OPINION AND EDITORIAL
“Everytown for Gun Safety” founder Michael Bloomberg has had his eyes on Colorado gun control laws for several years. Bloomberg, exploring a run for the Oval Office, has set up a so-called Western states command center for the March 3, 2020 Super Tuesday primary elections.
Since at least 2013, Bloomberg has had his eye on the internal politics of the State of Colorado — even while Mayor of New York.
Internet observers believe that Presidential-candidate Bloomberg might team up with Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard (called out for questionable believes about the Second Amendment) to challenge the incumbent President.
Above: Hawaii National Guard Major Tulsi Gabbard
Some believe the Bloomberg-Tulsi team are staging a gun control political battle in Colorado. Thus, these politicians may be looking for emotionally charged issues that can act as a catalyst to turn out anti-gun voters.
Appeals court says Colorado sheriffs can’t sue governor over gun laws
A group of Colorado sheriffs who contend that two controversial state gun laws are unconstitutional vowed Tuesday to file a new lawsuit after a federal appeals court rejected its first one.
In a 33-page ruling on the laws and lawsuits that emerged after mass shootings in Aurora and Connecticut, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the sheriffs and other plaintiffs didn’t show they were sufficiently harmed by the new gun restrictions to bring a lawsuit. The ruling means that two laws passed in 2013 — one that expanded background checks on firearms purchases and another that limited the capacity of ammunition magazines — remain in effect.
Above: Mayor Bloomberg pitches his “Everytown for Gun Safety”
Above: Congresswoman Gabbard at gun control hearing
Presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg lays out national gun control plan in Colorado church
New Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg came to Aurora on Thursday to unveil an ambitious blueprint to reduce gun violence in America, including reinstatement of a federal ban on assault weapons, passage of a nationwide red flag law and the requirement that every gun buyer first get a permit.
“In recent years more politicians have begun waking up because the killings are happening in their communities, and in their churches, and in their malls, and in their movie theaters,” the billionaire businessman told an audience of about 25 people. “Their constituents are losing children and their voters are demanding action and voters are electing candidates that are getting things done. And it’s why I’m running for president — just to stop this nationwide madness.”
NATIONWIDE RED FLAG LAW
The cornerstone of the Bloomberg gun control plan is the idea of a federal “red flag law”, similar to the red flag law in the State of Colorado. Red flag laws allow the individual who can get to the courthouse first to file a temporary restraining order against another to have their firearms confiscated with no due process.
For instance, if a would-be rapist wants to attack a woman he could file a red flag law restraining order against his female target. Mandatory confiscation means the woman is stripped of firearms in a no questions asked “no knock” SWAT visit. Or in the case of a martial divorce, the husband as the first to the courthouse can file a red flag law restraining order against his wife to have her method of self-defense confiscated — no questions asked.
Most observers believe that red flag laws violate the Second Amendment.
In the United States, a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question. Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense. After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.
Orders issued under “red flag” laws, also called risk-based gun removal laws, are known by several names, including Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) (in Oregon, Washington, Maryland, Vermont, and Colorado); Risk Protection Orders (in Florida); Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) (in California); risk warrants (in Connecticut); and Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm (in Indiana). As of August 2019, 17 states and the District of Columbia have passed some form of red-flag law. The specifics of the laws, and the degree to which they are utilized, vary from state to state.
SUSAN HOLMES UPSETS RED FLAG LAW ADVOCATES
The recent stunt by Susan Anne Holmes, aka Queen Tut, in Fort Collins, Colorado has some worried about the legitimacy of these red flag laws. Holmes attempted to obtain a red flag law temporary restraining order against a police officer who had shot her son Jeremy.
Perjury charge filed against woman who tried to have CSU officer’s weapons confiscated
FORT COLLINS, Colo. — A perjury charge has been filed against Susan Holmes, the woman who recently tried to use Colorado’s new “red flag” law to have a Colorado State University officer’s weapons confiscated.
Morris shot and killed Holmes’ son in 2017. The district attorney found the shooting to be “clearly justified.”
Above: Susan Anne Holmes, aka Queen Tut
More information on Susan Holmes
SUSAN HOLMES FEDERAL LAWSUIT
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Virginia – (Richmond)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:17-cv-00601-MHL
|Steele et al v. Goodman et al
Assigned to: District Judge M. Hannah Lauck
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young (Settlement)
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
|Date Filed: 09/01/2017
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 320 Assault Libel & Slander
|Susan A. Lutzke
also known as
|represented by||Susan A. Lutzke
2608 Leisure Drive
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
Click for PDF
Susan Anne Holmes is being sued along with her social media podcast sidekick “Hollywood film maker” Jason Goodman.
Above: “Hollywood film maker” Jason Goodman
Above: Jason Goodman
To be continued….
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.