DENVER | A Colorado proposal requiring a criminal background check and safety course for people who want to buy semiautomatic guns with detachable magazines passed the state Senate on Tuesday, clearing a major legislative hurdle in a state that’s experienced some of the worst mass shootings in the U.S.
If passed, Colorado would join roughly a dozen other states that require some kind of safety training or exam to purchase a firearm.
Colorado Democrats’ yearslong campaign to ban semiautomatic firearms, in line with other blue states such as California and New York, has been framed by the mass killings at Columbine High School in 1999, the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, in 2012 and the LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs in 2022.
But those past attempts floundered under the state’s streak of libertarianism, including in its Democratic governor, Jared Polis, even as the party seized and held large majorities in the statehouse.
When first introduced, the bill banned the sale and manufacture of several types of guns made with detachable magazines, including semiautomatics and some shotguns and pistols. Proponents argued that allowing only permanently attached magazines would limit the damage a would-be shooter could cause by forcing them to reload bullet-by-bullet.
But in a concession to Polis and some wary lawmakers in their own party, the bill was further watered down last week, allowing people to purchase guns with detachable magazines if they pass a background check and state-sanctioned safety course. This version of the bill now goes to the House, which is expected to pass it, and is more likely to get the governor’s approval.
One of the bill’s sponsors is Democratic state Sen. Tom Sullivan, whose son was killed in the Aurora movie theater shooting.
“This is the high-capacity magazine that my son’s killer brought into the movie theater,” Sullivan said as he thrust a photo toward Senate Republicans during the chamber’s first floor debate on the bill last week. “When this magazine jammed after 72 shots, the dying stopped.”
Republicans have decried the proposal as a severe violation of Second Amendment rights and framed it as an effective ban on the weapons. Their arguments pushed last week’s debate into the wee hours of the morning.
“The founders recognized that self-defense is a fundamental, natural right that predates government itself,” said Republican Sen. Paul Lundeen, the chamber’s minority leader, before the vote Tuesday. “The burden is on the government to justify restrictions, not on you to prove eligibility.”
A slew of caveats exempts different classes of firearms from the restrictions, including common hunting rifles and certain guns that fire .22 or lower caliber ammunition. The bill would allow those who already have the affected guns to keep them.
Bedayn is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Stop your campaign to take guns away from anybody / anyway you are able. It was tragic and unfortunate that your son was murdered in the Aurora theatre shooting. I didn’t do it. I had no part in it. Why should my firearms ownership be curtailed? You try to chip away at legal gun owners? It probably feels good when one of your favorite bills pass, but I think you are practicing “revenge legislation”. I can look you in the eye or talk to you if you wish, but I detest you and what you do.
Nice of the Legislature to allow me to keep my Constitutionally protected property. I wonder what other Constitutional protections they will allow me to retain. As for those who do not yet have their firearms, they may want to get them now, before this goes into effect, or they will not be subject to the same protection in fact an in the law as am I.
I guess now is the time to evaluate whether I have all the weapons I need.
Also, if or when I am found by law enforcement to have a semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine will it be confiscated until I can affirmatively prove its provenance? Will I be considered guilty until I can prove my innocence? What proof will be required, or will we not know that until Judges start making rulings, and if so do we really have notice of what the law requires? Maybe a link to the Bill, or at least a reference to its proper title so we can look it up would be good journalism, but that is expecting too much from the Sentinel.
Hopefully this will be challenged and ruled as unconstitutional. The training requirement will probably make it through the courts and be a “windfall” for friends of the Democrat majority that decides who gets certified as a trainer and can make a fortune doing the so-called safety training.
Sen. Sullivan is the worst of the worst. He consistently milks his son’s tragic death and perverts it into any excuse to stifle law abiding citizen’s rights. He is the most vile of political animals.
Because we have the dismal legacy of Antonin Scalia, Americans now demand protection for their fetish object, the gun.
This won’t change easily, either, and more guns flood our streets while the body count continues.
The Second Amendment begins: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” This language sets out the concerns leading to the creation of the amendment, to wit: The importance and vital concern for the states’ need to have militias, separate as an institution from the federal army (which was also recognized by the Constitution). This florid language glorifies the militia, not individual gun ownership.
Militias at the time, such as they were were instruments of the states. They were necessary to the Framers because they handled local community defense, especially against “Indian” raids. It was important for the states because the Constitution also provided for a new, permanent national army.
The modern view that people had an individual right to own guns unrelated to the militia is just that: modern. Guns were rare as it was, and expensive, to say nothing of downright dangerous. But the Constitution set out a national army for national use, a very controversial move. Remember, many still opposed not only an army, but nationhood itself. The militia, though, was prized by all the states to deal with civil unrest and native resistance.
Remember, too, that when the British marched on Concord, and Lexington, and Williamsburg, they did not go door to door looking for weapons. The went to the armories kept for the state militias. THAT’s where the guns were.
This was the understanding of the courts at the time. Individual gun ownership was regulated extensively following the Revolution. States had laws forbidding going about armed individually. No one thought this was “tyranny”. Just good citizenship.
And then Scalia, never one to let history or facts get in the way, discovered a new “right”…
The Supreme Court can sometimes do funny things. If you believe the “right to bear arms” has been misinterpreted, at least it is referenced in the Bill of Rights. The right to an abortion is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. It was purely made up.
Yes, “bearing arms” is cited in the amendment. Which was a military term, and not a personal right. The Second Amendment was a guarantee that the states could keep their militias, in addition to the army.
Read the debates in Congress over the amendment. No one said a word about needing a personal right to have firearms. They discussed the Second Amendment in the context of the militia, not personal firearms ownership unrelated to militia service.
Scalia’s argument must have been a good one as he would have needed at least 4 other Supreme Court Justices to agree with him to alter the law, right?
And your point is?
I would suggest you read “To Keep and Bear Arms”, by Garry Wills. Also, “A Well Regulated Militia”, by Saul Cornell.
This is such a complex and emotionally charged issue, and the article does a great job of presenting both sides of the debate. On one hand, the proposed restrictions aim to address the devastating impact of mass shootings, as highlighted by Sen. Tom Sullivan’s personal story. On the other hand, the concerns about Second Amendment rights and government overreach are valid and deeply rooted in American values. It’s interesting to see how the bill has evolved to include compromises, like allowing detachable magazines with background checks and safety courses. While it’s clear that no solution will satisfy everyone, it’s encouraging to see lawmakers working to balance public safety with constitutional rights. Thanks for sharing this detailed and nuanced perspective.
This is a significant step in Colorado’s efforts to address gun violence through stricter regulations on semiautomatic firearms. The inclusion of background checks and safety courses aims to balance public safety with Second Amendment rights, though it remains a contentious issue. The personal testimony from Sen. Tom Sullivan adds a poignant perspective to the debate. It’s a complex topic, but this bill reflects a growing push for responsible gun ownership. Thanks for sharing this update!