What the Red Flag bill means for Colorado

In hindsight, it’s obvious: Matthew Riehl shouldn’t have had firearms.

He was one of the people police had been watching for months before he opened fire on multiple law enforcement officers.

His YouTube videos targeted law enforcement, specifically the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office.
In one video, he said, “you know who’s going to flub this year? Sheriff Spurlock. What a clown.”

Body camera footage released by Douglas County shows on New Year’s Eve morning, deputies tried taking him for a 72-hour mental health hold when he slammed the door on them.

When deputies made their way into his apartment, he opened fire, killing Deputy Zackari Parrish and injuring several others.

Riehl had been reported to law enforcement by his mother, who worried he’d be a danger to those around him.

Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock says the current law didn’t help deputies that night.

“The statute that we have available today states imminent danger. That’s obsolete. It’s inadequate. It doesn’t provide the tool law enforcement or family members need when their loved one is having an acute mental health breakdown,” he said.

What happened on that New Year’s Eve morning was an extreme case of someone dangerous with firearms. What many are calling a solution to incidents like these is the Red Flag law, also known as an extreme risk protection order. It allows law enforcement to seize someone’s firearms if they’re deemed dangerous to themselves or the public.

Several states, including Florida, have passed a similar law. Just one year ago, Nikolas Cruz opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, killing 17 people.

Cruz was also reported to school administrators, police and the FBI for potentially being dangerous and owning guns. In fact, an in-depth report by the South Florida Sun Sentinel shows people knew him as “crazy boy,” but no one did anything.

Now, Colorado is likely to be the next state to pass a Red Flag Bill. It was first introduced in the 2018 session and failed on party lines. Democrat state Rep. Alec Garnett has introduced it again this year.

He says, “essentially it’s used to help people in crisis, help that person through that crisis because we know people can survive and thrive so lets do that and one way of helping get to that thrive is to make sure the deadly weapon isn’t available until you’ve made it through that crisis period.”

On the surface, getting guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people like Matthew Riehl, Nikolas Cruz, James Holmes, and Robert Dear would have been a good idea before they shot and killed innocent people.

But vendors at a Colorado Springs gun show worried this new law isn’t clear.

Steven Deaver says, “The ability to say that man scares me and I want to take his guns, that’s not right.”

Kevin Decker, another vendor says, “The issue with the law I have is there’s no due process. In other words … [I] can’t go in front of a judge and plead my case. I can’t do anything.”

Colorado’s version of the bill allows someone to ask the judge for an extreme risk protection order because they feel their loved one is dangerous. When it’s signed, police can go in take their firearms.

Typically in the judicial system, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, except in this situation.
That’s why El Paso County Sheriff Bill Elder has some concerns.

He says, “There has to be due process. There has to be a way for the person that’s losing their gun to be able to go before a court and say this is not what’s exactly going on.

It would be his deputies going into situations that might not go right, like in Maryland when officers tried seizing one man’s guns last year — in Glen Burnie, police were serving the new red flag law protection order. Police say “a fight ensued over the handgun. It went off, it did not strike anybody.” That’s when officers fired back and the suspect died from those injuries.

Under the Colorado bill, a person’s guns are taken away for 364 days and given back if they can prove they’re not a danger.

This bill is missing a key factor for Republican Senator Paul Lundeen to support it.

“It’s really important that the bill remain about mental health first, last and always because that’s the root issue, the issue we need to deal with,” he says.

His vote may not make a difference. Democrats hold the majority in the house, senate, and governor’s office.

Governor Jared Polis explained to KRDO it’s a bill he’s likely to sign.

Polis says, “The only issue that I’m really aware of in the legislature is debating and that we want to work with them on is finding a way to have a temporary court order to have someone actively having a mental health crisis.”

If the bill is passed, the law begs the question. is it fair to have your firearms taken away? And at what point is someone deemed a threat?

In some cases, like Matthew Riehl, it’s obvious, but in others, the answer isn’t always clear.