I have two daughters. One is 8 and one is 3. I once heard someone say that when you have children your heart walks outside of your chest. I understand what that means now.

On February 14th four people proposed a law in my state that does nothing to protect, and will harm with unintended consequences. Two Senators (Lois Court and Brittany Pettersen) and two Representatives (Tom Sullivan and Alec Garnett) have proposed to sidestep the Constitution. HB 19–1177 “Extreme Risk Protection Order,” does not provide protection, and does not eliminate extreme risk.

In fact on June 27th, 2005 The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation. To be clear, police are NOT required to place themselves in harms way to protect you.

That’s right, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. The police have NO Constitutional duty to protect. That means that the police have no Constitutional duty to act based on someone’s feeling, beliefs, best interpretation of reading tea leaves, tarot, or emotional response. It is up to individuals to protect themselves.

But here we are, with senators and representatives that assume they have the authority to ignore the Supreme Court and demand that police intercede on the assumption of a crime being committed instead of crimes that are or have been committed. Frightening powers are being handed to courts to hold secret meetings to hear one side of a case, and based on the opinion of someone making a sworn statement, that there is a threat, we need to circumvent the Constitution and act without regard to due process, and steal from people based on say so alone.

“But there is penalty of perjury,” you say. Not really. Not unless it can be proven that the person that filled out the form did not believe that the gun owner in question would actually commit the crime. Here’s the problem with that nonsense. Belief is literally accepting a claim without evidence. So what is being proposed is that people that are claiming something without evidence can decide to have the police violate Constitutional rights.

I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution the day that I became a Soldier. What would you have me do now? Politicians are choosing to follow a course of action that violates the Constitution. I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but in this case I don’t need to be one. I know that the Constitution is under attack by this legislation.

Am I expected to make a special case because these are legislators? Am I supposed to sit on my hands and do nothing while laws that negatively impact my ability to protect my children are proposed? I have an ex-wife. We divorced two decades ago. She has lied to judges before, they knew it and did nothing. Cowards in black robes will not protect us from poorly thought out laws. They have no incentive, AND THEY HAVE ALREADY TOLD US WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN PROTECTION.

So what am I supposed to do? While bad laws are being written and proposed, what am I supposed to do? I am a skeptic, an Atheist, and a disabled vet. What do you expect me to do, when the police show up at 5 a.m. raising a ruckus, and I’m bleary eyed and confused and show up at my door to protect my family, armed because of the amount of noise, and on the other side of the door are jack booted thugs bent on wiping their asses with the Constitution?

What do you expect a law abiding gun owner, with a wife and two girls expecting to be safe in their home from unreasonable search and seizure to do? They have already executed one individual with a red flag law. Who would think after something so tragic, that it needs to happen in Colorado? What is it about this summary execution that these four individuals (Lois Court, Brittany Petersen, Tom Sullivan and Alec Garnet) liked so much they want to see it happen here?