Expand List of Petitioners for Protection Order 

This bill significantly expands who can initiate “red flag” / Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) in Colorado and broadens institutional power over individuals’ constitutional rights. 

Colorado’s Red Flag Laws 

A ‘red flag law’ is also referred to as an EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER (ERPO) in Colorado.  This is a civil statute created in 2019 with House Bill 19-1177 (HB19-1177) Sponsored by Tom Sullivan and Brettany Petersen.  This statute allows for certain people to petition a judge to ‘temporarily’ strip private individuals of their firearms, ammunition and related rights based on an alleged risk to harm themselves or others.  Unlike criminal law, the ERPO does not require the respondent to have committed a crime, require proof beyond reasonable doubt, or advanced notice to the person targeted to have their property seized. 

HB19-1177 Extreme Risk Protection Orders | Colorado General Assembly 

1. Massive Expansion of Who Can Petition for an ERPO Previously, ERPO petitions were limited to: 

• Law enforcement 

• Family or household members 

• Certain individual professionals 

This bill adds entire institutions as petitioners, including: 

• Hospitals and health-care facilities 

• Behavioral health and substance use facilities 

• K-12 schools and school districts 

• Colleges, universities, community colleges, and technical schools 

• Charter schools 

• Co-responder programs 

Institutions—not just individuals—can now initiate gun confiscation proceedings. 

2. ERPOs Can Be Filed Without Notice to the Accused 

The bill allows: 

• Temporary ERPOs issued ex parte (no notice, no hearing first) 

• Firearms may be seized before the respondent ever appears in court 

This applies even when the petitioner is: 

• A school 

• A hospital 

• A behavioral health facility 

• A third-party co-responder 

3. Firearm Seizure + Search Warrants 

If law enforcement is involved: 

• Courts may issue search warrants to seize firearms 

• The standard is based on allegations, not criminal conduct 

• No conviction, charge, or adjudication is required 

4. Medical & Mental Health Records Can Be Disclosed 

The bill authorizes: 

• Health-care professionals and institutions to disclose protected health information 

• Courts to compel production of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment records 

• Disclosure without the respondent’s consent 

While records are sealed afterward, the initial constitutional violation already occurs. 

5. Minors Are Explicitly Included 

The bill explicitly states: 

“Respondent means the person, INCLUDING A MINOR…” 

This means: 

• Children and teens may be subjected to ERPOs 

• Schools and institutions can initiate petitions against minors 

• Firearms owned by family members may be implicated 

6. Petitioners Are Shielded from Liability 

Institutions and professionals are granted near-total immunity if they act “reasonably and in good faith,” even if: 

• The allegations are wrong 

• Rights are violated 

• The respondent is cleared later 

There is no meaningful penalty for abuse. 

How This Bill Violates the Bill of Rights 

This bill is unconstitutional on multiple independent grounds, particularly under recent Supreme Court precedent. 

1. Second Amendment Violations 

1. District of Columbia v. Heller 

2. McDonald v. Chicago 

3. NYSRPA v. Bruen 

The Supreme Court has made clear: 

• The Second Amendment protects an individual, fundamental right 

• Firearms possession is the default, not a privilege 

• Any restriction must be consistent with historical tradition 

Why This Bill Fails  

Bruen 

• There is no historical analogue (1791 or 1868) for: 

• Preemptive firearm confiscation 

• Disarmament based on predictions of future behavior 

• Institutional actors initiating rights deprivation 

• Civil proceedings replacing criminal due process 

Under Bruen: 

“The government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition.” 

Colorado cannot meet this burden. 

2. Fourth Amendment Violations (Search & Seizure) 

The bill enables: 

1. Search warrants for firearms absent a crime 

2. Seizure based on civil allegations 

3. Government fishing expeditions into lawful property ownership 

4. This violates: 

5. The requirement of probable cause of a crime 

6. The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures 

7. Firearms are constitutionally protected property, not contraband. 

3. Fifth Amendment Violations (Due Process & Takings) 

Lack of Due Process 

• Property is seized before a hearing 

• The burden shifts to the respondent to prove innocence 

• Rights are suspended based on allegations alone 

This directly violates: 

Procedural due process 

Procedural due process is a legal doctrine that requires the government to follow fair procedures before depriving an individual of life, liberty, or property. 

Procedural due process is rooted in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This principle ensures that individuals are afforded a fair opportunity to defend their interests when the government seeks to take action against them. 

Substantive due process 

Substantive due process is a legal principle in U.S. constitutional law that protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if these rights are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. It is derived from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which ensure that the government cannot infringe upon these rights without a legitimate justification. This principle has been used to address issues related to liberty of contract, marriage, and privacy. (Cornell University) 

Uncompensated Taking:  Firearms are taken without compensation 

Storage fees and damage often fall on the owner 

That is an unconstitutional taking. 

An unconstitutional taking occurs when the government takes private property without just compensation, which is required under the 5^th Amendment’s Takings Clause.  This can happen in various ways, such as:  

Physical Occupation: When the government permanently occupies the property, such as through eminent domain.  

Regulatory Takings: When the government regulations substantially devalue the property, leaving the owner with no fair use or value.  

Exactions: When government imposes conditions upon property owners or developers to pay money or give property interests to the government before a permit is granted. 

These actions violate the property owner’s constitutional rights, as they are not compensated fairly for the loss of property or value.  The Supreme Court has established a test for determining whether compensation is required in individual takings cases, known as the “Nollan/Dolan test,” which requires a direct connection and rough proportionality with the impact caused by the proposed development. 

4. Sixth Amendment Violations (Confrontation & Defense) 

Respondents (the person red flagged) are: 

• Accused without confrontation 

• Unable to cross-examine institutional accusers initially 

• Denied a jury trial for deprivation of a fundamental right 

Civil labels do not erase criminal consequences. 

5. First Amendment Chilling Effects 

This bill discourages: 

• Honest communication with doctors 

• Seeking mental health care 

• Students expressing concerns at school 

When speech becomes a pathway to losing rights, free expression collapses. 

6. Equal Protection Violations (14th Amendment) 

This bill creates: 

• A second-class category of rights holders 

• Disparate treatment based on institutional proximity 

• Subjective enforcement without uniform standards 

People with mental health treatment histories are targeted, not protected. 

7. Presumption of Guilt, Not Innocence 

At its core, this bill: 

• Treats firearm ownership as suspicious 

• Treats citizens as guilty until proven safe 

• Replaces constitutional rights with bureaucratic discretion 

That is antithetical to the Bill of Rights. 

Bottom Line Summary: 

This bill is not about safety. It is about normalizing preemptive disarmament, expanding state power, and outsourcing constitutional violations to institutions shielded from accountability. 

It: 

• Violates Heller, McDonald, and Bruen 

• Erodes due process 

• Undermines privacy 

• Chills free speech 

• Converts a civil process into a punishment regime 

From a 2A absolutist perspective, this bill is flatly unconstitutional and historically indefensible.