House committee amends, then passes bill to limit semiautomatic weapon sales
A Colorado bill to limit the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms that accept detachable magazines passed its first House committee late Tuesday night, after being amended to clarify how county sheriffs and Colorado Parks and Wildlife would work together on a process for people to buy otherwise restricted guns.
Senate Bill 25-3 passed on a 7-4 vote through the House Judiciary Committee after about 12 hours of witness testimony, most of which was from people opposed to the bill who showed up to rally outside the Capitol in the morning. The committee’s four Republicans voted against it.
The bill, originally a broad ban on the sale of semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines, was amended heavily in the Senate to allow people to buy those types of guns if they complete a safety course, a compromise workshopped with Gov. Jared Polis’ office to earn his support. The Senate passed it in February on a 19-15 vote.
“A permit-to-purchase program for these firearms recognizes both their unique lethality and also a pathway to ownership, which is accompanied by reasonable safety training to be able to understand the gravity of the moment when you put one of these firearms in your hands,” said Rep. Andrew Boesenecker, a Fort Collins Democrat sponsoring the bill.
It is also sponsored by Rep. Meg Froelich, an Englewood Democrat. It was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Tom Sullivan of Centennial and Julie Gonzales of Denver in the Senate. Sponsors and supporters frame the bill as a way to enforce the state’s high-capacity magazine ban from 2013.
A person who wants to purchase semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pistols that can accept detachable ammunition magazines would need to be vetted by their county sheriff, undergo either four or 12 hours of training — depending on whether they have a hunter safety certification already — and pass a test. That would enable them to buy an otherwise-banned firearm for five years.
It would not limit possession of the targeted firearms. It would take effect in September of this year.
CPW would be in charge of creating the application, determining the safety course requirements and setting the fees for that course.
One amendment on Tuesday took out a fingerprinting requirement for a background check. An applicant would need to fill out the CPW form and submit to their sheriff a photo ID and the results of a name-based background check that looks at Colorado criminal history and judicial databases.
© iStock - wildpixel
Sheriffs would be able to set fees to cover the cost of vetting applicants.
Another amendment would allow sheriffs to deny someone an eligibility card to undergo safety training if they have a “reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely that the applicant will present a danger to themself or others” if they access these types of firearms.
“Our sheriffs might have been out on a call to a property three or four times that week already, and (they) see that application come through, and it might give (them) pause about whether that individual has some other extenuating circumstances that might factor into consideration about whether to pause the (application) process for that individual,” Boesenecker said.
Some members on the committee raised due process concerns about giving that additional layer of discretion to sheriffs, and the bill sponsors said they intend to address that issue in an amendment on the House floor.
Another amendment addresses the cost of starting the permitting program before it would be able to fund itself. CPW would be allowed to transfer money from two cash funds — the Outdoor Recreation Cash Fund and the Wildlife Cash Fund — to cover startup costs. That would essentially be a loan that CPW would need to pay back into those cash funds by 2030.
Republicans questioned the legal justification for the amendment. Cash funds are created for specific programs and purposes and are funded through fees, gifts and donations. The two cash funds contemplated in the amendment, for example, take money from hunting licenses, park passes and state lottery money.
“We set these cash funds up for a specific reason,” Rep. Matt Soper, a Delta Republican, said. “When we do create these funds, they’re not just to be moved around for different programs. Otherwise we’d be doing that for all of our bills, especially in a tight fiscal year.”
Froelich responded that the safety course created in the bill would be part of CPW’s general operations, so it makes sense to use cash funds within CPW. The department also already runs the hunting licensure course that would affect the length of an additional required safety course.
Republicans on the committee opposed the bill on broad Second Amendment grounds and argued that requiring a safety course is a barrier to someone exercising their right to own a gun.
“If you want to get this done, not only do you have to pay for the training, now you have to pay for the sheriff,” Assistant Minority Leader Ty Winter, a Trinidad Republican, said. “Can CPW do the job in a timely fashion? Will it create backlogs? Will it divert funds from the original mission of CPW? Many who testified have figured out that gun laws in Colorado are meant to be death by a thousand cuts, making it harder and harder.”
The bill now heads to the House Finance Committee. If it makes it to the House floor, it will almost certainly pass with the chamber’s 43-22 Democratic majority.
