As the Colorado General Assembly debates legislation addressing ghost guns, firearm components, and the rise of 3D-printed weapons, we do so in the shadow of a solemn milestone. April 20 marks 26 years since the Columbine High School shooting — a tragedy that forever changed our state. But the nature of the crisis we face today has evolved, and so must our response.
In the years since Columbine and the Aurora theater shooting in 2012, Coloradans have consistently called for action — practical, responsible measures that can save lives. One of those calls was simple: if you see warning signs, you should be able to act. It took 14 years and multiple legislative efforts, but today we have strengthened our Extreme Risk Protection Order laws , also know as ERPO, to allow co-responders, mental health professionals, and institutions of higher education to intervene when someone is in crisis. That is what listening to communities — and acting on it — looks like.
We have also made progress in addressing emerging threats. The proliferation of ghost guns and 3D-printed firearms presents new risks that did not exist decades ago. These weapons can be made without oversight, background checks, or accountability. Ignoring that reality is not an option.
At the same time, some have argued that Colorado has gone too far — that these policies amount to a “death by a thousand cuts.” I would argue the opposite. For too long, the cost of inaction has been measured in lives lost. Lives cut short by suicide, domestic violence, and preventable acts of gun violence.
Consider this: we no longer read as many stories about impulsive acts of violence or suicide carried out in moments of crisis because policies like a three-day waiting period create critical time and distance between a person and a firearm. That pause can save a life.
But let’s be clear — this work is not finished. Gun violence is a complex public health issue, and legislation alone will not solve it. While gun homicides in Colorado have declined over the past three years and overall crime is trending downward, suicide remains a devastating and persistent challenge, especially in rural communities and among older men.
This is not just an urban issue. It is a Colorado issue.
If we are serious about addressing it, we must be willing to confront uncomfortable truths, follow the data, and continue having these conversations openly and honestly. Progress requires courage — not just to pass laws, but to acknowledge the scope of the problem and work across communities to address it.
I remain committed to that work. Because the responsibility to act — grounded in data, informed by experience, and focused on saving lives — is not optional. It is our duty.
Democratic state Sen. Tom Sullivan represents Senate District27, which includes all parts of Aurora, Centennial, Dove Valley, Inverness, and Foxfield in Arapahoe and Douglas counties.
We are in this current state regarding guns thanks primarily to the late Antonin Scalia’s ahistorical, idiotic opinion in the Heller case.
Heller formalized a completely wrong interpretation of the Second Amendment. No one at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights was concerned with an individual right to possess firearms. They were concerned with the right of the people to participate in the militia. Because the Constitution established a regular army, answerable to the national government, people were fearful they would lose their right to maintain the institution of the militia, which had been composed of the civilian citizenry. That is why the Framers ensured that the militia, composed of the non-army citizenry, would not be abandoned. The national army was for protection of the nation. The militia was an institution that had been composed of the citizenry, and not an army answerable to the national government. Yet the Constitution expressly enabled the establishment of a national army. So there was some concern that the only legitimate military force would be that army.
Hence, the Second Amendment.
“No one at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights was concerned with an individual right to possess firearms. They were concerned with the right of the people to participate in the militia.”
If people are able to participate in a militia, Jeffy-poo, then they have a right to keep and bear arms. And there was nothing ahistorical about the Heller case whatsoever since it established that gun ownership was a common practice outside of militia participation, your continual efforts to appeal to the discredited Bellesiles thesis notwithstanding.
But we all know your primary motivation is disarm your political enemies out of fear your efforts at gaining complete political hegemony might engender a Spanish Civil War-style backlash.