By Rick Sallinger

(CBS4) – For the first time, a judge has denied a request to take away a man’s guns under Colorado’s new red flag law. A Limon woman claimed a man who she had a relationship with threatened her with a gun and filed the request.

(credit: CBS)

Since the law took effect, the red flag law has had many gun owners seeing red. At least four requests have been filed since the first of 2020; CBS4 is aware of them being filed in Denver, in Larimer County and this one — in Lincoln County.

Many gun owners, like Jak Gruenberg, despise it.

“Red flag laws just allow for harassment of legal gun owners,” he said.

(credit: CBS)

The law allows guns to be taken away from those who present a danger to themselves or others. The decision is up to a judge.

CBS4 obtained the request for a temporary extreme risk protection order filed in Limon. A woman wrote she was getting “verbal and physical threats” with a handgun from the man identified in the order.

(credit: CBS)

She said he had a problem with alcohol and marijuana. The judge denied the request to take his guns.

“I think it’s a good thing. I think any other new law you’re going to have a lot of case law to determine exactly where the lines are,” said Gruenberg, a gun owner not associated with the case.

Lincoln County is one of the many counties that has indicated it would not honor the red flag law.

But the denial led state Rep. Alec Garnett, a co-sponsor of the bill, to say this shows it is being applied properly.

Gun owners at Bristlecone Shooting, a range in Lakewood, told CBS4 they are split on that.

(credit: CBS)

“I don’t think it’s going to be applied fairly. Anybody can say pretty much what they want about anybody else,” John Shearer told CBS4’s Rick Sallinger.

Rory Coyne, who bought his first gun over the weekend, had a different view.

“Well if a person is not right in the head they shouldn’t have a gun — if they re sick in the head,” he said.

The judge’s order explaining the denial of the woman’s red flag request was not made public at the time of CBS4’s request.

Rick Sallinger

Comments (42)
  1. ed says:

    it seems that even a person who lives alone isnt immune from the lies people make against them. it a seems pretty clear to me a hearing could be held BEFORE THE order is signed to geth the facts straight and save alot of confusion with an attorney for the defendent . red flag laws deny all those constitutional rights to the defendant . instead they take your weapons with a big deal to fight and get them back. if at all

  2. Henry says:

    Sure, devote a bunch of column inches to one judge who does his job properly, in hopes that the halo effect will blind us to all the other judges who are just going to rubber stamp these orders like they do any other request from law enforcement. This isn’t news, this is PR.

    1. ed says:

      maybe by making the public aware of a judge who did his job properly more judges will do the right thing also instead of approving every order filed by liars and crackpots who purposely lie about someone as a vendetta

  3. Eddd777 says:

    RMGO is fighting the Red Flag law in court, as it violates the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments.

    You lose your right to the presumption of innocence, and have to prove your innocence to have your rights restored.

    Leftist, tyrannical Red Flag laws are glaringly unconstitutional for multiple reasons.

  4. Sutpen says:

    Hopeful. Most judges seem automatically anti-male and anti-family.

  5. Buzz says:

    I will not obey the red flag gun law.

    1. Lewis Goudy says:

      How do you propose to disobey it? “What you going to do when they come for you?”

      1. ontheright says:

        “I lost my guns years ago in a boating accident, officer.”

  6. When do we get red flag laws for something more dangerous than gun ownership; VOTING ELIGIBILITY for lefties “sick in the head”?

  7. Sam Johnson says:

    I used to vacation in colorado 2 or 3 times a year until they passed this stupid and unconstitutional law.

  8. Tony Smith says:

    Hurray for this judge!!! These laws are an attempt to enslave the American people w/o due process. Threatening another person is illegal. If it’s happening, then prosecute!!!! Fact is, they don’t have the evidence to prosecute, so they seek to make the 2nd Amendment irrelevant.

    1. don says:

      might as well just shut up and hand them over…plain and simple..that way we wont get boots shoved down our throats.its all over except the jail time.American sissies allowed this to happen the first time they questioned the word INFRINGEMENT..Might as well throw away the rest of the constitution while we are at it..its nothing but faux protection ,and you find that out soon as you try to defend yourself with it…WAKE-UP!

  9. William Wallace says:

    Every rejected estrogen producing hysterical irrational menstruating man hating wacko female now has the power to destroy men’s lives. Every filthy divorce attorney in addition to having the wife claim child abuse will also claim mental instability.

    1. Melissa says:

      Yep, that sux.

    2. prester khan says:

      Getting a regular violence protection order is standard operating procedure for divorce attorneys. What isn’t always recognized is that per federal law a regular protection order also carries a temporary “prohibited person” status while it is in effect.

      1. Trevor Sedis says:

        prester khan: >”Getting a regular violence protection order is standard operating procedure for divorce attorneys.”

        Why do lawyers do that? Because they make money.

        Why do women file charges? Because they know the charge is effective.

        What did men do to oppose bills that expanded the definition of DV, then let it be used to take children from fathers?


        Now, if something important had been involved, like men having to wait one hour to watch the Super Bowl, guys would have immediately acted.

        FACT: men who don’t fight for their own kids don’t deserve them.

        QUICK: 54 years after the National Organization for Women was founded, a group that attacks men and masculinity 24-7-365, name 1 (ONE!) NRA-size group advocating for men and their issues today.

        Thought so.

        They are not bigger manginas, no easier targets in the world today, than men…especially white, Christian conservative men. They stand for, fight for, conserve…NOTHING!

  10. OldSaltUSNR says:

    Well, when God is the judge, I’ll trust His judgement on a “Red Flag” complaint.

    However, when a judge pretends to be god, pretends to understand and know the mental intent of the parties involved, justice can never prevail. NO ONE knows the internal motivation of the accuser or accused, absent objective criminal acts, but God.

    Red Flag laws are laws against “thought crime”, subjectively determined by the complaint. That’s unconstitutional, at it’s core. That’s the very definition of the principle of lack of due process.

    One cannot make doing the wrong thing for good reasons, the right thing. Life doesn’t work that way.

  11. amadeus says:

    Red flag laws are a constitutional abomination. Anyone who supports them should be recalled.

  12. Peter York says:

    those who desire to see us live ‘virtuous’ lives put us at the mercy of backstabbers and false witnesses and secret police, like in Iran, or during the Inquisitionary times, or when things were Aztecky, or in Soviet Russia or China today.

    but ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ are selfish things. within the structure that protects everyone else’s life and property, we are free to selfishly pursue happiness and it’s a good thing.

    when you consider unthinking pod-people claim any disagreement is ‘hate speech,’ you must fear for our loss of freedom and rule by these human locusts.

  13. K. Chris C. says:

    For government, especially the US Tyranny, anyone that thinks is a “red flag.” They can come and take one, but they cannot take away my knowledge of where the rest are.

  14. Jack Rail says:

    We don’t get enough information from this article to judge good or bad, right or wrong.

  15. Barry Hirsh says:

    Well, praise God and pass the potatoes!

  16. bottom and company says:

    Hang in there liberals. Like your goofy song says…”you shall overcome”.

  17. CJ says:

    When socialist, CA or east/west coast liberals begin taking rights it will only lead to Rome 1 of the country.

  18. Mrfixit says:

    If they’re sick in the head, they should be evaluated and adjudicated as mentally incompetent and then restricted. I love it when everybody says “it’s too hard to go to court.” Well, it should be hard to strip you of any of your constitutional rights.

  19. Geli Von Der Sauk says:

    I disagree totally with this law!! As another commenters said, confiscate the threatening person!! Seriously folks, we didn’t have this issue when people who were deemed a danger to themselves and others were confined for evaluation and treatment for 30 days. I think we should go back to that. After all, everyone says it’s all about mental health. Then with the old policy, we knew people were being treated. It makes a judge look hard at the evidence and throw out the silly ones where a disgruntled former girl friend wants her Ex locked up and his guns taken away.

  20. Jennifer says:

    Replace “gun” with “vehicle” and see if you still agree with the law. Your vehicle can be just as deadly as a gun.

    If someone told an official they thought you were a danger so the government came and took your car away, would you still agree with this?

    1. Pepper says:

      Cars are more dangerous than guns. Look at how many people are killed by cars every year. How many are injured, not to mention the untold millions in property damage. Doesn’t happen with guns. Owning a gun is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, driving a car is a PRIVILEGE.Very big DIFFERENCE.

  21. flyfisher111 says:

    Anyone can say anything about someone else – the problem with these laws is that the accused has no opportunity to confront his accuser. I don’t see how this satisfies the due process article of the US Constitution.

    1. Joe Bagofdonuts says:

      it doesn’t. You are not allowed to confront your accuser, or the evidence against you. Your 5th and 14th are being denied because your property is being taken away. And to put icing on the cake, you have not actually committed a crime yet. This is PRE-Crime. To say something like ‘take all the guns away from gun owners before they shoot someone’, in my opinion, is as bad as the racist slur ‘arrest black babies before they grow up to be criminals’. Its pre-crime and its so far beyond judicial it is ridiculous.

  22. sk says:

    Kinda reminds of women making claims that the husband sexually abused the children in order to take the children away from the father.

  23. Who Ever says:

    These laws are so vague and without due process they can’t possibly be considered constitutional. It’s about time this was taken to the Supreme Court.

  24. Spencer Oliver says:

    My issue is where people argue: “Well if a person is not right in the head they shouldn’t have a gun — if they re sick in the head,” he said.

    At the same time we have people declaring that to be a Conservative you must have a mental disorder. – shows examples of this

  25. Scott says:

    While “red flag” laws are great in theory, in practice they are going to be riddled with abuses. Recently an 84 year old ex cop who criticized a school cop for leaving his post to get some coffee had his guns taken away and it had nothing to do with any threats he made. On top of that these red flag laws violate the persons constitutional rights to due process and rarely does the law allow for getting their guns back.

  26. Chris Richards says:

    This story sounds like the lady would have been better off filing a restraining order instead of an order to try to take away the guys guns… Mentally ill people should not have guns, but its a high bar to cross. Simply threatening someone with a gun doesnt come close to that.

  27. Charles Pierce says:

    I do not disagree with the so called Red Flag laws, My problem is that none of them have the needed constitutional protections that are required in the talking of property. The process must be base upon the ability of the person who is losing his right to a weapon to defend himself before the weapon is take. He needs to have a lawyer to look out after his interest not the interest of the state or the party that is making the charge.

  28. Mark Marchiafava says:

    If someone threatens you, and MAKES AN EFFORT TO CARRY OUT THAT THREAT, you don’t confiscate the gun, you confiscate the PERSON

  29. Guyver says:

    I wish the article said why the judge denied it. Do he think the woman was lying? My first thought about this law was that. Women will use it to get even with men.

  30. Rich says:

    Mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin..
    Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
    Deceptive Transformation: The Truth of Soviet Influence in America and Gun Control…The idea of using mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin, and the social sciences, or the studying of human behavior has its roots in early twentieth century Russia when Ivan Pavlov developed his “classical conditioning” theories.

    1. Rich says:

      There are over 370 “mental disorders” listed in the latest version of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes “Tobacco Addiction Disorder” among other equally mundane and ridiculous so-called “mental illnesses.”
      If the DSM is the standard by which politicians wishes to remove our rights to own guns, then I’d guess 90% of the American people could probably be classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another.

  31. Scott Hughes says:

    Colorado Revised Statute 27-65-106 already provided the way to petition a judge to have a psychiatric hold placed on someone so a medical doctor (psychiatrist) could determine if the person posed a danger to themselves or others. The “Red Flag” law puts that same decision in the hands of a judge who doesn’t have the qualifications necessary to make that determination. It’s a redundant law that really just supports a position of social class difference between gun owners and the people that C.R.S. 27-65-106 would usually apply to which is contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment where laws are to be applied equally. There seems to be confusion as to when a person would have to forfeit any firearms that was evaluated under C.R.S. 27-65-106 and found to be a danger; that is what needed clarifying.

  32. greg says:

    CBS interviewed a “gun owner” that had not owned a gun for 24 hours yet. Maybe talk to people with more experience next time? There are likely 7 million + guns in Colorado and at least 1 million+ gun owners in Colorado, and you publish the opinion of a person who just bought their first one? Why not ask a 16 year old that just got a learners permit for driving today how to deal with traffic issues? Makes no sense.

Leave a Reply