What conservatives warned would happen after the implementation of red flag laws, has happened.

A mother whose son was involved in a fatal altercation with a Colorado police officer filed a motion to the have the officer stripped of his right to carry a firearm, lying in her request under the law that went into effect Jan. 1, according to KUSA-TV.

Susan Holmes filed an extreme risk protection order, or ERPO, against Colorado State University police Cpl. Philip Morris on Jan. 9.

There’s just one problem. The state’s red flag law allows for a household member, family member or officer of the law to file an ERPO. Holmes is none of those.

What she is, is an aggrieved mother who, rightly or wrongly, claims that this officer used excessive force in the death of her son. Her petition against Morris was thrown out of court last week, but it still highlights how dangerous these laws are to Second Amendment rights.

Holmes lied on the form to file the ERPO and claimed that she and Morris were related and had a child together, KUSA reported.

She also checked the space next to a question on the form that asked if the person she was filing against was “a credible threat of or the unlawful reckless use of a firearm.”

“Phil Morris used his firearm to recklessly & violently threaten and kill 19 year old Jeremy Holmes,” she said.

Police said that Jeremy Holmes, who was 19 years old at the time he was killed by Morris on July 1, 2017, had committed “suicide by cop,” KUSA reported

Police said that Holmes was armed with a knife when they confronted him. The dashcam video revealed that Morris asked Holmes at least 36 times within two minutes to drop the knife — virtually begging him by name, at some points. But the man would not comply.

The video is here. (Warning: The end is jarring):

When Morris began to holster his weapon, so that he could use a stun gun, Holmes charged at him, causing Morris and another officer to open fire, according to KUSA-TV.

In the time since the shooting, the officers had their names cleared. Morris stayed on the force and Susan Holmes became an advocate against police policy.

RELATED: Beto Returns: Failed Candidate Teams with Bloomberg Group in Bid To Turn Texas Blue: Report

This is the fifth red flag case to be filed since the law took effect on Jan. 1, according to KUSA, and it only took five cases for the law to be abused.

“We predicted this and said a falsely accused person has no recourse other than hoping a DA files charges. No recourse to recoup lost wages or reputation. One example of many about how this bill was so horribly written,” Republican state Rep. Patrick Neville wrote in a Twitter post.

In a Facebook post, Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith wrote that Susan Holmes’ petition had “zero merit.”

“I have not and will not be serving that petition, not because it’s against a police officer, but because it is a fraud. We are actively investigating this abuse of the system and we will determine what charges may be substantiated against the petitioner, Ms. Holmes,” Larimer County Sheriff Smith wrote.

Morris had to go to court to fight for his right to carry a firearm. And, even though the judge dismissed the case at a hearing on Thursday, according to the Coloradan, the potential harm it demonstrates is terrifying.

What is to stop anyone a police officer arrests, gives a ticket to, or angers in some way, from doing the same thing Holmes has done?

Or, for that matter, what is to stop anyone with a grievance from doing this to a civilian as a means of payback, which would, in turn, tie up the courts’ valuable time and stain the reputations of innocent people?

It’s worth noting here that Holmes is still considering filing an appeal to continue harassing this officer.

“I’m retaining my right to keep my arguments private, unless I do an appeal,” she said, according to the Coloradan. “I’m considering an appeal in this case.”

“(Morris) has a history of violence. He killed my son — unnecessarily.”

The pain of losing a child must be unimaginable and it is easy to have sympathy for Holmes,

But this is another case of liberals rushing a law that sounds good on paper into effect without considering the consequences.