have been filed as a form of harassment. In that case, a judge issued an initial temporary protection order after a woman filed a petition claiming the man had a gun and was threatening to kill her.The man was ordered to turn over his gun — but he didn’t own any, Coleman said. Within 14 days, the judge held a hearing and determined there was no grounds for a permanent order, and the case was closed.Coleman represented the man as a court-appointed attorney, which means Coleman was paid by the state judicial branch, not by the man, who was required to show up to court once.In the last year, 27 court-appointed attorneys like Coleman represented clients in 68 extreme risk protection cases, costing the state judicial branch about $80,300, said Jon Sarche, a department spokesman.Attorneys who handled red flag cases during the last year said the process went relatively smoothly — with some hiccups because of the novel coronavirus pandemic — but that there are still some unknowns in the process simply because it is so new.Matthew Pring, an attorney who has done court-appointed work, said he’s found it challenging to quickly get in touch with his clients.“One of the harder things, especially with COVID and everything going on, is getting ahold of your client if they are on a 72-hour mental health hold or have some other commitment proceedings going on,” he said, adding later, “The statute is set out in a way that it provides as much due process as is possible in a short time period, where essentially it puts the defense attorney on a scramble, but you kind of have to be in a short time frame.”Another woman who spoke to The Post on condition of anonymity to protect her family’s privacy, who asked for and received an extreme risk protection order last year, said she found the process helpful, saying it gave her an avenue in which to confront her relative’s unsafe behavior.“It’s a tough conversation to have with anyone,” she said, “and when you try to have the conversation with someone who is not receptive, that just makes it a little easier.”We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions. As of June 15, 2022, comments on are powered by Viafoura, and you may need to log in again to begin commenting. Read more about our new commenting system . If you need help or are having issues with your commenting account, please email us atSign up for Newsletters and AlertsFollow UsMost PopularClose

By | and | | The Denver PostThe 61-year-old Douglas County man claimed to be ex-special forces, a sniper who’d worked for the CIA.He called police to his home more than once, told them he’d been shot while checking the mail, or that he’d awoken to find silencer-toting hitmen in his bedroom. He bragged about shooting someone and threatened others. He held conversations with no one and routinely wore a tactical vest labeled “deputy sheriff” while stopping citizens to ask if everything was OK.And he owned at least 59 guns and 50,000 rounds of ammunition, Douglas County sheriff’s investigators...

Colorado’s red flag law is one year old. Here’s who’s using the law to confiscate guns — and why.

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS