In the closing days of the 2018 session of the General Assembly, the so-called “red flag” bill was rushed through the state House of Representatives in only five days from introduction to passage. House Democrats and the progressive media were united and vocal in their support, but in the end, only two of 47 Republicans in the legislature thought HB1436 worthy of support.

Why the partisan divide? Both Republicans and Democrats see a challenging problem, but Republicans believe any solution must be consistent with constitutional standards of due process. There is no mystery behind that wall of Republican skepticism when we go beyond the proponents’ alarmist rhetoric and stop to examine the bill’s deficient language and dangerous shortcuts. HB1436 might indeed “plough new ground in public safety,” but at what price?

If passed HB1436 would see Colorado join only five other states in establishing a process for using “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” to seize guns from individuals deemed a “significant risk” to themselves or others. What aroused fervent opposition was not the bill’s goals but its inadequate safeguards for rights grounded in the United States Constitution.

The bill had numerous gaps and flaws:

Those are only a few of the dangerous gaps in the bill that arrived on the agenda of the Senate State Affairs Committee on May 7, only two days before the end of session. If the committee had amended the bill extensively and then returned it to the House on the last day of session, who really believes that an 11th hour conference committee could resolve the deep differences to produce a great piece of legislation?

Before investing more energy and angst in a rancorous debate to find agreement on the perfect “protection order,” perhaps we ought instead to investigate ways to improve existing domestic violence laws and mental health interventions. County Sheriffs testified on both sides of HB1436, but all of them cited mental health issues as the most frequent circumstance justifying the proposed emergency protection order. Yet the bill contained not a single new idea or provision for identifying or dealing with mental health issues.

Changes of such magnitude and complexity affecting both public safety and basic constitutional rights deserve more scrutiny, not less, than more routine legislation. When lives are at stake, we can and must do better.