Could Colorado's 'Red Flag' Law Have Prevented the Club Q Massacre?
If an order had been issued, it would have expired months before the attack unless police successfully sought an extension.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis says his state's "red flag" law "could have been used" to prevent the November 19 mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Colorado Springs. "It's really up to the local law enforcement entity how to use it," Polis said during a Face the Nation interview on Sunday. "In cases like this, where somebody can potentially be a danger, and there are signs that they are a danger, we have a legal way to temporarily remove custody of any weapons they might have. And this is an example of a case where it might have been used."
Polis was alluding to a June 2021 incident in which Laura Voepel, the mother of the 22-year-old man now charged with murdering five people at Club Q, reported that he had threatened her with a homemade bomb. The governor said Voepel did not seek an "extreme risk protection order" (ERPO) against her son, which would have barred him from possessing or buying firearms. But since Colorado's red flag law also authorizes police to ask judges for ERPOs, that need not have been the end of the matter. "It wasn't pursued by the local sheriff agency," Polis noted. "I'm sure what will be looked into is why wasn't it pursued."
There are legitimate questions about why the El Paso County Sheriff's Office did not apply for an ERPO in this case. The law's supporters note that Sheriff Bill Elder is a vocal critic of Colorado's red flag law who indicated that he planned to use it sparingly. But even if Elder's office were more inclined to seek ERPOs, it is by no means clear that doing so in this case would have prevented the Club Q shooting. An order against the future murderer would have expired months before the attack unless the sheriff's office or another petitioner successfully sought an extension.
Under Colorado's law, which was enacted in 2019 and took effect at the beginning of 2020, "a family or household member" can seek an ERPO; so can "a law enforcement officer or agency." The court "shall issue" a temporary order, which lasts up to 14 days and does not require an adversarial hearing or advance notice to the respondent, if it finds "by a preponderance of the evidence" that the respondent's access to firearms poses "a significant risk of causing personal injury" to himself or others "in the near future." A final ERPO, which is issued after the respondent has a chance to rebut the allegations against him, requires "clear and convincing evidence" that he "poses a significant risk."
A final order lasts for 364 days unless the respondent successfully seeks to shorten it by presenting clear and convincing evidence that he no longer poses a "significant risk." The order can be extended for up to a year based on a new showing of clear and convincing evidence that the respondent still poses such a risk.
The evidence that a judge considers in deciding whether to issue an ERPO can include "a recent act or credible threat of violence" and an arrest for any of various crimes involving such acts or threats. It looks like the alleged 2021 bomb threat, as described by ABC News, would have qualified under both of those headings.
On the afternoon of June 18, 2021, the sheriff's office said, Voepel reported that "her son was threatening to cause harm to her with a homemade bomb, multiple weapons, and ammunition." Deputies located her son at a house where she was renting a room and contacted him by telephone, but he "refused to comply with orders to surrender." ABC News says "a tactical support unit was called in and approximately 10 homes in the immediate surrounding area were evacuated, while an emergency notification was sent to cellphones of residents within a quarter-mile radius."
The Colorado Springs Gazette obtained a Facebook Live video that the man uploaded during the standoff. "This is your boy," he says. "I've got the fucking shitheads outside. Look at that. They've got a bead on me. You see that right there? Fucking shitheads got their fucking rifles out. If they breach, I'm going to fucking blow it to holy hell. So go ahead and come on in, boys. Let's fucking see it!"
Police eventually persuaded the suspect to surrender, and they found no explosives during the subsequent search. KRDO, a radio station in Colorado Springs, reported that he was charged with two counts of felony menacing and three counts of first-degree kidnapping. But he was not prosecuted, and the arrest records were sealed, as required by state law.
If Voepel declined to cooperate with her son's prosecution, that could explain why the charges against him were dropped. It also would be consistent with the fact that she did not seek an ERPO. But it does not necessarily explain why the sheriff's office did not file its own petition based on what happened that day.
"Law enforcement agencies in appropriate circumstances should…utilize the law," Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers said last week. But Suthers added that he would "caution against an assumption that the circumstances of this case would lead to application of the red flag law," saying "we don't know that."
In 2019, the El Paso County Board of Commissioners unanimously condemned Colorado's proposed red flag law, saying it "infringes upon the inalienable rights of law-abiding citizens" by authorizing police to "forcibly enter premises and seize a citizen's property with no evidence of a crime." Elder likewise raised due process concerns about the law, saying his office would enforce it only if a family or household member obtained an ERPO or in "exigent circumstances" where "probable cause can be established" that "a crime is being or has been committed."
El Paso is one of 37 Colorado counties that have declared themselves "Second Amendment sanctuaries," meaning they will not enforce gun laws they deem unconstitutional. In those counties, the Associated Press found, just 45 ERPOs were issued in 2020 and 2021, about a fifth fewer per capita than were issued in the rest of the state.
Polis evidently is troubled by such sparing use of the red flag law, and so is President Joe Biden. "The idea that we're not enforcing red flag laws…is ridiculous," Biden told reporters last week. Yet the concerns raised by critics like Elder are valid, given the way these laws, which 19 states have enacted, tend to be rigged against respondents.
Colorado's law is actually better than average in that respect. The state limits temporary orders, which are issued without an adversarial process, to threats "in the near future," for example, and it gives respondents a right to court-appointed counsel when they finally have an opportunity to challenge the claim that they pose a danger. Colorado's evidentiary requirements for both temporary and final orders are stricter than some states have prescribed. Even so, the "significant risk" standard is open to wide interpretation, and the process encourages judges to err on the side of issuing orders, which creates a danger that people will lose their Second Amendment rights even when it is highly unlikely that they would use firearms to harm themselves or others.
That manifestly was not the case with the Colorado Springs shooter. Even without Voepel's cooperation, the sheriff's office might have had enough evidence to obtain an ERPO against him last year. But that does not necessarily mean it would have had enough evidence of a continuing threat to extend the order a year later. At that point, in the usual course of things, he would have been able to recover any guns that were seized. He also would have been allowed to purchase additional firearms.
"Gun control advocates say [the] June 2021 threat is an example of a red flag law ignored, with potentially deadly consequences," A.P. notes. But given that ERPOs expire after a specified term, the story adds, "it's not clear the law could have prevented" the Club Q shooting.
Legislators could try to avoid that problem by authorizing ERPOs that last indefinitely. But time limits are a minimum requirement for any red flag law to pass constitutional muster. Doing away with them would effectively expand the already overbroad criteria that permanently deprive people of their Second Amendment rights. Court orders that were originally justified as temporary responses to temporary dangers would be transformed into lifetime bans.
Like previous mass murders, the Colorado Springs attack illustrates the inherent limitations of red flag laws. To work as advertised, they require that family members or law enforcement agencies with reason to believe someone is dangerous file petitions. But they also require a careful balance between the risk of preventable violence and the risk that innocent people will lose the right to armed self-defense based on erroneous or malicious petitions. Because the former risk tends to weigh much more heavily on legislators and judges, legitimate due process concerns do not get the attention they deserve. Reflexively reacting to horrifying crimes by demanding more use of red flag laws is not likely to improve that situation.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Are the wallz closin' in yet, Sullum?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by (gbf-02) doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://www.LiveJob247.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
Balenciaga....why isn't Reason covering this story? Guesses anyone?
If they do it will be in defense of the commercial. See: Cuties.
How long before Reason starts running articles defining pedophiles as ‘minor attracted persons’ like it’s a sexual orientation and not a mental disorder? Maybe they’ll hire Shrike to do those articles like Bailey wriest all the articles supporting leftist climate hoaxes.
The laws against murdering people didn’t stop “him”.
I am now making $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making cash online by
Follow instruction on website Here.............>>> onlinecareer1
No.
Consistently made over $26,000 in extra income from home with the benefit of smooth playback and sticky online interest. ~”b20 I actually made $18,636 with this perfect home income. Everyone can now without a doubt.OPEN>> GOOGLE WORK
"Polis was alluding to a June 2021 incident in which Laura Voepel, the mother of the 22-year-old man now charged with murdering five people at Club Q, reported that he had threatened her with a homemade bomb."
Oh dear. Reason.com's official LGBT2SQIA+ correspondent Scott Shackford wouldn't be pleased with the refusal to respect the suspect's nonbinary gender identity.
#SelfIDIsEitherValidOrItsNot
It is amazing to watch isnt it. Msnbc was still the best by a trans activist saying they knew he wasn't non binary by looking at him.
An important piece of missing information here would be to compare the experience in the "second amendment sanctuary" counties with the other Colorado counties under that law. This would be a natural experiment that might help decide whether "red flag" laws actually prevent violent assaults. A properly designed epidemiologic study could detect if the rate of incidents in "sanctuary" counties was significantly higher than the other counties after comparing the rate of triggering events and the rate of orders. If they are similar - i.e. not significantly different in outcomes - then "red flag" laws are likely to be ineffective at preventing such incidents.
That would be the right study to conduct. The problem is that these events are so very rare that it will take so many years to develop statistically-significant data that intervening changes will render the data invalid for the comparison you want.
This is a standard problem for long-tail or “black swan” event distributions.
You could do better by simply comparing jurisdictions with and without "red flag" laws at all. That would get you more data, though still likely requiring multiple decades to reach statistical significance.
Not to mention that there are potentially other differences between different "jurisdictions" besides their having or not having red flag laws.
No. Locking him up for threating his mother with a homemade bomb would have stopped it. And barred him from purchasing a gun.
From the other story:
Aldrich was booked into the El Paso County Jail on two counts of felony menacing and three counts of first-degree kidnapping, according to the sheriff's office.
So he's charged with five felonies one year prior to the shooting. Why was he out? Was he still awaiting trial on that? He had a 4 hour standoff with police and threats of the bomb forced 10 residences around him to evacuate, so it's not like his bomb-threat was a victimless crime.
not uncommon for a family member, like a mother, to call the cops to get things under control..... and then not cooperate when it comes time to go to trial. charges dropped because they can't get a conviction without her testimony.
Whether the mother cooperated or not, the neighbors were also victims. Aldrich allegedly uploaded death threats to Facebook, so her testimony should not have been needed to convict him of a felony, which would both put him behind bars for a while and permanently bar him from having a gun legally.
Apparently, it was also a "sanctuary county" for felony menacing and kidnapping?
Have red flag laws put an end to gang violence?
In this case they would have needed a rainbow flag law.
Jared Polis. Soooo Dreamy!
Seriously it seems this kid was legitimately charged with several felonies. Under the circumstances, assuming the story is accurate, I'm not sure the mother's cooperation was required for prosecution or an ERPO.
Red flag laws in general should have unnecessary because he should have had a felony conviction that would prevent him from owning a firearm. Red flag laws are unconstitutional because they deprive people who haven't been convicted of a crime of their rights, and bypass due process. But here's a case of someone committing multiple felonies who still had all his rights intact because the courts want to take it easy on an actual criminal, as opposed to a guy who made a nasty post about his ex-girlfriend on Facebook.
Except the courts didn't do anything wrong--it was the prosecutors who dropped the charges.
Fuck Polis. Unless he wants to lock up everyone that has any risk profile characteristic for renewing 12 month time-outs (and he probably does) then these pre-crime laws will not work.
Toxic Waste Strikes Again
https://alphanews.org/controversial-energy-official-charged-with-stealing-womans-luggage-at-msp/
I am now making $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making cash online by
Follow instruction on website Here.............>>> onlinecareer1
Sheriff Bill Elder? Isn’t he an Erle Stanley Gardner character?
Oh, wait...that's Sheriff Bill Eldon.
Balenciaga....why isn't Reason covering this story? Guesses anyone?
They will cover it with a pillow until it stops moving.
Only censoring right wing pundits like Tucker or LibsOfTikTok could have stopped it.
These laws could be utilised to render someone defenseless and thus unnecessarily making them the target of criminal behaviour on the mere word of a potential scammer.
A red flag would not have stopped the shooting, but a rainbow flag would have.
Only thing that would have stopped it would have been to remove Tucker from the airwaves so that no MAGA propaganda could have gotten into the shooter's head.
“Better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be jailed” was once our maxim of justice. Now it’s “better 10 innocent men be denied civil rights than 1 potentially guilty man commit a crime.” That “potentially guilty man” can be all of us, if we have inadequate due process protections.
"KRDO, a radio station in Colorado Springs, reported that he was charged with two counts of felony menacing and three counts of first-degree kidnapping. But he was not prosecuted, and the arrest records were sealed, as required by state law."
So, a Red Flag law wouldn't have worked to keep him from legally buying a firearm, but a successful felony prosecution would have.
Fact: It’s “impossible” to prevent or predict all future crimes or future criminals. Over 2000 years of world history proves it can’t be done. We can only defer and minimize future crimes.
Maybe the best way to minimize future crimes, would be to show less violence in the media, TV and internet. America has a violence problem and a Baby Boomer problem - maybe show less violence and more love/sex in the media? Solve both problems.
Another way to minimize political violence would be for politicians to stop demonizing and dividing the American people. Adopt ranked-choice voting (less divisive). Reform gerrymandering in voting districts. Maybe drastically shorten election cycles (highly divisive).
Under the U.S. Constitution, we can’t make our members of Congress and media executives reduce violence but great leaders would do it voluntarily - as a patriotic duty.
Red flag laws should be about more than taking away potential weapons. Should be treated more a social service/parole situation. Maybe (maybe not) weapons are taken. But how about a weekly visit from a counselor/investigator, with the flagged person and guardians if necessary. Help the person/family with the situation, track progress and ultimately end the flagged period.
Red flag laws really aren't necessary. All states have laws (~Baker Act) that allow the police or mental health authorities to evaluate anyone and confine them to a mental health facility away from their firearms for 72 hours without any due process if they believe the individual is a danger to themselves or others. After 72 hours, the individual is either released if they are no longer considered to be a danger to themselves or others or they are offered the choice of remaining in the facility either voluntarily or under a court order if a judge agrees to issue one. No sane gun owner is going to choose the court order option because it will automatically adjudicate the individual as being mentally defective and under current US law (see BATF form 4473 question 11f) that will disqualify the individual from possessing any firearms now or in the future.
So why don't these laws work? The problem is in most cases the mental health facility will not accept a person unless they are medically cleared - especially if drugs or alcohol are involved. This typically requires the individual to be taken first to a hospital emergency room (ER) for a stay that can last hours or even days - and because ER facilities are not lockdown facilities and no one funds a 24/7 guard to watch them, they often slip out of the ER unnoticed.
Current law allows the US government to require all hospitals that accept Medicare to treat anyone regardless of immigration status or ability to pay so if the federal government wants to fix something, they should use the same legal arguments to require all hospitals that accept Medicare to provide at least one ER examining room that can be locked down to securely detain any person who is on a mental health hold until they can be transferred to a mental health facility for evaluation
It is also noted these laws are partially about "danger to self" and according to the CDC in 2016, 22018 people killed themselves with firearms and 22175 did it by other means and the proposed red flag laws that only confiscate firearms would not prevent an individual from employing "other means" - but confinement to a mental health facility would.