Posted on Feb 19, 2023
What one ‘red flag’ case in Denver says about how the city removes guns
974
10
4
4
4
0
John Boulware and his late brother, Richard, both lived in Denver for more than 40 years.
Both men had notable careers: John runs a well-loved antiques store on South Broadway, and Richard was a prominent photographer and a former executive at the city’s airports. They even lived in the same condo complex.
“I always kind of looked up to him, because he was very successful for most of his career,” John explained one recent afternoon.
But they were never all that close and they went years without speaking. As the two brothers aged into their 70s, John would hear only occasional updates from Richard’s friends.
Both men had notable careers: John runs a well-loved antiques store on South Broadway, and Richard was a prominent photographer and a former executive at the city’s airports. They even lived in the same condo complex.
“I always kind of looked up to him, because he was very successful for most of his career,” John explained one recent afternoon.
But they were never all that close and they went years without speaking. As the two brothers aged into their 70s, John would hear only occasional updates from Richard’s friends.
What one ‘red flag’ case in Denver says about how the city removes guns
Posted from cpr.org
Firearms and Guns
Mental Health
Denver
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
Once mental health issues arise it kind of changes the picture, then they become a danger to not only others but themselves. Once a level of real Paranoid sets in there is a reason to be concerned. Myself, My Dad have been around firearms and own a few but another close family member, My own brother for the last 25 years has serious mental health issues and I 'm thankful He doesn't have any access to firearms. I hate to think of what could happen if He did.
(2)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
I agree that "once mental health issues arise it kind of changes the picture" BUT that still leaves me wondering why so-called Red Flag orders are supposed to be a solution. If the person really is mentally unstable, just taking away their guns doesn't begin to solve the problem. There are thousands of other ways for someone to be a danger to their self or others. If there really is cause to believe the person is mentally unstable, why are we just taking guns but not providing some level of treatment for the person?
Once we look at the fallacy of just taking guns, then we have to face the question of WHY do we need a "Red Flag" law at all?? EVERY state already has some form of mental inquest law that allows short term involuntary commitment of an individual who seems to have mental problems.
The reason the gun-grabbers want a law focused just on guns is that the existing mental inquest laws generally require more than just a completely unsubstantiated vague thought that something might be wrong. Mental inquest laws typically set a higher standard because everyone recognizes the seriousness of taking away someone's liberty even temporarily. Red Flag laws provide a totally ex parte procedure to deny a person's rights because someone says they think the person might be dangerous.
Interestingly enough, NO Red Flag law adopted or proposed includes any penalty for making a false accusation. None of the adopted laws provide any standard for properly maintaining confiscated guns or their prompt return.
The article describes ONE case that appears to be reasonable and implies that magically all cases are at least equally reasonable.
Everyone knows that traditional "Emergency Protective Orders" are already a routine method of harassment as part of many divorce procedures. Is it really any stretch to think at so-called "Extreme Risk Emergency Protective Orders" won't be used the same way?
Once we look at the fallacy of just taking guns, then we have to face the question of WHY do we need a "Red Flag" law at all?? EVERY state already has some form of mental inquest law that allows short term involuntary commitment of an individual who seems to have mental problems.
The reason the gun-grabbers want a law focused just on guns is that the existing mental inquest laws generally require more than just a completely unsubstantiated vague thought that something might be wrong. Mental inquest laws typically set a higher standard because everyone recognizes the seriousness of taking away someone's liberty even temporarily. Red Flag laws provide a totally ex parte procedure to deny a person's rights because someone says they think the person might be dangerous.
Interestingly enough, NO Red Flag law adopted or proposed includes any penalty for making a false accusation. None of the adopted laws provide any standard for properly maintaining confiscated guns or their prompt return.
The article describes ONE case that appears to be reasonable and implies that magically all cases are at least equally reasonable.
Everyone knows that traditional "Emergency Protective Orders" are already a routine method of harassment as part of many divorce procedures. Is it really any stretch to think at so-called "Extreme Risk Emergency Protective Orders" won't be used the same way?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Good article. In-depth examination of the situation and a very surprising lack of partisanship (surprising in media these days).
Agree with SMSgt Lawrence McCarter regarding mental health.
Red Flag laws are a dual-edge sword. They can be very helpful in keeping firearms out of the hands of people going through mental crisis or who have developed extremist views. They can also be incredibly bad if implemented wrongly and not used with discretion.
As a comparison I would think of a SWAT team in a police department. Highly trained and sent in to high risk environments. Something that is used very appropriately in cases where there's a risk to other law enforcement or the public. However, there are those cases that happen when someone "SWATs" someone for revenge. If there aren't checks built into the system, the system can be abused.
In this case, it sounds like implemented correctly by the judicial system. The only thing I saw missing was the mental health follow-up with the individual after the weapons were confiscated.
Agree with SMSgt Lawrence McCarter regarding mental health.
Red Flag laws are a dual-edge sword. They can be very helpful in keeping firearms out of the hands of people going through mental crisis or who have developed extremist views. They can also be incredibly bad if implemented wrongly and not used with discretion.
As a comparison I would think of a SWAT team in a police department. Highly trained and sent in to high risk environments. Something that is used very appropriately in cases where there's a risk to other law enforcement or the public. However, there are those cases that happen when someone "SWATs" someone for revenge. If there aren't checks built into the system, the system can be abused.
In this case, it sounds like implemented correctly by the judicial system. The only thing I saw missing was the mental health follow-up with the individual after the weapons were confiscated.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google