The constitutionally dubious compromise solution to taking guns out of the hands of people whom family members or police deem dangerous, red flag laws, has claimed a backfire victim.

The law allows immediate family members, household members or law enforcement officers to file a petition requesting for someone’s guns to be seized on that basis that they’re a danger to themselves or others. If a judge agrees, that person’s guns may be taken away for a year.

Colorado has a red flag law, so Susan Holmes tried to use it against Colorado State University Cpl. Phillip Morris, who killed her son, Jeremy. Morris was cleared of wrongdoing in the killing.

Jeremy Holmes died July 1, 2017, in a confrontation that investigators described as a “suicide by cop.” Investigators said Jeremy Holmes charged at officers after asking police to shoot him, prompting Morris and another Fort Collins officer to fire their guns.

But Holmes contends that Morris could have de-escalated the situation and instead chose to kill her son while he was having a mental health crisis.

Susan has seen the video and says it shows Morris completely losing control as her son lay dying. “All of his blood is flowing out — he’s bleeding out right there on camera — and the officer is still pointing his gun at him and screaming at him to drop his knife.”

Is Morris the sort of person whose possession of a gun presented a risk to others, notably manifested in her dead son? Holmes thought so, so she did something about it by filing a red flag law petition for Morris’ guns.

Holmes and Morris do not have a child together, but she checked the box on the state petition that asked if they have a child in common — her son, 19-year-old Jeremy Holmes.

It’s unclear exactly how the question was worded. Clearly, Morris was not Jeremy Holmes’ father, but then again, in the mind of a grieving mother, perhaps it seemed as if they had a “child in common,” and in a way, they did, she as life-giver and he as life-taker.

Okay, this is a stretch of reasoning, although not that far from the common reasoning proffered for many passionate arguments these days. And unlike the blindness caused by attenuated irrational fears, Susan Holmes’ passion is far better justified. She is a mother whose teenage child was killed. It’s far more reasonable to allow her to flex than those whose claimed trauma and suffering exists only in their narcissistic delusions. Susan Holmes suffered and continues to suffer. Cut her a break.

The judge denied Susan Holmes’ petition on Jan. 16. The fact she is not related to Morris was one of the key reasons for the denial.

The Larimer County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) said deputies have attempted to serve their warrant multiple times since last week. She is not in custody.

The sheriff’s office also put out a digital “wanted poster” for Holmes.

“Every week we put out one for the most egregious or the most public interest charge to generate public interest and leads,” said LCSO spokesman Jared Kramer.

Perjury. Apparently, the red flag petition must be submitted upon oath or affirmation, meaning that if it contains a materially false statement, its petitioner commits perjury. Susan Holmes checked the box, and now the Larimer County Sheriff has made her their “most egregious” criminal.

The red flag petition was denied, so no “harm” was caused by her “perjury,” if indeed perjury it was. Cpl. Morris didn’t have his gun taken away and remained “cleared” of his killing Holmes’ son. And Jeremy Holmes is still dead. So what compels them to go after Susan Holmes, a heartbroken mother whose child was killed, with such vehemence?

This appears to be one of those “send a message” cases, where law enforcement wants to make clear that if you try to use the red flag law against them, there will be consequences. Harsh and public consequences. Of course, their flashy “wanted poster,” as if she’s Bonnie with a Clyde, may not mean Holmes will go to prison for her “crime.” The outcome can’t be foretold by the sheriff’s excesses, but she will endure the ride if not the rap.

Was Holmes wrong to attempt to use the red flag law to have guns seized from Morris? Of course she was. The law wasn’t meant as a means of dealing with the cop who killed her son, and to the extent the law works, it caught the fault and the judge denied the petition. But could the Larimer County Sheriff be any more heavy handed, any less empathetic, toward a mother whose son was killed?

“Phil Morris used his firearm to recklessly and violently kill 19 year old Jeremy Holmes,” she wrote in her petition.

Susan Holmes is a grieving mother. Wrong as she may have been, making her Public Enemy Number 1 is no way to “send a message,” unless the message is to confirm that they are, indeed, incapable of addressing someone with mental health issues without resorting to excess force.

While it’s understandable that Colorado law enforcement wants to shut down the use of red flag laws as a weapon against officers, even as they remain not particularly concerned about the fact that Morris killed Jeremy Holmes rather than managed to find a way to help a mentally ill teenager without a bullet, this isn’t the solution.

As use of red flag laws become more common, there will be people who raise issues that are wrong, mistaken, taken as a means of vengeance against others or abused for purposes beyond the laws purposes. Hopefully, judges will be as circumspect in their consideration of the petition as the judge was here, although the fact that Morris was a cop doesn’t suggest that future cases for people who aren’t law enforcement will be shown the same degree of scrutiny.

But people, being people, will find ways of trying to use the law in ways it wasn’t meant to be used. Perhaps some will do so with wrongful intent. Perhaps some will cause harm. But Susan Holmes’ petition was denied and the same message can be sent without using her wayward attempt to grind  a grieving mother in the wheels of the system. This bodes poorly for the future of red flag laws, which will become a trap in themselves for the unwary and unduly passionate.