IN RESPONSE | State Senate GOP’s opposition to ‘red flag’ policy made no sense
Author: Colorado Politics - June 7, 2018 - Updated: June 7, 2018
I am respectfully responding to my colleague and friend state Sen. John Cooke’s recent op-ed regarding the “red flag” legislation introduced this session. Red flag laws save lives. When a person is in crisis, loved ones and law enforcement are often the first to see signs that they pose a threat. The bi-partisan proposal we brought forward this year would have established a process to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who pose a serious threat before they harm themselves or others.
Red flag laws are on the books in eight states and are being proposed in over 25 others. Without laws like these, family members and law enforcement are often helpless to prevent tragedies despite having seen major warnings signs. One tragic example is Douglas County Deputy Sheriff Zackari Parrish III – who we named this year’s legislation in honor of. Deputy Parrish was killed in the line of duty last New Year’s Eve by an individual in the middle of a mental health crisis. The shooter was identified as a significant risk by several law enforcement agencies and by his own mother months before the encounter, but there wasn’t anything law enforcement or his family could do, and on a fateful night, there were tragedies.
Unfortunately, Senate Republicans chose to oppose this common-sense measure that is proven to save lives and increase the safety of our first responders and Coloradans. The op-ed used misleading and inaccurate opposition talking points, which I felt strongly should not go unanswered and uncorrected.
The Republicans argue that the bill goes too far in setting up an “ex parte” — or emergency hearing — process for issuing an emergency protection order. But ex parte hearings are not extraordinary; this is the same process domestic violence survivors use to obtain protection orders.
Sen. Cooke also claims the bill does not provide enough due process. The fact is, this life-saving bill included substantial due process safeguards. The bill provides for a full hearing before a judge within seven days following the emergency order; places the burden of proof on the family member or law enforcement officer; requires they meet the highest standard of evidence to demonstrate why the order is needed, and allows the individual to request a hearing after an order is issued to reassess whether it is still necessary. Additionally, challenges against similar laws in Indiana and Connecticut have been dismissed and this bill went beyond those states’ laws in protecting individuals’ due-process rights.
Senate Republicans then argue that the bill did not go far enough in addressing mental health. I would ask them to explain to the people of Colorado how a bill that was supported by Mental Health Colorado and which explicitly allows for individuals to seek the treatment they need does not address mental health. Researchers who have studied this policy identify it as one of the most effective suicide-prevention laws. And yet, opponents who claim to advocate for mental health hide behind the falsehood that this does nothing to support mental health.
The rest of the Republican arguments fare no better and reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the bill. For example, there are in fact dozens of safeguards in the bill to protect individuals from false and malicious claims, including prosecuting acts of perjury. It is frustrating that the Senate Republicans seem to have so little understanding of the details of the bill, when the reasons they used to justify voting against this life-saving measure are simply incorrect.
On the whole, the op-ed shows the internal conflict many Senate Republicans faced: if they were to vote for a sensible, well-measured bill that had support from unified law enforcement, leading Republicans statewide and House Republicans, they risked crossing the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and its boss, Dudley Brown.
Unfortunately, I could not convince them, even after weeks and weeks of discussions prior to introduction, to support the safety of our first responders and the public by going against the fringe gun groups that hold my Republican colleagues hostage under the threat that they will “primary them from the right.”
Coloradans want leaders who stand for something, not against everything. They want elected officials who will continue fighting for solutions to address the scourge of gun violence and improve access to mental health services to those in crisis. Voters will remember where their elected officials stood on this issue in November.
Eighty percent of Coloradans support red flag laws. But this is not about polling. This bill is about saving lives. And when I introduce it again next year, I will again fight for Colorado to be among those leading the charge to save lives and protect communities.
Assistant majority leader, Colorado House of Representatives