Denver, CO — In the wake of a disturbing shooting incident in Aurora, Colorado last June, where three individuals were wounded, State Rep. Judy Amabile is advocating for an expansion of state measures that could prevent dangerous individuals from accessing firearms. This proposal follows revelations surrounding the shooter, who had previously been deemed mentally unfit to stand trial for a similar offense in 2018, yet was able to reclaim his firearms which were later used in the Aurora shooting.
The proposed legislative changes would enhance Colorado’s “red flag” law, which was enacted in 2020. Currently, this law empowers police, family members, educators, and health professionals to request what is known as an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) from a court. If granted, this order can restrict access to firearms for up to a year, with possibilities for renewal, aiming to mitigate the risks posed by individuals showing signs of potentially violent behavior.
Rep. Amabile, a Democrat representing regions including parts of Boulder and Larimer counties, is pushing for an automatic trigger wherein a red flag petition would be filed whenever a suspect in a firearms-related crime is found mentally incompetent to face trial. “It’s imperative that connections between mental health issues and gun ownership are addressed more effectively in our legal system,” Amabile stressed.
The urgency of this issue was highlighted by the case of Austin Benson, who is facing multiple charges including attempted first-degree murder following the June 27 Aurora shooting. Nearly five years prior, Benson had been involved in another violent incident in Douglas County, where he was reportedly stopped by a retired police officer after opening fire.
Despite his earlier charges being dismissed in October due to mental incompetence, Benson managed to regain possession of several firearms, which were returned by sheriff’s officials to his wife under her power of attorney. This sequence of events has sparked a broader discussion about the efficacy of judicial and law enforcement processes in ensuring public safety.
Legal experts suggest that these proposed changes could lead to a significant reduction in gun violence, particularly involving individuals with documented mental health challenges. “Linking red flag laws more closely with findings of mental incompetence may bridge a critical gap in our approach to preventing gun violence,” explained Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, a criminologist specializing in firearm legislation.
However, the proposal is not without its detractors who point out potential overreach and the need to balance public safety with individual rights. “While the intent is good, we must ensure that these measures do not trample on the civil liberties of individuals,” said Jonathan Mills, a civil rights attorney.
Moving forward, Amabile acknowledges that fine-tuning the details of this legislative enhancement will be complex. Yet, she remains optimistic about bipartisan support for measures that definitively connect mental health assessments with firearm access restrictions. This development comes at a time when discussions about gun control and mental health are particularly fraught, reflecting a national debate over how to best protect communities while respecting constitutional rights.
As this legislative proposal gains traction, it underscores an ongoing challenge faced by lawmakers nationwide: how to effectively prevent gun violence caused by individuals deemed a risk due to their mental state without infringing on constitutional rights.