Sitting through the public testimony offered for and against House Bill 19-1177 last week raised doubts whether the oft-touted pursuit of bi-partisan compromise is any more likely to succeed than the search for that pot of gold rumored to lie beneath every rainbow. Competing viewpoints regarding the merits of red flag or “extreme risk protection order” legislation offered by Democratic state Reps. Alec Garnett of Denver and Tom Sullivan of Centennial surfaced far more than a simple difference of opinion. The bill is intended to allow relatives and law enforcement to petition a court for the removal of firearms from individuals believed to be a threat to themselves or others. Supporters and opponents embraced constructions of social reality premised on profoundly varying perceptions unlikely to be bridged through debate.

The bill sponsors began their hearing with an emotional thirty-minute video clip from John Ferrugia’s PBS examination of the killing of Douglas County Sheriff’s deputy Zack Parrish by Matt Riehl on New Year’s Eve a year ago. A graduate of the University of Colorado and the University of Wyoming law school, the Afghan war veteran had been spiraling into madness for nearly a year. His mother, who seized Riehl’s guns for several months but was required to return them, and Castle Rock law enforcement were both aware of Riehl’s mental health issues. Yet Colorado’s existing “imminent threat” standard prevented the kind of protective intervention common sense dictated. Douglas County Republican Cole Wist joined Democrats last year to propose a version of this session’s red flag legislation. The Senate Republican majority killed that bill and then voters failed to return Wist to the statehouse.

Arapahoe County voters elected Tom Sullivan in November. His 27-year old son was killed during the Aurora Theater shooting. My wife and I were in San Diego on that weekend in 2012. We were awakened by an early morning call from our son assuring us he had decided against attending the midnight screening. It was chilling to watch John Hickenlooper and Steve Hogan appear on national news stories trying to explain the inexplicable. In testimony last week both supporters and opponents linked HB 19-1177 with mental health policy, but they offered starkly contrasting interpretations even within law enforcement.

Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock spoke in support, explaining that family members know first when a relative is suffering an acute behavioral health crisis. Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams argued that enforcing protection orders could actually place his deputies at greater risk. He also claimed that seizing firearms without prior notice increases the likelihood they may be used. There was testimony focused on due process, home invasion, confiscations premised on ex parte testimony and the rounding up of dependent children by armed deputies. For opponents the rights guaranteed them under the second and fourth amendments were clearly more important than saving a few lives. The sporadic loss of innocent life was acknowledged as simply the price we should be willing to pay for these freedoms, even though the second amendment envisioned the ownership of muskets and not AR15s.

It is certainly true that no law is perfect, nor can it be. But common sense should prevail. Nineteen times out of 20, likely more than that, the issuance of an extreme risk protection order will be justified. Over time, as Tom Sullivan noted during his remarks introducing the legislation, “…we will save a life for another day.” The worst that can happen if a court misjudges or is misled, will be that a gun owner is deprived of his or her arsenal for fourteen days when a full legal review must be scheduled – an inconvenience, to be sure, but not the kind of injury likely to threaten the well being of the respondent. We should consider the suicides that could be prevented for want of a firearm, or the spouses repeatedly murdered despite temporary restraining orders.

If your behavior is so belligerent, so alarming your own family and your neighbors or co-workers are concerned; if restraining orders have been placed against you; if law enforcement knows your first name following multiple visits to your residence, you may want to glance in the mirror.

The real risk is silence and inaction. If you care about the safety of first responders, and we should, or if you are horrified each time children and innocent bystanders are slaughtered, prevention serves as protection. Fortunately democracy is about majority rule. I accept the notion that taking precautions may infringe the perceived rights of others.

Frankly, this infringement looks more like a blow for sanity. One witness stated the enforcement of emergency orders will require police to “…act on behalf of the government.” I think not. Prosecutors appear in court on behalf of “the people.” Police actions undertaken to assure public safety also protect “the people.” There is little reason to be troubled by HB 19-1777.

Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former state legislator. He can be reached at mnhwriter@msn.com.