If you want to start an argument here in the United States, and certainly in Colorado, you only need utter the words, “a gun law we need is…”  Our lovely state contains a lot of folks with strong opinions on the Second Amendment and what it means in today’s world of semi-automatic military-grade weapons and mass school shootings. A recent Colorado Politics story is an important step forward in understanding at least one part of the gun situation: our state’s red-flag law.

Like most issues, there exists a wide range of opinions on what, exactly, the Second Amendment guarantees. Our state’s literal topography rather mirrors the bell curve of those views, with the eastern and western portions of Colorado holding more similar “no gun laws” views, while the Front Range down the middle tends to be more liberal. Most folks agree that there is always a mental health issue involved in mass murder, but there is sharp disagreement on whether also having some additional limitations or rules on gun ownership or possession would be an important additional aid to curb violence.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m a gun owner and a concealed-carry permit holder. I see the Second Amendment as absolutely guaranteeing the right to private gun ownership, but not to unlimited, unfettered ownership of any weapon at all. I’m guessing that most of you agree that, say, your crazy uncle shouldn’t be able to own a flame thrower nor an anthrax cannon. Simply put, there are no absolutely unlimited rights in the Constitution. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, and you can’t include ritual sacrifice of humans in your free exercise of your religious rights. So, what logical limits can we place on gun ownership?

Well, back in 2019 Colorado passed what is known as a red-flag law. Simply put, if there is a deep and well-founded concern about a particular person having a gun at a particular time, due to a suspected mental-health crisis, a red-flag law allows for a court to hear the case and, if convinced of the danger, order a temporary removal of guns from the possession of the person deemed to be a danger.

At the time it was passed into law, lots of sheriffs (especially in the aforementioned eastern and western parts of our state) vowed they would create some kind of Second Amendment “sanctuary” and that they would never, ever file for an order to take away a person’s guns, no matter how dangerous their behavior seemed to be.

But…

As it happens, in 20 of the 37 counties that declared themselves to be “sanctuaries,” petitions for protective orders have been filed, often by the very same sheriffs who earlier declared he or she would never, ever do so. And I must say, huzzah for those sheriffs.

The CP article notes, for example, that sheriff Don Wilson in the southwest county of Dolores, was on record saying he strongly opposed the new law. Yet he later filed for a protective order when a private citizen there threatened to kill his neighbors and pointed a semi-automatic rifle at a deputy. Sheriff Wilson noted, “if a gentleman pulls a rifle on my deputy and then comes and threatens to shoot up my courthouse and kill me, kill the judges and kill the district attorney, I’ve got a problem with that person having a gun.” He filed for an order and in doing so, may well have saved lives.

As reported in the CP article, there have been studies of the relative impact of red-flag laws. One researcher noted that in Colorado lots of sheriffs and chiefs of police have discovered that the red-flag law is an important tool in reducing gun deaths. Up in lovely Weld County, where Sheriff Steve Reams has stated he will never, ever file for a protective order under the red-flag laws, 12 petitions have been filed nonetheless, including two by local municipal police departments within the county.

One of the claims by the law’s opponents was that frivolous petitions would be filed, and presumably a person’s guns might be taken away because of a grouchy neighbor or an offended coworker and such. And a few such cases have been filed, but since a judge is involved and decides on the merits of the red-flag request, those silly cases have been tossed out with ease.

I’m not going to tug at your emotional heartstrings and recite a long, long list of mass murders that just might have been prevented if red-flag laws had been in effect. I admit I’m tempted to do so, but I won’t. Instead, I’d just urge you to read the CP article and note that when the political infighting fades and the law actually goes into effect, it seems to work, in red and in blue counties. There are clear cases that even some of the most conservative law enforcement folks have found the red-flag laws work, and I salute them for looking for real solutions rather than hiding behind some well-worn slogans.

As a former military cop myself, I would much rather be dispatched to temporarily remove, say, a couple of AR-15s and a thousand rounds of ammo, from a home, rather than later having to engage that individual in a firefight at a local school he was on record saying he would attack. I’d much rather eventually return his weapons to him after he got the mental health support he needed than return fire at him in a bloody kindergarten room.

Red-flag laws work, as seen here in Colorado and elsewhere. I hope more and more county sheriffs will learn from the example of Sheriff Wilson.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.