Mindy Leary, Gilpin County. On April 30, 2019, Gilpin County Community Center hosted a meeting for the Gilpin County Sheriff’s Office to discuss House Bill19-1177 Extreme Risk Protection Order with county residents. Sheriff Kevin Armstrong and District Attorney Kevin Jensen presented the details on this new bill, which has been signed into law by Governor Jared Polis.

The bill allows a family or household member, as well as a law enforcement officer, to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO) beginning January 1, 2020. The petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by either having a firearm in his or her custody or control, or by possessing, purchasing or receiving a firearm. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed.

After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 14 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. The Sheriff’s Office will serve notice to the respondent for the hearing, which must occur within 14 days of the issuance of the Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order. Upon service of the notice to the respondent, the respondent will be required to turn over all of his/her firearms.

The respondent’s firearms must be surrendered, within 24 hours, to the local law enforcement agency or sold or transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer. If the firearm is an antique, curio or relic it can be transferred to a relative who does not live with the respondent who must undergo a criminal history check to confirm that they can possess a firearm.

The court may appoint counsel to represent the respondent at the hearing. If a family or household member or a law enforcement officer establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others either by having a firearm in his or her custody or control, or by possessing, purchasing or receiving a firearm, the court may issue a continuing ERPO. The ERPO prohibits the respondent from possessing, controlling, purchasing or receiving a firearm for 364 days.

The respondent can motion the court once during the 364-day ERPO for a hearing to terminate the ERPO. The respondent has the burden of proof at a termination hearing. The court shall terminate the ERPO if the respondent establishes by clear and convincing evidence that he or she no longer poses a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others by either having a firearm in his or her custody or control, or by purchasing, possessing or receiving a firearm. The court may continue the hearing if the court cannot issue an order for termination at that time but believes there is a strong possibility that the court could issue a termination order prior to the expiration of the ERPO.

The petitioner requesting the original ERPO may request an extension of the ERPO before it expires. The petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent continues to pose a significant risk. If the ERPO expires or is terminated, all of the respondent’s firearms must be returned within 3 days of the respondent requesting return.

If an ERPO is denied, the respondent’s firearms and/or concealed handgun permit must be returned in 3 days. A respondent who violates a temporary ERPO or ERPO by possessing or purchasing a firearm is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.  

Colorado is the 15th state to sign the bill but is the only state to do so in the 10th Judicial District, which includes Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and Yellowstone in Montana and Idaho. Maryland is the only example where an officer-involved shooting resulted in the death of the respondent. 

 Many of the attendees had questions about the bill and seemed generally upset about it, quoting it as, “a gun grab,” and “[It’s] just another form of gun control that attacks our second amendment rights.”

Some of the questions and concerns raised were about how and why Gilpin County is not one of the sanctuary counties, as about 40 of Colorado’s 64 counties have declared their county “Second Amendment Sanctuaries.”

District Attorney Steve Jensen spoke about procedural due process and concerns about ex-parte, stating that it is a “judgment call by the courts.” Sheriff Kevin Armstrong stated, “It is up to the courts to decide if it’s legally binding.”  

“For those against the bill, a petition could be taken to write another law to supersede this law,” said D.A. Steve Jensen. It would require a task force of citizens with community input on protocols. “This meeting was just to get people on the same page,” said Armstrong.

The Sheriff’s Office is developing policies to keep deputies safe and asking questions like, “How do we minimize the risk?” They have until January 1, 2020 to come up with a plan to implement House Bill19-1177 and The Mountain-Ear will continue to cover these new developments. 

(Originally published in the May 9, 2019, print edition of The Mountain-Ear.)