March 19, 2026 · 80,998 words · 14 speakers · 675 segments
In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Thank you. The House will come to order. The Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Representative Slaw.
Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Mr. Schiebel, please call the roll.
Representatives Bacon. AML Bacon. Excuse. Barone. Basinecker. Bottoms. Bradfield. Bradley. Brooks. Brown. Caldwell. Camacho. Representative Camacho. Excused. Carter. Clifford.
Representative DeGraff is excused.
Duran. English.
Representative English.
Excused. Espinosa. Furey. Flannell. Froelich. Garcia.
Representative Garcia is excused.
Garcia-Sander. Gilchrist. Goldstein. Gonzalez. Here. Hamrick. Here. Hartsook. Jackson. Here. Johnson. Here. Joseph. Here.
Representative Joseph is excused.
Kelty. Here. Leader. Here. Lindsay. Here. Luck.
Representative Luck is excused.
Lukens. Mabry.
Rep Mabry is excused.
Marshall. Representative Marshall. Excuseed. Martinez. Morrow. McCormick. Wynn. Paschal. Phillips. Richardson. Ricks.
Representative Ricks.
Excused. Rutanel.
Representative Rutanel.
Excused. Raiden. Sirota. Slaw. Smith Soper
Representative Soper excused Stuart K
Stuart R
Story Representative Story Excuse Thank you Sucla
Taggart. Titone. Valdez A.
Representative Valdez.
Excuse. Velasco.
Representative Velasco.
Excuse. Weinberg.
Representative Weinberg.
Excuse. Wilford. Winter. Woodrow. Woog. Zokai. And Madam Speaker. Here.
With 52 present, 13 excused, we do have a quorum. Representative Slaw.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the journal of Wednesday, March 18, 2026, be approved as corrected by the Chief Clerk.
Representative Bottoms.
Thank you, Speaker. I would like to debate the journal for a minute and assess the fact that we know the journal from yesterday is going to include basically two things. It's going to include us gabbling in, which also includes us gabbling out, but it also has a resolution that we ran yesterday. So we gaveled in, did the resolution, gaveled out. That didn't take very long at all. And then we went into committees. I find it interesting that we had all day yesterday to debate anything on this floor. We could talk about anything. We could debate any bills, any bills coming up today. We could have debated yesterday. and now we are told that we are going to be limited in our time and scope of debating bills today, although we had all day yesterday to bring any one of these three to the floor and be able to debate them all day long. Instead, we're shoving all three of these together today.
Representative Bottoms, the motion before us is simply the adoption of the journal, as corrected by the chief clerk, not the proceedings of the day or the decisions that were made yesterday. I will ask you to keep your remarks to the motion before us.
Right. So the motion before us, I'll start over. The motion before us is we had gavel in yesterday, resolution gavel out. Why didn't we take that time yesterday to debate some things that could have taken all day yesterday? We could have debated.
State of Bottoms, once again, we are talking about the approval of what is written in the journal, not the decisions that were made on our operations for the House during the day. Happy to speak with you about those offline.
Okay, I won't be distracted. Yesterday, we started by gaveling in, and then we had a resolution, and then we gaveled out. We had all day yesterday to do anything that we wanted in accepting this journal today The House will stand in recess
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Peace out. Thank you. Thank you. THE HOUSE WILL COME BACK TO ORDER The House will come back to order Representative Bottoms. Representative Bottoms, you have nine minutes and 47 seconds remaining.
I didn't hear that. I'm sorry.
Representative Bottoms, you have nine minutes and 47 seconds remaining.
Thank you, Speaker. So I don't think I'll take the whole nine minutes and 47 seconds because time is important right now. I do have that full 10 minutes to talk about what we did yesterday and the journal. And it was very short. My 10 minutes is almost as long as it took us to produce the journal from yesterday. And I'm asking a no vote for the journal from yesterday. and as I'm speaking, I'm hearing that time is even getting shorter as I speak. So I find that interesting. We didn't do hardly anything, and that is recorded in the journal yesterday. So I would like to ask for a no vote on the journal that we did hardly anything yesterday.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the journal as corrected by the chief clerk. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no.
No.
The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to proceed out of order for consideration of memorials. Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for consideration of memorials. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the immediate consideration of House Memorial 1002. Seeing no objection, we will proceed to the immediate consideration of House Memorial 1002. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Memorial 1002.
House Memorial 1002 by Representatives McCluskey and Lukens, memorializing former Representative Carl Miller.
Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move House Memorial 1002 and ask that it be read at length.
Mr. Schiebel. Whereas our respected former colleague, Carl Eugene Miller, a past member of the Colorado House of Representatives, departed this life on August 9, 2025 at the age of 86 in Leadville, Colorado. and whereas Representative Miller was born in Leadville on October 28, 1938 to Carl and Ruth Miller and whereas after graduating from Leadville High School with the class of 1956 Representative Miller began working in various local mines including the Irene Magenese mine and the Julia Fisk lead mine and the Helena gold mine and whereas soon after Representative Miller volunteered for the draft and joined the United States Army in 1958. After completing basic training, he served in Gellhausen, Germany until 1960 when he was honorably discharged. And whereas Representative Miller then returned to Leadville where he married his high school sweetheart, Marianne, and began the family that formed the most important and cherished aspect of his life, including his two daughters, Cindy and Sherry, four grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren, and which additionally included his brother, his sisters, and a multitude of nieces and nephews. And whereas Representative Miller would also continue his lifelong involvement in the mining industry upon returning to Leadville to begin he established a career as an underground electrician working in the Climax Molib Dunham mine at the top of Fremont Pass for 27 years and served on the executive board and as the president of his local International Brotherhood and Electrical Workers Labor Union. And whereas, additionally, Representative Miller played an integral part in the mining industry's decision to establish Leadville as the permanent home of the National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum, which he founded in 1987 in the very building that had once been Representative Miller's high school. And in 1989, he was appointed the first president and executive director of the museum, in which role he would go on to serve and guide the institution for an additional 10 years. And whereas a dedicated advocate for Leadville and Lake County, Representative Miller also played a pivotal role in enhancing the community through his work with the Leadville Trail 100 Legacy Foundation, the non-profit organization created to support the Leadville Trail 100 running race, a 100-mile ultramarathon through the Rocky Mountains at elevations between 10,200 and 15,600 feet. And whereas the Leadville Trail 100 began as a means to reinvigorate Leadville when Climax Mine, the city's primary employer, and where Representative Miller had worked as an underground electrician, began a decades-long shutdown in the 1980s. now the Leadville Trail 100 brings millions of dollars to Lake County each year and the races legacy foundation helps ensure donations benefit and serve the needs of the local community and whereas representative Miller was selected to be the first board member of the Leadville Trail 100 legacy foundation in 2002 a position he would hold for the rest of his life but his involvement with the race already ran deep in fact representative Miller had helped secure the permits for the first Leadville Trail 100 race in 1983. And due to his crucial work, he was given the honor of firing the starting shotgun at the inaugural event. And whereas Representative Miller also contributed to the community through his work as a dedicated and deeply involved public servant. For example, he served as a Lake County Commissioner for 12 years from 1977 to 1989. He worked on the Lake County School Finance and Scholarship Committees and contributed to many other civic and county engagements such as the hospital advisory group the council on aging the historic preservation commission and the third congressional military academy advisory selection committee and he sat as a past chairman on colorado's region 13 council of governments and whereas after deciding to run for state government representative miller was elected to the house of representatives in 1996 where from 1997 to 2004 he served four terms as a state representative for district 61 and later district 56 representing the citizens of Chafee, Eagle, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Lake, Mineral, Park, Pitkin, Rio Grande, Sigwatch, Summit, and Teller counties over the course of his time with the general assembly and whereas while serving as a state representative representative Miller was a member of several house committees including the agriculture livestock and natural resources committee the local government committee the business affairs and labor committee and the information and technology committee several joint and statutory committees, including the Police Officers and Firefighters Pension Reform Commission, the Committee on Legal Services, the Legislative Audit Committee as Vice Chair, the Capital Development Committee, and the Water Resources Review Committee, and also several interim committees, including the Water and Land Resources Issues Committee, the Commuter Airlines Committee, the Need to Conduct Fiscal Study of State and Local Governments Committee, and the Task Force to Evaluate Healthcare Needs, Rural and Small Group. And whereas Representative Miller believed in protecting Colorado's natural resources, especially its waters, minerals, and wildlife, advancing developments and technology, strengthening Colorado economy and promoting education particularly in rural Colorado And whereas after his tenure in the Colorado House of Representatives Representative Miller continued on as a public servant and was appointed by Governor Bill Owens to the Public Utilities Commission, where he would serve as a commissioner until his retirement from politics in 2008. And whereas overall, Representative Miller lived his life unwaveringly devoted to his family and his community, he deeply loved Leadville, often reading books about local history and enjoying walking, biking, and prospecting in his beloved Colorado outdoors. And whereas Representative Miller was an accomplished, respected public servant who will be remembered for his hard work, dedication, and community-oriented achievements. Now therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the 75th General Assembly of the State of Colorado that in the death of Carl Miller, the people of the State of Colorado have lost an exemplary public servant and an outstanding citizen, and that we, the members of the Colorado House of Representatives, do hereby extend our deep and heartfelt sympathy to the members of his family and pay tribute to a man who served his state well and faithfully.
Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Members, I am deeply honored to recognize the extraordinary life and service and accomplishments of former State Representative Carl Miller. He served the Statehouse admirably from 1996 to 2004, during which time he represented communities from the very heart of the Rocky Mountains to the far reaches of the San Luis Valley. A Leadville native, Representative Miller embodied the spirit, the grit, the fortitude of the high country and was truly a lifelong public servant. He was known in this building for being a steadfast advocate for his community and constituents and always chose to stand by their needs over party politics. From his background in mining, efforts to support union workers, his unwavering dedication to protecting Colorado's natural resources and wildlife, Rep Miller embodied the best of being a Colorado statesman. Leadville in particular will remember him for the crucial role he played in establishing the Leadville Trail 100 and his time with the Legacy Foundation. The Leadville Trail 100 running race is a 100-mile marathon, ultra-marathon, through the Rocky Mountains at elevations between 10,200 and 12,500 feet. It has since expanded to include an entire race series featuring different length trail, running, and mountain bike races. The race began as a means to reinvigorate Leadville when Climax Mine, the city's primary employer, closed in the 1980s. Now, this race brings both millions of dollars, but more importantly, people from all across the nation and world to experience the wonders of the high country. The race has now made Leadville a legendary name in the outdoor recreation industry and plays an integral role in the lifeblood of this community. members his deep love for Leadville and his community does not compare to the love and dedication he felt for his family please join me in welcoming and honoring his family members here with us today his granddaughter former county commissioner Kayla Marcella and I hit the pavement in our very first run for elected office back in 2018 she and I were pals in trying to realize our dreams of becoming election officials, and her heart for public service is clearly a reflection on her grandfather. We are also honored today to have Pat Klober, the wife of the Honorable Ken Klober, a former representative for the exact same region here with us today, and the extended family of Carl Miller. Please join me in a round of applause. Thank you, members. Representative Lukens. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Colleagues, today we honor former Representative Carl Miller, a man who truly embodied the Western Slope way. Carl's legacy is deep-rooted in Leadville and Lake County. As Speaker mentioned, when Climax Mine shut down and the community faced uncertainty, he didn't look away. He leaned in. Through his leadership with so many different facets, but I want to specifically talk about the Leadville Trail 100, he helped bring tremendous economic opportunities to a town that is deep-rooted in Colorado history. Today, the race brings huge amounts of dollars into the local economy every year and continues to support the community through its legacy foundation. Carl wasn't just part of that story. He helped start it from securing permits for the very first race to serving on the foundation for years. his fingerprints are all over one of Colorado's most iconic events. I've had a chance to attend the race series myself when my brother and sister-in-law competed in the ultra-marathon and the bike races, and I can say firsthand it is an amazing event, but more than that, it's a testament to Rep Miller's vision and belief in what a community can become. Rep Carl Miller leaves behind a legacy of service, resilience, and deep love for the Western Slope, and we are better for it. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, The motion before us is for the adoption of House Memorial 261002.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine.
Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Rutanel, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Rutanel votes yes. Representative Marshall excused
please close the machine
with 63 I 0 no and 2 excused the memorial is adopted co-sponsors Representative Rutanel and Representative Lindsay both co-sponsor George. Thank you.
Please close the machine.
Members, we will take a moment for announcements and introductions. Representative Woodrow. Good morning, colleagues. Just a reminder that the Finance Committee will be meeting 10 minutes upon adjournment, So sometime this late afternoon early evening in room 112 to hear three bills 1251 1274 and 1233 Ten minutes upon adjournment Bring your dinner Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Speaker. In my undying quest to fill the billion-dollar hole that we have in our budget, I, again, forgot to sign up and welcome your fine. Tomorrow at 8 a.m., the Appropriations Committee will meet in the Old State Library. We will hear the following bills in the following order. 13-31, 13-32, 13-33, 11-83, 10-06, 11-09, 11-81, 11-84, 11-86, 11-88, 11-97, 12-14, 12-42, 12-60, and 11-23. See you there. Assistant Minority Leader Winter Thank you Madam Speaker Members I have commissioners from Prowers County They drove all the way up from the Mar area today To come and chat with you all And also I would like to welcome the Honorable State Representative Don Wilson back into the building So if you'd please give him a welcome Applause Applause Welcome Representative Johnson Thank you, Madam Speaker. Listen up, folks. This is an exciting day. My Logan County cattle women have made the trek up to the Capitol to do the legendary steak dinner today at 6 p.m. at the Baptist Church. Good steak right from House District 63. Come talk with some cattle women as we have good food after we get through today. I urge you all to show up. Thank you. Representative Phillips. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today I would like to welcome the Rocky Mountain Cradle to Career Civic Influencers. These are young adults, 16 to 24, who are working alongside leaders in the North Metro region to improve outcomes for young people. They're in the building today with lots of other youth-led coalitions. Please be sure to say hello when you can. Thank you. Representative Paschal. the Colorado Springs school is in the house as you may guess the Colorado Springs school is a school in Colorado Springs it's a pre-k through 12 school and school where my kids attended and where I spent 15 happy years as a parent volunteer so if you see the group around please welcome them thank you thank you representative Wilford thank you madam speaker members of the state civic military and veterans affairs Listen up. Ooh, y'all got really quiet. We're not meeting today. Thanks. Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, it is Recovery Advocacy Day. Advocates for Recovery Colorado is a statewide recovery community organization dedicated to supporting individuals and families impacted by substance use. Their work is rooted in the belief that recovery is possible for everyone and that people in recovery deserve to be seen, heard, and supported in every community across Colorado. Through peer-based recovery support services, connection to critical resources, and education, they focus on recovery solutions while working to reduce stigma and build more supportive, recovery communities Central to their work is empowering people with lived experience to share their stories find their voice and help shape policies that strengthen recovery across our state Today members of Advocates for Recovery are here to engage with all of us, share their experiences, and advocate for policies that expand peer recovery support in communities and long-term stability for the Colorado recovery community. Please join me in welcoming Advocates for Recovery Colorado to the Capitol and thanking them for their leadership in supporting recovery and strengthening communities across Colorado. If you all would please stand if you're in the gallery. Thank you, Representative Jackson. Representative Ricks. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, there will be no business affairs and labor today, so we're not meeting. Thanks. Thank you. Representative Ryden. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to introduce a group of dedicated constituents in the gallery, probably in the building today. members of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Colorado Chapter, part of NAMI and Mental Health Colorado, and the Suicide Prevention Coalition of Colorado. They're all visiting us from across the state. They're going to be advocating, of course, for suicide prevention. They're meeting with you. They'll be talking about House Bill 1069 and Senate Bill 60. So join me in welcoming them. Thank you. I have an announcement. I welcome the Breckenridge Bulldogs to the building today. They're not yet here, but yay, Bulldogs. Woo-hoo. All right, Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the following bills be made special orders on March 19, 2026 at 10.03 a.m. Madam Majority Leader, my apologies. I will have you restate the motion in a moment. I did have one other announcement. Representatives Brown, Sirota, and Taggart are excused at such time as necessary for the Joint Budget Committee meeting. Madam Majority Leader, please restate your motion. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the following bills be made special orders on March 19, 2026 at 10.04 a.m. Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the Majority Leader will be made. I have to still list them. Oh, sorry. Madam Majority Leader. House Bill 1126, Senate Bill 4, and Senate Bill 43. Thank you. Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the Majority Leader will be made special orders on March 19th at 10.04 a.m. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Rule 14, I move that debate on House Bill 1126 be limited to three hours during special orders on March 19th, 2026. The motion before us, pursuant to House Rule 14, is that debate on House Bill 26-11-26 be limited to three hours during special orders on March 19, 2026. This is a non-debatable motion pursuant to House Rule 15E that requires a majority of all members to pass. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Routenel, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Routenel votes yes. Yes . . Keltie, Martinez, Morrow. Martinez and Morrow are excused.
Please close the machine.
With 37 aye, 25 no, and 3 excused, the motion is adopted. Madam Majority Leader.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.
Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Rutnell, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Rutnell votes yes.
Please close the machine.
With 39 I, 24 no and 2 excused, the motion is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Rule 14, I move that debate on Senate Bill 43 be limited to 2 hours during special orders on March 19, 2026. The motion before us pursuant to House Rule 14 is that debate on Senate Bill 43 be limited to 2 hours during special orders today, March 19. This is a non-debatable motion pursuant to House Rule 15E that requires a majority of all members to pass.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.
Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Routenel, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Routenel votes yes.
please close the machine
with 40 I 24 no and one excuse the motion is adopted speaker pro tem basen ecker members you have heard the motion Seeing no objection, Representative Baisenecker will take the chair. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. But The committee will come to order. With your unanimous consent, the bills will be read by title unless there is a request for a reading of a bill at length. Committee reports are printed and in your bill folders. Floor amendments will be shown on the screen on iLegislate and today's folder on your box account. Bills will be laid over upon motion of the majority leader and the coat rule is relaxed.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 26-11-26. House Bill 1126 by Representatives Sirota and Woodrow, also Senator Kipp, concerning requirements for dealing firearms.
And members, before we begin debate on the bill, just want to mention that the time is now 10.14 a.m. Debate on this bill has been limited to three hours. We will start that timer upon the remarks of the bill's sponsors. It will pause upon reading of the bill at length or if we are going into a recess.
Mr. Schiebel, please begin the timer.
Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Temp. I move House Bill 1126 and the State Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee report. To the committee report, Mr. Minority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Members, on behalf of Coloradans, on behalf of small business in my district, in House District 20, who was a minority-owned, family-owned small business. Mr. Minority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. a small business, a small gun shop, family owned, minority owned, veteran owned in my district, House District 20, Falcon, Colorado, closed their doors after we passed the state firearms licensing bill in 2024. And I'm afraid that's going to happen more. I think the people of Colorado need to hear this bill. And so I requested the bill be read at length. Thank you. The bill will be read at length.
House Affairs. A bill for an act. 101 concerning requirements for dealing firearms. Bill summary. Note, this summary applies to this bill as introduced and does not reflect any amendments that may be subsequently adopted. If this bill passes third reading in the House of Introduction, a bill summary that applies to the re-engrossed version of this bill will be available at http colon slash slash lege.colorado.gov Under existing law, a firearms dealer must obtain a state permit in order to engage in the business of dealing in firearms. The bill clarifies that a state permit is required for a dealer to transfer firearms. Under existing law, in order to be issued a state permit, a dealer must not have had a firearms dealer license or permit or a firearm possession permit revoked, suspended, or denied for good cause within three years before submitting a state permit application, prior license requirement, and must not have violated any state or federal law. How sponsorship Sirota and Woodrow concerning the possession purchase or sale of firearms in the three years before applying for the state permit prior violation requirement the bill clarifies that the prior license and prior violation requirements apply to an individual possessing directly or indirectly the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the dealer, known as a responsible person of the dealer. The bill makes the dealer training requirements apply to responsible persons The bill makes provisions related to a dealer employees who handle firearms also apply to any individual including an independent contractor who performs an employee duties whether paid or unpaid The bill permits the Department of Revenue to fine a dealer up to $100,000 for a second or subsequent violation of certain dealer requirements. Under existing state law, dealers are subject to record-keeping requirements involving pistols and revolvers sold, rented, or exchanged. At retail. The bill makes the record-keeping requirements apply to all. Retail transactions involving any firearm other than destructive devices and clarifies that dealers may keep the records electronically. The bill requires a dealer to secure large-capacity magazines in the dealer's possession. A dealer's place of business must have security features designed to prevent unauthorized entry installed on each exterior door and window of the place of business, have interior lighting that is sufficient to identify characteristics of a person on surveillance video, and be equipped with a security alarm system that includes video surveillance of each door and any area of the business in which firearms are kept. The bill requires a dealer to report the theft or loss of a firearm to the department. 1 be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado. 2 section 1. In Colorado revised statutes, 18-12-401, amend. 3, 1, and add, 3.5, 5.4, 5.7, and, 7, as follows. 4 18-12-401. Definitions. 5 as used in this part 4, unless the context otherwise requires. 6, 1, dealer, means. 7. A. A federally licensed firearm dealer as defined in section 8. 18-12-101 and 9. B. Any other federal firearms licensee who, within the scope of 10. The licensee's license, sells firearms at retail to the public or transfers 2. HB 26-11-26 1. Firearms to members of the public as part of a retail 2 transaction 3. 3.5. A. Employee means an employee of a dealer who, i.N. for the course of the employee's duties, handles firearms, processes 5 the sale, loan, or transfer of firearms, or otherwise has access 6-2 firearms under the dealer's control. 7.b. Employee includes an individual, including an 8-independent contractor under the terms of a contract with a 9-dealer, who engages in the conduct described in subsection 10 3.5 a. of this section, whether paid or unpaid. 11.5.4. Large capacity magazine has the meaning set forth 12 in section 18-12-301. 13.5.7, Responsible Person, Has the Meaning set forth in 2714 CFR 478.11 15.7, Transfer, Has the Meaning set forth in Section 1624-33.5-424-1d 17. Section 2 In Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-12-401.5, Amend 18, 1, A, 3, and, 7, A, 2, and add, 7.5, as follows, 1918-12-401.5 Permit required, issuing agency, cash fund 20 inspections, penalty, report, rules, repeal 21, 1, A, beginning July 1, 2025, every dealer must obtain a state 22 permit in order to engage in the business of dealing in firearms other than 23 destructive devices in this state or TO transfer firearms other than 24 destructive devices into or out of this state 25, 3, in order for a dealer to be issued a state permit, a dealer 26 must, 27, A, the dealer must hold a valid federal firearms license 1. b. The dealer and each responsible person of the dealer 2 must not have had a license or permit to sell, lease, transfer, purchase, or 3. possess a firearm or ammunition from the federal government, any state, 4. or a subdivision of any state, revoked, suspended, or denied for good 5. cause within 3 years before submitting an application, and 6. c. A dealer and each responsible person of the dealer 7 must not have been convicted for a violation of any provision of this 8. Article 12. any Colorado or any other state law concerning the nine possession purchase or sale of firearms or any federal law concerning 10 the possession or sale of firearms in the three years before submitting an eleven application for a state permit twelve seven a except as provided in subsection eight of this section if the thirteen department finds that a dealer failed to post the required notice or make fourteen a report concerning unlawful purchases in violation of section eighteen dash twelve dash one eleven fifteen failed to make a record required pursuant to section eighteen dash twelve dash four oh two 16 transferred a firearm without a locking device or failed to post the 17 required notice concerning locking devices in violation of section 1818-12-405 failed to comply with any of the requirements of section 1918-12-406 failed to comply with any of the requirements of section 2029-11.7-105 5. Violated any other provision of this article 12 or any 21 other state or local law concerning the sale of firearms, or violated any 22 federal law or rule concerning the sale of firearms, or firearm components 23 for which the penalty includes potential revocation of the person's federal 24 firearms license, the department shall, 25, 2, for a second or subsequent offense, 26, a, issue a warning to the dealer that includes a description of the 27 offense and the penalty for subsequent offenses. 4. HB 26-1126 1. B. For a second or subsequent offense committed on or two after January 1, 2027, impose a fine of up to $103,000 in accordance with the rules adopted for pursuant TO subsection 7.5 of this section. 5. B. C. Suspend the dealer's state permit for a period of time 6 determined by the department, or 7. C. D. Revoke the dealer's state permit. 8. 7.5. A. The department shall adopt rules governing the 9 imposition of fines pursuant to subsection 7 a 2 b of this 10 section the rules must include categories of violations based 11 on the severity of the offense fine ranges associated with each 12 category and aggravating and mitigating factors the 13 department shall consider when determining fine amounts 14 b the department shall transmit all fines collected 15 pursuant to this section to the state treasurer who shall 16 credit the money to the firearm dealer permit cash fund created 17 i n subsection 2 d of this section 18 section 3 in colorado revised statutes amend 18-12-4 402 as. 19 follows, 2018-12-402. Retail dealers, record, inspection. 21, 1, every individual, firm, or corporation dealer engaged, within 22 this state, in the retail transactions, including the sale, rental, or 23 exchange, or transfer, of firearms pistols, or revolvers other than 24 destructive devices shall keep a record of each pistol or revolver sold, 25 rented, or exchanged at retail firearm transaction conducted by the 26 dealer, other than transactions solely involving destructive 27 devices. The record must be made at the time of the transaction in a book. 5. HB 26-11-26 1. Or electronic record kept for that purpose. And 2. 2. The record required in this section must include 3. A. The name of the person to whom the pistol or revolver is sold for or rented or with whom exchanged, his or her that received the 5 firearm and the recipient's age occupation, residence, and, if residing 6 in a city, the street and number therein where he or she resides and 7 address, 8. B. The make, caliber, and finish of said pistol or revolver, 9 together with its the firearm, 10, c, the firearms number and serial. Letter, if any, 11, d, the date of the sale, rental, or exchange of said pistol or 12 revolver transaction, and 13, e, the name of the employee or other person making such sale, 14 rental, or exchange that conducted the transaction. 15, 3, the record book shall be open. Dealer shall make the 16 records described in this section available at all times to the for 17 inspection of any by a duly authorized police peace officer. 18, section 4. In Colorado revised statutes, amend 18-12-403 as 19 follows, 2018-12-403 Record, failure to make, penalty 21 Every individual, firm, or corporation A dealer who fails to keep 22 the record required pursuant to section 18-12-402 or section 18-12-111.523-7, B, or who refuses to exhibit the record when requested by a police officer 24 peace officer and any purchaser, lussee, or exchanger of a pistol or 25 revolver firearm who, in connection with the making of such the 26 record, gives false information, commits a class 2 misdemeanor. 27 section 5. In Colorado revised statutes, 18-12-406, amend. — 6 HB 26-1126 1 1 A Introductory Portion 1 A 8 1 B 1 C 2 and 6 and 2 add 4.5 as follows 3 18-12-406 Requirements for firearms dealers Training for securing firearms Sale outside of business hours prohibited Rules 5 Penalty 6 1 A The department shall develop training or approve training seven courses provided by other entities for dealers, responsible persons, and eight dealers employees. The training must be available in an online format 9 and include an examination with at least 20 questions derived from 10 the course material and intended to confirm that a course participant 11 understands the information covered in the course. The department or 12 other trainer conducting the training shall give a course participant who 13 answers at least 70% of the examination questions correctly a 14 printable certificate of completion that is valid for one year after the date. 15 of completion. The training must include instruction regarding the 16 following 17 8 effectively teaching consumers rules of firearm safety 18 including the safe handling and storage of firearms and 19 b a dealer and each responsible person of the dealer shall 20 within 30 days after the date the permit is issued and annually 21 thereafter complete a training course developed or approved by the 22 department pursuant to this subsection 1 23 c i an employee of a dealer who in the course of the 24 employees duties handles firearms processes the sale loan or transfer 25 of firearms or otherwise has access to firearms shall within 30 days 26 after the employee's first day of work for the dealer and annually 27 thereafter complete a training course developed or approved by the dash 7 hb 26-11 26 one department pursuant to this subsection 1 an employee who in the two course of the employee's duties handles firearms processes the sale free loan or transfer of firearms or otherwise has access to firearms who is foreemployed by a dealer on july 1st 2025 shall complete the employee's first five training course no later than 30 days after July 1, 2025. 6. 2. A dealer shall maintain the training records of each 7 responsible person of the dealer and each employee and shall make 8 the records available to the department during an on-site inspection of the 9 dealer's place of business. 10. 2. A dealer shall not conduct business or store firearms at the 11 dealer's place of business unless, 12, a, the dealer secures each firearm, except when the firearm is 13 being shown to a customer, repaired, or otherwise worked on, in a manner 14 that prevents unauthorized use of the firearm. Securing a firearm may. 15 include keeping the firearm in a locked container, including a locked 16 display case, properly installing a locking device on the firearm, or, if the 17 firearm is a personalized firearm, activating the safety characteristics of 18 the firearm 19, b, the dealer secures each large capacity magazine i n 20 the dealer's possession behind a counter, in an enclosed and 21 locked display case, or in a locked room inaccessible to the 22 public, except when the large capacity magazine is being shown 23 to a customer, repaired, or otherwise worked on 24. C. Beginning October 1, 2027. At least one of the 25 following features designed to prevent unauthorized entry IS-26 installed on each exterior door and window of the place of 27. Business. 8. HB 26-11-26 1. Bars or grates 2. Security screens 3. Commercial grade metal doors or 4. Other security measures approved by the department 5 and the rules adopted pursuant to subsection 5 of this section 6. D. The interior of the place of business has interior 7 lighting that is sufficient to identify characteristics of a person 8 on surveillance video and 9. E. The place of business is equipped with a security alarm 10 system that includes video surveillance of each door and Any 11 area of the business in which firearms are kept that the alarm system 12 must activate upon unauthorized entry or interruption to the 13 system and must be directly connected to a local law 14 enforcement agency or be continuously monitored by a central 15 station is not a violation of this subsection 2 e if the alarm 16 system becomes temporarily inoperable through no fault of the 17 dealer 18 4.5 a dealer shall report the theft or loss of a firearm 19 from the dealer's inventory to the department within 20 72 hours after learning of the theft or loss 21.6, a violation of any provision of this section by a dealer is a 22 violation of state law concerning the sale of firearms and is subject to the 23 penalties described in section 18-12-401.5, 7. 24. Section 6. In Colorado revised statutes, 18-12-407, amend 25, 1, introductory portion as follows, 26-18-12-407. Dealer employee requirements, background check 27, penalty. 9, HB 26-11-26. 1. A dealer shall not employ or contract with a person who, 2. In the course of the person's duties as an employee or contractor, 3. Handles firearms, processes the sale, loan, or transfer of firearms, or 4. Otherwise has access to firearms, and who, 5. Section 7. Applicability. 1. Section 18-12-401.5, 3. 6. Colorado revised statutes, as amended in Section 2 of this Act, applies to 7. application submitted on or after the effective date of this act. 8.2, Section 18-12-402, Colorado revised statutes, as amended in 9 Section 3 of this act, applies to transactions conducted on or after the 10 effective date of this act. 11. Section 8. Safety Clause. The General Assembly finds, 12 determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate 13 preservation of the public peace, health or safety or for appropriations for 14 the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state 15 institutions dash 10 hb 26-11-26 we are on the committee report representative
Representative Sirota. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In House State Affairs, we made a few amendments due to some stakeholder feedback. We made a clarification for the Attorney General to clarify transactions, and we made an amendment to the definition of a dealer to ensure that we are not requiring those folks who might be CEOs sitting in boardrooms far, far away from having to go through the training requirements. We struck the language in the bill around requirements for having to do certain security measures and instead moved that all to rulemaking so that the department can better tailor their requirements. Each FFL can come up with their own security plan that is unique to their particular set of facilities and needs and submit that to the department, and the department can have a more flexible approach than very structured requirements. And we aligned the lost and stolen reporting with current law to 48 hours. I ask for an aye vote Any further discussion on the committee report Representative Richardson
Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Happy Infringement Day 2026, everyone, as I hope it will be recorded in the journal as corrected by the chief clerk. We have an opportunity to chart a different path today. I'll paraphrase a statement I've heard often when debating over affordable housing. If state-level one-size-fits-all regulation of legitimate firearms, businesses, and citizens, infringement on rights worked, we wouldn't have a gun violence problem. So I move Amendment 23, L23, to the committee report. This was distributed yesterday and ask that it be displayed.
Thank you, Rep. Richardson. We'll get that displayed. And members and for those listening, this is a multi-page amendment that was distributed previously on your desk. You should have that in yellow if you are looking for it. Representative Richardson, we have it in part displayed. but you are welcome to speak to it.
Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. Let me just walk you through this. This amends the committee report. It strikes everything below the enacting clause of the bill and then repeals multiple areas of regulation that impact small businesses and citizens throughout Colorado. Section 1 repeals CRS 1812-4015, the firearms dealer state permit requirements. It also repeals 1812-406 and 1812-407, which also impact firearms dealers and the requirements that are put upon them, impacting the manufacture, import, purchase, and transfer, the piece that truly hits the gun dealers of un-serialized firearms, as well as possession and transfer of certain magazine types. The amendment is consistent with Amendment 2 of our U.S. Constitution and Article 2 of the State Constitution, our Bill of Rights, Section 13, the right to bear arms. Section 2 makes several conforming amendments and eliminates all references to the real sections of law that would be repealed by this amendment. so that's kind of a rundown of it. I'm sure that since it was distributed yesterday, everybody's had a chance to kind of run through it, but I'd really like to talk to the purpose of this amendment. Over the years, both as an outside observer and now from the inside, I've noticed a pattern in this body. When there's an issue or practice the majority favors, we throw money at it. When there's something less favored, firearms certainly fit in that category, the response is to regulate it, restrict it, and ultimately try to drive it out of existence, or at least out of our state. And that is not the proper role of government. Our job isn't to define happiness for people, it's to create an environment where they can pursue it. It's not to eliminate risk or limit lawful choices, but to allow individuals, families, and communities to make decisions that are right for them. This bill, or excuse me, this amendment to the bill would move us in the right direction. What matters even more when you look at the realities of districts like mine is the impacts in rural Colorado of firearms deaths. They are not homicides. They're suicides, overwhelmingly. That means we're dealing with despair, not criminal intent. The drivers are complex and deeply personal. financial pressures on families, farms, small businesses, rising costs, regulatory burdens on these businesses, and the relationships, strange, that often follow when livelihoods are at risk. These are the stressors that are weighing on people long before firearms ever come into the equation. This bill does nothing to address those root causes. instead it increases regulatory burden, legal exposure, and the threat of fines on law-abiding small businessmen who happen to be firearms dealers. People in our community that are simply trying to provide a lawful service and make an honest living. Firearms already exist in rural communities. Most homes are already well-armed. This amendment will meaningfully reduce the burdens that have been placed on these businesses. If we're serious about reducing firearms deaths in rural Colorado, we need to focus on what actually drives them, improving access to mental health care, strengthening crisis intervention, and reducing the economic and regulatory pressures that are pushing people to the brink. More regulation on small businesses is not a solution. It's an added stressor on our legitimate businesses and a distraction from the real work that needs to be done. I would urge we take a step in the direction of deregulation and approve this amendment.
Representative Bradley. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I come in strong support of this awesome amendment. I ran a little bill to repeal all the anti-gun bills earlier this session with a good representative from Douglas County. There's been 28, 28 anti-gun bills in this state. since 2013. And what has that gotten you, Colorado? Let's talk about what all those anti-gun bills have gotten you. It's gotten you the seventh highest in the U.S. for violent crime is what it's gotten you. State licensing is not increasing safety. It's yet another gun grab that we continue to hear in this Capitol. It's duplicative to ATF standards. It's not curbing crime and in turn making it hard for law-abiding citizens to get guns. 45% of the 250,000 regulations on small businesses in this state are duplicative or repetitive. So let's talk about statistics and real-life logic. 2020 to 2023, gun death rate increased 36% from 2014 to 2023, continuing elevated levels. Firearms make up a growing share of violent crimes and homicides in this state. Colorado's violent crime rate hit the highest level in a decade in 2022. What happened? 28 anti-gun bills is what happened. 2021 highest firearm death rate since at least 1980. Gun crime in Colorado has increased over the last five years. And we know that 1.6 million at least crimes are stopped by law-abiding gun owners every year. And let's talk about the fiscal impact. We're literally shooting the people in the foot in this state. let's talk about what the gun industry does for our state as we're 850 million dollars in debt let's talk about The broader market affected by firearms policy is not trivial. Colorado's firearms and ammunition industry supported 7,000 total jobs, 445 million in wages, 1.4 billion in total economic impact, and 115 million in business taxes in 2024, according to the state-by-state report. Colorado's own Department of Revenue reports that the state's firearms and ammunition excise tax that we all like to pull from for our pet projects, generated $9 million from April through October 2025 on $141 million in net taxable sales and $198 million in retail sales. The same public spreadsheet shows between 341 and 370 retailers filing in each reported month. For conservation context, Colorado's fiscal year 2025, wildlife restoration appropriation totaled $25 million from the federal program funded in part by firearm and ammunition excise taxes. So these same bills, these same anti-gun bills, are going to force FFLs to go to different states, the very people that are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars to your state, all for a duplicative bill, all for another bill that the ATF is already registered and tracking, another state bill to make FFLs and law-abiding citizens jump through yet another hoop while they're providing millions, hundreds of millions of dollars to this economy.
Representative Brooks. Thank you. Sorry, microphone's a little loose here. I appreciate the words of my colleague here, and actually something that she had actually just said about shooting businesses in the foot. but I think maybe we might want to regulate that. It sounds very violent and painful. I think we probably ought to look into that. I do rise in support of this amendment. I do very much appreciate the work that my good colleague has obviously put into it through the multi-page amendment here, and I would ask for support on it for a number of reasons. FFLs, in many cases, are just family businesses. Family businesses that go way back generations. The regulations, and I know, I'm not going to say it. I'm just going to sign it. I don't think this counts as a prop. So I'm just going to say it. It's my finger prop. Look, I'm getting tired. I know you all are getting tired of hearing it. I'm getting tired of holding up my digits. but I guarantee you that everybody else in this space is even more tired of being regulated being regulated into extinction being regulated out of the state being regulated out of the economy being regulated to the point where they're not able to do business
I'm going to just pause you one second and it's not because of anything you're saying but it's because we can't hear you members take your conversations to the side please I appreciate that thank you so much
I can lean in a little bit and project I think that might help as well I'm just not used to being on this side over here with a microphone I know that it actually works better than this side but I'll lean in and I appreciate that as I was saying as much as I know that many folks in this chamber are tired of hearing the number 6 and hearing that as far as the six most regulated state in the nation I tired of saying it but that is minuscule compared to what the pain is on those that are being over being throttled by the regulations which we seem to be so very fond of. I understand that there is a difference between how people view firearms, you know, where people place the blame in firearm violence. I understand that. That's not something that we're going to come to a conclusion on today, nor tomorrow. But the piece of it that I'm really trying to drive at is that I understand that a lot of these family businesses are selling guns that we want to regulate away, but we are driving hardworking families of Colorado out of the state. We are driving them away. These are people that very well may have been here for much longer than any of us have, and yet we're saying, you know what, we're going to regulate you away. This amendment does, yes, speak to a bill that my good colleague from Douglas County and I were proud to run this year. As you could probably expect, it didn't get very far. It does speak to a bill that I ran last year to specifically try to repeal the duplicative nature of some FFL requirements. I mean, we're talking about state-level requirements that exist at a federal level that we're making these FFLs jump through with this ungodly, punitive fine structure. At some point, we have to understand where the pain of this is being felt. And it is squarely on hardworking families of Colorado. I would ask for support of this amendment and a yes vote.
Mr. Assistant Minority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Colleagues, I have had businesses leave House District 47. I had a business in Baca County head right across the state line for this reason. And in small communities like mine, they're an economic driver. Maybe in the Metroplex, gun shops aren't an economic driver, but they are an economic center of where I live. This amendment tries to preserve these businesses. Also, speaking to another business within my district this year, is they were literally told by the feds that if they keep a duplicative set of records, that they are breaking federal law and that they will get in trouble. I want to say that again. Speaking to a gun shop in my district, they said that if they are keeping a second set of books, which is illegal by federal law, they are in violation of federal law, which probably would have the ability for them to lose their federal firearms license. And I'm wondering if that's also part of what we're trying to do here because at the end of the day, because you can't run straight through the Second Amendment, we keep taking the end around, we keep taking bites off of the edge of the Second Amendment and making it harder and harder and harder for people to exercise their Second Amendment. It may not affect metro legislators the same as it does in rural Colorado, but guns are a part of our culture they're a part of our heritage and they're a part of our everyday life from our youth growing up shooting and shooting sports to farmers and ranchers protecting livestock to self-defense when the sheriff or the policeman's an hour away i mean i literally have school districts where the sheriff is an hour away and as we keep restricting more and more and more which are big see i believe big city fixes for big city problems they're exasperating rule problems They are making life harder and harder on the constituents of House District 47. This is an attack on law citizens This amendment will take that attack away Let us please quit being hard on those that are responsible gun owners and law-abiding citizens, and let's start spending more time on cracking down on criminals that are actually creating these problems. it matters to rule communities. The rule-urban divide is real. And please, as you craft legislation, keep that in mind. I beat that drum constantly from this well. But I have a massive outreach from those in my district.
And I believe, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, that this amendment really speaks to the heart of the bill, even though it's an amendment, and that's why I'm kind of taking that latitude right now. This makes a difference where I'm from. this is running businesses out of my district. We have attacked numerous businesses out of my district, guns being one, oil and gas being another. At what point, how are we going to make a living to take care of our communities? Where are we going to replace that tax base? Because if this runs more gun shops out of my district, which they are in Main Street's in House District 47, They do collect taxes, which goes to roads and bridges and schools. We were debating a bill yesterday, the HUTF bill, where more money is being pulled out of those buckets that go to my local governments. So at what point do you expect us not to stand up and say enough is enough? A gun store may not be a big deal in the House district that you live in, but they're an economic driver in the towns that I live in. With that, I urge a yes on this amendment.
Representative Barone.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Members, of course, I'm coming up here in support of this amendment. I want to speak a little bit on small businesses. I've had one FFL small business and four Lupton leave because of the last bill. and just piling on, piling on more and more regulations in this industry is really driving these businesses out. Now, I want to give an example. Let's just hypothetically. Zombie apocalypse happens. People that live here in Denver, big cities, where are you guys going? Rural Colorado, because we have all the guns. gun stores where we can protect ourselves. But yet, in rural Colorado, you rarely see crime as rampant as in the inner cities. And here, it's really hard to own a gun in Denver. Now, over-regulating this industry is not really helping society. these small businesses employ many people in rural areas and in the inner cities. I have a really good gun store that I like to come to, and I think it's in Inglewood, 5280 Armory. Awesome gun store. Now, these gun stores really just cater to the law-abiding citizens. That who we really punishing with these regulations This amendment is taking that down like my colleague previous to me said This amendment is bringing that down Let not punish us Let's not punish the law-abiding gun owners in the state. There's many of us that own guns on both sides of the aisle. We know how to use them. We know when to use them. We don't want to use them to protect ourselves. We use them for sport, for hunting, but we don't want to use them for protection. We don't. But we have them just in case. Just like I have a box of AA batteries just in case. And I rarely have anything that uses AA batteries anymore. Everything is chargeable now. But I still have it, those AA batteries, just in case. I know they're probably expired because, you know, batteries do expire. I'll have to check that when I get home. Actually, I just reminded myself. But I fully support this amendment because of that reason. So in the spirit of gun ownership and responsible gun ownership, I urge a yes vote on this. Not just for us law-abiding citizens, but for everybody. If you don't want to own a gun, that's perfectly fine. You don't have to. Just like I was telling one of my colleagues, and I've told this last session too to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you're in trouble, you don't have a gun and I do, I will protect you. There's no doubt about it. Every single member in this chamber, we may not agree on policy, we may not agree on legislation, but I treat you as humans first.
And Reparon, I'm giving a lot of latitude to just about everybody, but just bring it back to the amendment, sir.
Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. So, yeah, like I said, in the spirit of responsible gun ownership, I urge a yes vote on this amendment.
Further discussion on L23, Representative Bottoms.
Thank you, Speaker Pro Tem. At first look, I don't like this amendment. there's a bunch of reasons why I don't like this amendment. If this were being run as the bill, I would vote against it. But since it's amending the bill, I strongly agree with the amendment because it takes an extremely unconstitutional, horrible attack upon our freedoms and our rights as people in the state of Colorado, and it turns it into a sort of attack on the rights and the people of Colorado. So I have to vote for the amendment because it's the only hope we have at this stage for this bill for some kind of common sense and people thinking. This amendment is as close for this bill. This amendment is as close as we can get to We the People. The bill itself is attack we the people. And so we have to have something. And so I don't like this amendment, but I have to vote for it just on basic decency for the people of Colorado to try to somehow trim back the Second Amendment attack that is so prolific and also small business attack. This is just going to run more small businesses out. how many businesses have to leave before the people, not this room, I understand how this room works, but before we the people, get enough of this and say stop voting for these things. Stop voting for these kind of bills. And by the tens of thousands of emails I've got, apparently somebody out there is paying attention to this. And so, yeah, I'll vote for the amendment under duress.
Further discussion on L23? Representative Sirota.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would ask for a no vote on this amendment. while it is to the committee report, the bill is truly simply a cleanup bill about, is it? Are we on the bill? We're on the amendment to the committee report. Yes. Which is essentially striking the bill.
So I've been giving folks a lot of latitude there. So I just, and when we get to the bill, I will sort of frame out what the bill is.
but essentially it is a simple cleanup bill to the bill that was passed two years ago to set up the firearm dealer division. And all it is doing is making cleanups to make the division run better, to perform better for FFLs and the public. And so I think this is a debate about whether or not the division should actually exist. And, well, we think that it should. And so I ask for a no vote.
Representative Richardson.
Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. I do urge a yes vote, but this amendment really was offered in the spirit of compromise. I recognize the majority wanted to reduce debate on the subject severely today. if this amendment is accepted I can assure you that my side will no longer debate this bill this bill can pass through perhaps unanimously so in the spirit of compromise and in recognition that you want to limit the voices of 2 million people in state that are represented by the folks in my caucus, I would urge a yes vote, and we can move on to the next bill.
I appreciate that spirit of bipartisanship, and let the record also show that you left the safety clause, Ruff Richardson. Further discussion on the amendment, L23. Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of amendment L23 to the state's Civic, Veterans, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The amendment is lost. We are back to the committee report. Further discussion on the committee report. Representative Flannell.
Thank you, Speaker Pro Tem. I, uh, let's see. I move amendment L027 and ask that it be properly displayed.
That's a proper motion. One moment.
Within the bill, it says that...
Oh, one second, Rep Flynn. We'll just get it displayed, and then you're free to proceed. Thank you. We'll get it up. That's great. Go ahead.
Thank you so much. Thank you, Speaker. Within the bill, it states that dealers, responsible persons, and dealer employees are required to take a test. The employees are already taking a test per the last bill that passed for the gun permitting bill And this test would be basically a test that covers firearm safety safe handling, and storage of firearms. I think that this is actually kind of insulting to their intelligence. I mean, this is kind of like asking someone who, let's say, owns a computer store, who I would imagine they wouldn't own a computer store if they don't know how to operate a computer or they wouldn't hire employees if they don't know how to properly operate computers. And so most of the people who work at these stores, not only do they know proper firearm handling, most of them are firearms instructors. And what this bill does is it's an attack on small businesses because the people who are paying for these employees to take this test are the employers. So it's just taking more time away. It's requiring more time away from employers actually doing their job, and it's requiring employers to pay for this time in addition to the other test that is already mandatory. And every employee has to, or now responsible person and employer, has to take two tests within 30 days of employment annually. So again, this is time-consuming. It's an unfunded mandate, and it's an attack on small business, and I urge a yes vote. Thank you.
Further discussion on L27, Rep. Richardson.
Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. I rise in support of this amendment and my colleague. I think she made a good case. Business people rarely hire folks that they do not believe can do the job for them. It would be really a waste of their funds to employ such a person. Now, we often employ people based on attitude and willingness to learn and then train them to do their job. and I know that might be a foreign concept in this chamber where often people elect legislators that know nothing about firearms or the industry that then attempt to regulate it without any training, without any background and I can see where that could go awry but in the business world, that is not done. The people that make their living based on the decisions they make working out for them and the people they serve definitely have a different point of view, and it should be respected. Let our business people run their businesses and vote yes on this amendment. Rep. Garcia-Sander.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem.
I wasn't going to come down and speak on this right now, but I felt compelled because of something that the bill sponsor said a little bit ago, that this bill is a cleanup to help FFLs with running of their business. And I can't imagine that when the original bill passed that our FFLs didn't come and speak about some of these issues that they said this is going to cause a problem with our business. And this particular amendment is being run by somebody who, a good representative from El Paso County, who is also an FFL and knows how these things will be affected. I highly suggest, recommend that people vote yes on this because then we won't be running another cleanup down the road to say this is trying to help our FFLs run their businesses. I think that the rep from El Paso County knows a little bit more about this than probably most of us in this chamber if not all of us So I strongly encourage a yes vote on this amendment because as we've heard over and over again, today's solution is tomorrow's problem. We're trying to fix yesterday's solution today. So please vote yes.
Representative Barone.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I also rise in support of this amendment for the reason that this actually helps FFLs. My good colleague from El Paso knows more than all of us about this issue and how this business is run, how this is going to affect that business, and how the sales is going to go in Colorado. So in the spirit of infringement day, let's vote yes on this amendment.
Further discussion on L27?
Representative Sirota. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is essentially striking all of the training requirements within the Firearm Dealer Division program, and they were very intentional. that it was very intentional that we placed these requirements on dealers and employees working within the FFL shop that everyone was very clear about what are the laws, what are the rules, what are the best practices, and that we see this training as very important. People are in the business of selling deadly weapons. they should have this minimal amount of training. I would add, though, that the part of the amendment which is striking the section in the committee report was an amendment that we offered in committee due to stakeholding work done with the industry, and this was an ask of the industry. I understand you don't want any of the training requirements, but that part of the committee report was in fact for industry.
Representative Flannell.
Thank you, Speaker. You mentioned, my colleague that just spoke, mentioned that this training is important so that people know the rules, the laws that revolve around selling firearms. That training already exists. This is the first training that was implemented in the bill that passed last year. This training revolves around people knowing how to properly handle firearms, which, again, I don't think that an employer would hire somebody if they did not know how to properly handle firearms. Thank you.
Further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L27 to the committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. L-27 is lost. Further discussion on the committee report? Representative Luck.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L-5-0 and ask that it be displayed.
That is a proper motion. One second. We'll get it displayed.
please proceed thank you mr chair in committee the bill sponsors amended the bill to eliminate the specifics related to the securing of FFL properties In the introduced bill there were things such as requirements for bars and grates security screens, commercial grade metal doors, etc. That drove a fiscal note because the state actually runs an FFL and it would require a $26,000 investment or $28,000 investment in order to update that particular facility. And so the new version, if this committee report is adopted, will simply require that each dealer submit a comprehensive security plan that is in compliance with the department's rules that are adopted vis-a-vis this bill and what security measures need to be in place. Now, all of that is timely, time-consuming, costly for the department and for the particular FFL in order to figure out what that set of rules should be as well as what that security plan should be for their particular business. The reason why I think that that is unnecessary is because of the fact that these businesses already have a greater incentive than most anyone else to secure the property of their business. They're the ones who are going to be dealing with the consequences of theft and burglary and other such situations in their facilities. And so this amendment simply says that we're going to alleviate that administrative burden of determining what those rules should be, as well as the security plan being submitted by the dealer and simply require that when the department comes in for inspection that it is apparent that reasonable security measures are in place. I think it is worth noting that in committee we heard from FFLs of various shapes and sizes. There are a number of FFLs that operate out of people's homes, Homes that are in HOAs that have very strict rules about what can and cannot be done on their property vis-a-vis securing the facility. If bars and grates were to be required, let's say, by the department rules or something similar, those individuals would have to choose between their home and their business. moreover there is no set of rules that can be made that are uniquely tailored such as to be able to apply to all of the different situations now i suspect the bill sponsors would come up and say well yes that's why we did it the way we did it we all have these general overarching rules and then the dealers will have to submit some sort of plan that conforms with it but even in that those general overarching rules we we can't even have general to the degree of a secure door right of the particular type of door that was contemplated in an introduced version for it to be applicable to all of the different dealers and so instead of going through that rigmarole that is still going to be insufficient and actually addressing the problems at bar the better way would just be to simply say that each dealer must employ reasonable security measures in order to be in compliance of these requirements I ask for an aye vote.
further discussion representative Brooks
thank you very much chair I'll keep my my support comments of this amendment brief again it's kind of you know the overarching drive and what we're trying to get to here is the burden on small businesses. I understand what these small businesses are selling. I understand that we have chosen to legislate against the very existence of some of these small businesses, but this is a small business that is facing a cost burden through what we are doing from legislative angle. What we're doing here is to try a little bit at a time to remove some of those cost burdens, try to remove some of those regulatory burdens from these small businesses so we can keep the heartbeat of Colorado going. I ask for an aye vote. Further discussion on
L50. Representative Woodrow.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. It's an honor to serve with you. Honor to serve with you, sir. Colleagues, we would ask for a no vote on this amendment. So the introduced bill had a bunch of requirements dealing with security protocols. And through the stakeholding process, we heard from the industry that they were a bit too onerous and inflexible. And so in committee, we ran an amendment to push that to rulemaking. And this amendment would essentially wipe out the rulemaking. So we would ask for a no vote.
Thank you. Further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of amendment L50 to the committee report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. L50 is lost. Representative Locke.
Thank you, Mr. Chair Pro Tem. Appreciate that. Thank you.
You're welcome.
I move Amendment L48 to this bill and ask that it be displayed.
Oh, it's actually to the committee report, if you could restate the motion.
Thank you. To the committee report. I move Amendment L48 to the committee report and ask that it be displayed.
Thank you so much. The amendments before us, please proceed.
Thank you. So in this bill, there is a requirement that high-capacity magazines be put behind glass or put into another room that is secured and locked. And all of those things come with additional costs to the small business. Obviously, if it's behind glass, then the business may have to reconstitute itself, reorganize remodel as well as purchase those kinds of glass structures which are if you've ever tried to buy one costly very costly in fact and if they're in a different room that is secured then they're going to have to have even more interaction with employees as they go back and forth think a shoe store right and you didn't get the right kind of shoe size initially so you end up having to go back multiple times all of that adds costs to the facility and so all this does is say that in addition to those other ways that they could secure these they can secure them with security tags or locks within the normal display cases this is already being done by a number of FFLs they already secure these items whether because they're high price items or they're concerned of easily walking away we see this kind of thing at the local grocery store department store where they put these kinds of tags on razors or makeup or things that would be easily taken and put into pockets and just walked out with. And so if they have the same kind of option, then the customer gets the experience of being able to shop and genuinely look without pressure at all of the different options but not be able to take them off of the shelf And so it satisfies I think a good compromise between both the bill sponsors intention to make sure that these are more secure than they otherwise would be and also to help alleviate any cost and burden on the small business I ask for an aye vote.
Representative Brooks.
Sure, thank you. Actually, this was one that, to be perfectly honest, we thought was strong enough that we probably ended up drafting it a couple of times. Because it is, again, a burden on small businesses, on the FFLs. And I will not move the other one later because this one does exactly what we want it to do. and I could not support this more because actually I probably was going to get up and speak to it already anyway. So this is a terrific amendment that, again, we should not be putting stipulations on how these tiny, sometimes home-based FFLs are arranging their goods and their services. So I would ask for an aye vote on this and highly support it.
Further discussion on L48?
Representative Serrata? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask for a no vote. We like this part of the bill and would prefer to keep it.
Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of L48 to the committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The amendment is lost. We are back to the committee report.
Representative Brooks. Thank you, Chair, to the committee report. I move. L042 to the committee report.
That's a proper motion. One moment. We're getting there, Rep. Brooks, but please proceed. I don't want to take your time.
I appreciate that, Chair. Thank you. This is not entirely dissimilar to an amendment that my good colleague from Fremont had run a little bit earlier. I'm just going to ask that you kind of follow along in this trail here that I'm going to lay out for you. From the original fiscal note, there was a $28,000 state expenditure and cash fund that was generated through what was stricken in committee, or let's not say stricken, it was more reformatted in committee, because of that $28,000, they understood what the cost was to the state in order to perform the security analysis, the security measures that this bill is trying to get at. So on your green sheet here, if you want to follow along down, you can skip. You don't have to start from the beginning. I won't ask you to do that. You can go ahead and skip right down to, because I'm always trying to make sure everybody is able to stay on the same page with me. It's sometimes difficult. But line 23, a dealer shall submit a comprehensive security plan to the department that demonstrates security measures that the dealer will implement to comply with the rules adopted. So there still is even though on the second version of the fiscal note you know it goes to zero because we absolved the state responsibility for paying that I would through this amendment like to point out that what we doing is essentially just shifting that burden onto the FFLs If we have estimated that the state's expense line on this was going to be roughly $28,000, I believe it is very safe to assume that the cost to the FFLs would also be $28,000. Again, for small businesses in Colorado, for the heartbeat of Colorado, for the hardworking families of Colorado that happen to do something we don't like because they're selling something we don't like, I would say that we need to give them a break and not burden them with the $28,000 security assessment, which is still in the amended version now what we're asking them to do. Very easy to connect the dots between the $28,000 that was going to be a state requirement to now $28,000 that we're shifting right onto the backs of the FFLs. I ask for a yes vote.
Further discussion on L42?
Representative Sirota. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask for a no vote. This amendment would drive a fiscal impact to the state,
but I would further suggest that the amendment that was made in committee did address the projected fiscal impact for a particular facility based on something that is now stricken in the, well, it's within the committee report, but in the bill that specified what kinds of security requirements would be made for each FFL. And since that we are striking, that no longer exists, and what instead will happen is each FFL will be able to submit their own security plan to the division, which can be far better tailored to the needs of each individual location and gives a lot more flexibility for the department to set within rule what the parameters should be and can individually tailor them to individual locations' needs. And so there is no cost estimate, and there may be no cost to a number of FFLs who actually already have proper security for their facilities. But what has been evident so far within the inspections done by the division, particularly they noted an incident when there was a series of burglaries and there were three locations that kept their firearms off the floor when the business was closed. One did not. And that business had a number of firearms stolen and are now entering circulation illegally. And so what we are doing with our bill is to say that security is important. Each FFL needs a plan to submit to the department for how you will properly secure your facility to ensure that your facility is not ripe for burglary and theft. But that does not necessarily mean that there will be any set cost to a particular business. business. It depends on the particular circumstances of that business. I ask for a no vote. Representative Luck. Thank you Mr Chair I do think it bears noting that this particular amendment is designed to say that if a small business is going to incur costs that are more than 5 of its revenue in order to satisfy the security requirements that are set by rule, that we don't know what they are because none of us have authority into that, we're just saying, hey, go figure this out, that if it burdens them by 5% or more, that the state has to give 24 months at least for time to comply, to actually make all of those purchases. And it has to look at seeing if the cash fund that it has related to these firearms, if they can pull from that, if there's dollars to pull from that to assist these small businesses. The state of Colorado was going to look at nearly $30,000 costs to update its one facility under the original bill. We don't have $30,000 as a multibillion-dollar entity to do that. And yet we are going to impose upon FFLs that are in their own homes, that have margins of hundreds of dollars probably month over month, in order to have security for them without any assistance. If we can't cover the cost, if we can't cover that burden, if we're deflecting over to the rulemaking authority in hopes that somehow in doing that will minimize the fiscal impact to us, we should be just as kind to those who we are infringing upon out in the private world. Representative Bottoms. Thank you, Speaker Pro Tem. It is suspect to me when we put security requirements on individuals, and including individuals in their homes, we do that all the time, When we put these security measures on people, and yet we lighten prison sentences on the exact same thing, the exact same subject. When we make it easier for criminals to get off for the exact same subject that we are putting extra security measures on, it's just very suspect. It makes me wonder, why are we doing this? it would appear from that that we're just trying to penalize people just because they want to have a business or they want to do something. It appears that this is punitive against the people while we are constantly lightening everything in some kind of rehabilitative context on the other side. Same subject, same item, firearm being stolen, but we're making it very difficult to put people in jail for this. but we're penalizing people out of their homes and out of their businesses for the exact same thing. That is not okay. I've got a lot of other adjectives, and I'm trying to limit them. That is not okay. Further discussion? AML winner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. As somebody that runs a business, it's getting harder and harder to run a business. Profit margins are thinner and thinner. Inputs keep going up. Cost of product keeps going up. And adding one more, which this is an unfunded mandate on top of a business, this could mean them keeping them doors open or shutting. And as we try to harden these businesses, myself and my colleagues have talked about this for four years now, we should be taking some measures like this to harden schools. We're expecting businesses to do this. Maybe we Start taking some funding from the state and hardening our schools no different than you're trying to harden this, and that might solve another problem that we're all dealing with here. So please, it's getting harder and harder to make a living. And then to get people, contractors, to come out and do this work, you have to understand something. When they come out into our part of the country, we don't have tons of contractors to pick up work like this. That means they have to travel in, they charge mileage, they charge per diem. the cost of building material is more as we all know I sit on CDC and I see it all the time so it's just one more nail in the coffin to a small business and I'm starting to believe that's the plan to make it so darn hard for them to operate to make that margin so thin that they close we're not hiding it I mean, when you sit up at the 30,000 view and you look, we see what's going on here. Cut the supply. That's what's happening. Slow roll this business's death. Make it harder and harder and harder for them to conduct business. Regulate the product they sell more and more and more. now we're going to hit their bottom line so they're selling less people are driving across state lines i said we're going to need more funding in house district 47 for the people all driving out of state to buy what they need because they are in all reality they are i mean the tax revenue you know there was a tax passed in this building and guess what there's less funding going to that because everybody's driving out of state and spending their money out of state and the rural roads are in disrepair so that I ask also in a bill like this, add money for our rural roads. That way all the people that are the mass exodus to Nebraska and Kansas and New Mexico to buy stuff that our roads are taken care of. But at the end of the day, cut what they can sell, hurts their bottom line. Make it harder for them to sell, hurts the bottom line. Senate bill from last year, less things that they can sell, hurts the bottom line. And the death nail is your bottom line's low, so we're going to put more regulations on you. We're going to make you spend more money in rural Colorado. You're going to have to bring contractors in, supply in, which effectually lops them off at the knees. And like I said before when I spoke on the other amendment, there are actual businesses in my district. A gun store in the metro may not be an economic driver, but a gun store in House District 47 employs people that feed their family, puts tax dollars in the coffers for us to survive. How do you expect rural Colorado not to look at this as an all-out assault on everything that keeps our communities thriving? In my opinion, this isn't a gun bill. This is a business bill. And we're wrapping the two together, and the feverish fight to control guns is killing business. So I urge a yes on this amendment. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Proton. That is hard to follow that, but I looked up some statistics. How many businesses in the state of Colorado are leaving Colorado 65 of executives say state policy is negatively impacting their businesses Many are weighing relocation or expansion outside the state Every week we see another big business leaving our state. Colorado ranks 47th in cost of living in the entire United States. 12,000 plus more people left Colorado than moved in recently. High costs are the primary driver. Businesses typically follow workforce. 30 plus small liquor stores closed since 2023. Hundreds more expected. Every 10% increase in regulation, 9,000 fewer firms statewide. This is what's happening. More and more regulations are causing the people that are driving our economy to leave. And then we wonder for the second year why we're in another shortfall, why we can't fund mental health hospitals, why we can't help substance abuse, because we keep forcing these people out of our state. And I'm going to say it again. FFLs, firearms dealers, manufacturers, consumers are contributing to hundreds of millions of dollars in the state. And you keep forcing them out. At least accept this amendment and give them some breathing room for what they're giving you back to the economy. It's the same thing we did to oil and gas and severance taxes. And then we wonder why there's no money for education. It's the same thing. Round two, help the small businesses in Colorado. Stop suffocating them to death. Vote yes on this amendment. Further discussion on L42? I've got Rep Richardson and then Rep Hartzik. Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. As my previous two colleagues laid out, when big businesses leave the state, it makes money. When a small Main Street shop closes in rural Colorado, only the community notices. but it makes a big impact. And my good colleague from Los Animas really laid out what the costs in this bill, what this amendment hopes to avoid, does to those small businesses. So when we're talking about the economics of it, you've got to look at the return on investment of what we're trying to do here. uh conservatively there are seven to nine million firearms on the streets in the homes in the hands of coloradans the vast vast majority of those absolutely legally possessed and used legally last year 289,997 firearms were legally sold by dealers 142 firearms were stolen from dealers One is too many, but 49,000th of a percent of legally sold firearms against the number that were stolen. For every firearm in circulation in this state last year, one out of 50,000 was added to that number. What we're trying to solve for here is in the each is important, but from the view of this state body, it's infinitesimal. We are attacking the wrong problem, and we're putting way too much effort into it here for no impact, and we're putting way too much impact on our small businesses for something that will not make a difference in the big picture. We need to be looking at the big picture here not attacking individuals and individual owners and business people and that what this bill does But this amendment is good and I urge a yes vote Representative Hartsock Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Tim, thank you. Good morning. So on lines, on this amendment, lines 17 through 21 is what I want to zero in on right now. We have all seen every store we've ever looked at, every vacant lot, everything that happens out there, when there's a change, when there's something happening, they tend to post a public notice. And that public notice says there will be a hearing, this is what's going on, this is what's happening, so the public can participate. And why do we do that? Why is that required? Because it has a public impact. It has a business impact. It has a tax impact. It has a revenue impact. These are communities, large, small, big city, rural Colorado, western slopes, eastern plains. Everything has an impact upon its community. The larger the community, that impact is diversified, but it still impacts that community. And that's why those public notices go out. If something is closing, we've all seen in strip malls, we've seen businesses that say, going out of business, public notice. Here's my sale. This is what's happening. And nine times out of ten, if you go in and talk to the general manager, you'll find out why they're going out of business. And those reasons could be many, but it's posted. It's out there so the public can see what's happening. As we impact more and more regulations upon businesses, and we fail to notify the community and everyone else around them of what those impacts will do, then we are setting people up for failure not once but twice. Because once you lose that business, then the impacts of that business that was provided to the community and community support, donating goods to football games, baseball games, soccer, lacrosse, basketball, you name it, it's the small town businesses that donate and support in their communities. Whether the communities are big or small, that's what they donate. If we don't have a notice of what that impact is going to be to that business, then we have no way to quantify what the loss will be to that community. We know what the loss will be to the business. We're seeing that. There's countless studies out there. but what we're not looking at is the impact to a community excuse me not only is there loss of that business and its immediate function and the people it employs but the secondary and tertiary effects within the community of what it supports and if we're going to do this in this bill in 1126 in this amendment line 17 through 21 puts that notice out there so people can come and talk about what is going to happen to them. Because it's the public that is getting left out of this equation. It is the small businesses. It's the soccer games. It's the kids. It's everything that will be impacted down the line that is not being noticed, that is not being discussed. That's what we need to look at. I urge an aye vote. Thank you. Mr. Minority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. members I rise in support of this so I give you a real world situation here down in Colorado Springs A friend of mine who owns a family owned small business gun store in Colorado Springs about, I think it was two years ago, some youth stole a vehicle, crashed it through the front of his store. And so he had to obviously had to fix his store. It cost him $100,000 to fix the front of his store. And when he did that, he put in safety and security measures in case this were to happen again. And what he did was he put shutters on the inside of his building behind the window. So the glass is on the outside of the building technically. Now he did that on purpose. So the glass would have to be shattered first before they could start working and cutting on those shutters. And the glass break system would alert once they break that, that window. and based on his reading and other gun store owners readings of this bill he's going to have to now go and install shutters on the outside of the window now it was a hundred thousand dollars in repairs to the front of his store after they crashed a car through it and those shutters themselves were around seventy thousand dollars and so now as a small business owner family-owned business he's having to look at spending another seventy thousand dollars to put on the outside of his store to cover those windows up. As the AML said earlier, I don't view this as a gun bill in a sense. This is a small business bill. This friend of mine, I mean, he's got a family and you have to sell a lot of small $20 here and there things to save up $70,000 to put shutters on the outside of your store when the shutters on the inside work perfectly. And he's specifically selected to put those shutters there on the inside instead of the outside and now this bill is going to create him having to do that i mentioned earlier when i had the bill read at length that a small business in my community in house district 20 in falcon colorado a small business veteran owned family owned minority owned business shut down after the original version of this bill in 2024 passed. And a big part of that is because my constituent could not afford to put these safety measures in place to stay in business. And now they are out of business. So this is a good amendment to basically make sure that we understand the cost that we're putting onto these small businesses. And so this is a very reasonable amendment. And again, it's a pro-small business. whether you agree with what the small business is or not. There's plenty of small businesses that I may look at and say, well, I don't agree with the product they sell, but I don't want to put them out of business when they're probably already struggling. And this is what this does. This is a regulation. So this amendment, I think, gives some relief and then actually forces us to see how much that we're putting on these small businesses. So I certainly urge an aye vote on this. Thank you. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. And I just want to follow up with what our good ML has stated with the shutters, small businesses. For some small businesses, that would be a very hefty one-time fee to put them on outside of the business. For others, like in House District 63 in our rural areas, those shutters could be gone within a day or a week if they're lucky out where we're from. My district is very hail prone. Heavy winds. last year we had a high record winds of 102 miles an hour this year we've had 60 70 miles an hour already and so guess what happens when it goes to the side of the building with these shutters They need to replace them. This is a good amendment to make sure it's not just for some businesses an additional one-time cost, but for other businesses, who knows, multiple-time costs, because that is going to be redundancy in how many times they have to buy these to replace them with the weather effect we have in our state. And I know none of you colleagues can deny the weather patterns we're seeing. High winds, high hail. This accounts for that, so we're not putting out small businesses already facing those weather patterns on top of an unfunded mandate, on top of having to put these outside of their building, I urge a yes vote. Protect our small businesses and please take into account our rural areas. Further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L42 to the committee report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment is definitely lost. Representative Sucla. Make them girls play a little bit. Thank you, Speaker Pro Tem. I move L016 and ask that it be properly displayed. That's a proper motion. One moment. Please proceed. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. So this amendment is something that was said about three amendments ago was that there has been proper stakeholding done. So I'm going to tell you where I live. What they do is they go from Tuesday to Friday. That's when they're open. The gun shop's open. and all the neighbors gather there, and they have coffee every morning. And talking about these bills, they said that they had no idea what was going on. They have not been stakeholder. And so what this bill is going to do is it is going to adopt rules that the department shall conduct at least one public stakeholder meeting to receive input from affected businesses and members of the public. Since I just told the story that my constituents have not been stakeholder, I believe that this would be a good amendment so that they know what's coming down the pipeline. And I would ask for an aye vote. Representative Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I stand up here in support of this amendment. I'm always out and about in my community. but several times that I've been out and one time we actually had a tour of several small businesses that wanted to show the impact of all the laws that were putting through this place or affecting them in a negative way one of the main things across the board with all my small businesses in my district and actually many other districts that I have visited was the fact that they do not know everything that's going on. There's so much regulation going through this dome every single day, every single year. I mean, we have hundreds of bills that get slammed through here that affect them that they just need a minute. They need to know what to follow. They need to know what superseded what. An amendment like this actually allows us to stop for a second, let our small businesses catch up so they can actually be in compliance They want to be in compliance but sometimes they not not because of their own doing on purpose It's just because there's so much crud that goes through this place that they just can't keep up, or they just don't know which way to turn from which direction to go to, because we keep throwing everything at them. Colorado is one of the most regulated states in the Union. I believe we're probably second at this point. We need to have fair and responsible professional dealings with our local businesses, and that's businesses in all of our districts. So this amendment allows that, and I'm asking for a yes vote. If you care as much as I do about the businesses in my district, you'll vote yes. Thank you. Rep. Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Again, I wasn't planning on coming down to talk to this amendment, but something that was just said kind of moved me to do so. Just speaking from my past experience as a teacher and as a principal, I had a bumper sticker that I bought my first year of teaching. And on that bumper sticker, I kept it next to my desk the entire time I taught. And then when I became a principal, it stayed next to my desk. and it said to frighten a child do to and not with to enlighten a child do with and not to and this amendment kind of reminds me of that because when we have big things that affect us in life we want to have somebody working with us not doing to us and so this amendment very much speaks to that that when we're adopting rules people want to be part of the solution they want to have a voice. They don't want to feel like things are done to them. They want to do things with them. And if this law passes, there are going to be rules that people will want to have a say in molding because they're more likely to follow those rules if they have a voice in them versus having things done to them. So I urge an eye on this amendment. Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand in strong support of this amendment. Members, I think we need to take into consideration our small business community. Right now, our small business community is hurting, not only just with regulations and the tight business climate we face ourselves in today, but I think we should have a stakeholding process with these businesses that are affected on this policy. I don't think that they were able to have a voice when this policy was put forward. I do understand that the sponsors did have some stakeholdering done but I think small businesses do deserve to have a conversation about what this policy will do to their business alike I have a lot of small businesses in my district who are very concerned about this policy as it is now and so all they want is just a chance to come to the table to hear to for us to hear them out and for us to understand them what these policy implications are for the small business community and I think that that's something we need to keep in mind especially when we're all about small business here in the state of Colorado we have to protect them and we have to look after them a lot of these people just want relief and a lot of them just want to be heard and right now they're not being heard and so that is a concern not only for me but for my district for a lot of businesses across Colorado this policy will affect so I encourage and I will on this amendment thank you further discussion on L16 representative Flannell thank you thank you speaker I do encourage my colleagues to accept this amendment as an FFL who is based out of my home. Depending on what the Department of Revenue agrees to, I mean, doors on the window, or I sorry bars and grates on my windows and doors and security screens commercial grade metal doors security alarm systems The alarm system has to be connected directly to local law enforcement This is stuff that I cannot have in my home. I do have a lot of security enacted, but I don't think that my HOA would approve of having, you know, bars on my window. I'd probably actually get a huge fine for that. And I think in order to implement a security that works for all FFLs, and again, FFLs can be home-based, it could be a small business, it could be a large, big box store, I think that a proper stakeholding meeting is warranted in order to make sure that we're not placing anybody outside these parameters and giving everybody an opportunity to comply. So I urge a yes vote. Thank you. Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, pro tem, and thank you to the amendment sponsor. And I just want to note for the record that the good representative has been more than transparent in her efforts to amend the bill. And as bill sponsors, we certainly appreciate the engagement and the forthrightness and the constructive dialogue that we've had. We are going to ask for a no vote on this, mostly because we believe that it is redundant, and that's because the division already complies with the Administrative Procedures Act. And what the Colorado APA, and it is 24-4-101 of CRS, what it requires is public participation. Before a state agency adopts, amends, or repeals a rule, it must hold a public rulemaking proceeding. The agency must provide public notice at least 20 days before the hearing, stating the time, place, and nature of the proceedings. the agency must accept and consider input from the public during the comment period, which begins when the notice of proposed rulemaking is filed with the Secretary of State. In terms of the security measures that were in the bill, like we said, during the stakeholding process, we heard from industry that it was too onerous, and that is why we have amended in committee to put it to rulemaking so there can be more public feedback, more industry input on these specific rules. I will note that occasionally the division does offer written comments to simplify opportunities for stakeholder engagement and feedback. Public comments are shared and made available to stakeholders so they can engage with the division. And we do want to be wary that requiring firearm dealers to attend a public stakeholder meeting could impose an undue burden on their businesses, necessitating time away from their operations. So the division adopts hybrid forms of engagement, online and public, which is used by other regulatory agencies across the United States. and this approach reduces barriers to access for rural dealers or stakeholders who are unable to attend in-person meetings. I reiterate that we very much appreciate the engagement by the amendment drafter and sponsor, but we do ask for a no vote on L016. Further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L16 to the committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The amendment is lost. We are back to the committee report. further discussion. Representative Richardson.
Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. As we go through the committee report and how it pertains to the bill, there are some things that to me are very concerning. And I do move L028 to the committee report and ask that it be properly That a proper motion One moment
Rep. Richardson, please proceed.
All right. But the original statute, unamended, read that beginning in July 1, 2025, every dealer must obtain a state permit in order to engage in the business of dealing in firearms other than destructive devices in this state. Now, I recognize that as the current law. I don't like it. I think it's pretty clear that many of us don't like, excuse me, the current law. But during committee, they properly struck the phrase beginning July 1, 2025, because obviously the law is currently in effect. But then they chose to add the phrase after the requirement to have a license to deal firearms. it was to deal firearms in the state or to transfer firearms other than destructive devices into or out of the state. And that raises concerns. Why would this piece of the regular day-to-day operations of any business that takes commodities in that are manufactured elsewhere or may manufacture and sell out of state be called out separately. And again, I don't impugn any motive, but I am concerned that by very specifically in law separating what seems to be the normal business of a firearms dealer within Colorado to buy, sell, and work with firearms that are in the state and then have a separate piece added to specifically identify transferring firearms to or from Colorado. To me, we're setting up the opportunity in the future to have some sort of tiered licensing where you have a gun dealer that can operate and deal with firearms that happen to have been in Colorado and aren't leaving Colorado, and then a firearms dealer that can do all that, plus bring new firearms into the state or sell them out of state to other FFLs. Not every firearm that is sold in Colorado is manufactured in Colorado. That's clear. And I think if some had their way, none would be manufactured in Colorado. But this phrasing of separating out the day-to-day activities of a firearms dealer and then having a separate idea that somehow it's different in their business to be moving firearms in and out of the state, I think is concerning. I don't think there's any reason for it. and that phrase, or to transfer firearms other than destructive devices into or out of the state, needs to be struck. If we were talking about any other business, any other retail business that purchases goods that are transferred in from out of state, or told our retailers that you are no longer allowed to transfer an item in your store to a purchaser outside the state, there would be outrage. To put this restriction on one class of retailer, one type of business in this state, for no apparent reason, is wrong. If we're going to have state licensing for firearms dealers, license our firearms dealers. But don't start setting up some sort of tiering structure where we can decide that you can be a firearms dealer minus or a firearms dealer plus. or perhaps set up rules in the future that make it impossible to obtain a license that allows you to transfer firearms in and out of the state and we'll just slowly consume the 9 million firearms that are currently resident in Colorado until we reach that nirvana where no firearms exist in this state and we're all at risk of those that break the wall. Thank you.
Further discussion? Representative Sirota.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask for a no vote on this amendment. The section of the committee report that is amending this section is simply a technical clarification requested by the Attorney General, But the intent of the bill is to amend the term dealer to include those engaged in the transfer of firearms, not just limiting it to those who sell firearms at retail to the public because the division has become aware that some dealers are attempting to make a distinction between a sale and a transfer and that not all transfers are sales. So, for example, dealers have argued that completing a transfer to another FFL is not a sale to the public, even though the firearm is being sold to a customer and both FFLs are receiving compensation for their services and providing the firearm. So we are simply clarifying in law to ensure that the original intent of 1353 is intact by adding transfer. We ask for no vote.
Further discussion? Representative Richardson.
The original language did not include transfer at all. The added language specifically calls out transfers into or out of the state. If the Attorney General wants that to be clarified, I can only assume it's because he wants to have a cause of action against our firearms dealers. If we wanted to ensure that transfer was somehow equivalent to sales, it would not be placed in that portion of the language. I urge a yes vote.
Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-28 to the committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. All those opposed, no. No. The no's have it. The amendment is lost. Representative Barone.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Members, today we've been hearing about what this bill is actually going to do to the small FFLs in this state, how it's going to affect them, how a lot of them are going to go out of business or move out of the state. We continue to do this to our small business in the state. This is not a good thing. Of course, we rely on the income tax. We rely on the tax from these businesses to be able to fund the projects that we legislate here Of course we don all agree with those projects but we continue to rely on it We lose that revenue Now we have to cut areas where we don need to cut We can cut to fund those programs. So these small businesses are very, very important to us, and we do rely on them a lot. So that being said, I move L017 to HB1126 and ask that it be displayed.
That's a proper motion. One moment. Oh, Rep. Barone, we're going to have you withdraw that motion because this is to the bill, and we're still on the committee report.
You are 100% right. I withdraw my motion.
Thank you, sir. If you'd like to speak to the committee report, you're more than welcome. Otherwise, we'll entertain the amendment when we're on the bill. Further discussion on the committee report. Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the committee report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The committee report is adopted. To the bill.
Representative Sirota. Thank you, Mr. Chair. we have one amendment to the bill after further discussion with industry stakeholders well I'll move L 0 0 4 to House Bill 11 26 and acid it be displayed that is a proper motion one moment
Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So after further conversation with industry stakeholders, this amendment makes a clarification to the definition of employee to ensure that we are not capturing within the definition of employees those individuals who don't have the authority to unlock the dealer's firearm storage rooms, containers, cases, or other devices used to secure the firearm. So essentially we are saying that folks who might be a greeter at the door or some other kind of employee at the business who doesn't have access does not need to be included in the definition of employee for the purposes that it serves within the legislation. And I ask for an aye vote.
Further discussion on Amendment L4? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L4 to House Bill 1126. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment is adopted. We are back to the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Rep. Sirota. I will keep it brief. I know folks have a lot more amendments they want to run, but I do just want to be clear about what it is we are doing here in House Bill 1126, and I would also express my gratitude for my co-prime joining in this endeavor, and always it is a delight to work with you and serve with you. So House Bill 1126 follows the passage of House Bill 11, sorry, 1353 from 2024 when we established the Firearms Dealer Division in order to regulate retail sales of firearms in Colorado But during the implementation process the division they identified a number of gaps in this regulatory framework that we set out So we are simply doing a simple cleanup bill here to address any of these critical gaps they've discovered in record keeping or clarifying definitions and also trying to introduce some flexible enforcement mechanisms that we see as really prioritizing collaborative compliance. And so I think the division is trying to take an education-first approach, not a punitive approach, but to ensure that dealers have all of the information that they need when there are inspections that occur and violations are found, that they are able to work in an educational fashion with dealers to ensure that they are truly complying with the law and keeping Coloradans safe. So I appreciate the conversation, the discussion today, and ask for your aye vote.
Representative Woodrow.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Colleagues, I will also keep it brief. Debate, of course, is limited on this bill, and we do want the minority to have as much of a say as possible through these proceedings. I do just want to make a few points about what the bill actually does. Just as a little bit of background, through HB 24-1353, we created as a body the Firearms Dealer Division to regulate all retail firearms sales. The current record-keeping requirements are limited to records for each pistol or revolver sold, rented, or exchanged at retail. So what the bill does is it expands record-keeping to cover all firearms, excluding destructive devices, but inclusive of shotguns and rifles. The bill also clarifies the definition of employee, like Rep. Sirota spoke of, to ensure comprehensive coverage of individuals working in dealer operations, including contractors and unpaid individuals. We worked with members of industry to strike the right balance there to ensure that we're talking about individuals who have the authority to unlock the dealer's firearms, storage rooms, containers, cases, or other devices used to secure the firearms. There is an education forward approach adopted in the bill. Right now, current law, you either have a warning, then suspension or revocation of a permit. So what the bill does is it actually creates a step in between where the division would have the ability to levy fines and penalties in a structure that mirrors what we do with liquor and alcohol sales. We also have a provision in the bill which modifies the definition of dealer to include responsible persons of a dealer. And really this is designed because when we're talking about people with histories or criminal backgrounds and their qualifications to be a dealer, it's not the business itself that we're talking about. It's the individuals in charge of it. We talked to you about the security portions of the bill. That's going to go to rulemaking due to the amendment in committee. We just had an amendment that we talked about how the bill expands coverage to include not just sales, but also transfers, which some dealers were arguing were exempt from the requirements. And then you know like we said there actually things in the bill that industry requested So for example in CRS 18 when in reference to training the term used was effectively trained and we have struck the term effectively because that was overly confusing for stakeholders. So what we basically tried to do is make the prior legislation that was passed in the 2024 session more perfect. We don't always get it perfect out of the gate. Legislating is an iterative process, and this bill seeks to improve upon what was done previously to make it easier for industry actors, easier for those small businesses to actually comply with the law. We ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Representative Brooks. Chair, thank you. I think the promise of gravity there from the sponsor was the time that he had spent briefly in the minority party here just a couple weeks ago. I remember him saying that he knew what it was like. He remembers what it was like. I move L005 to 1126. I ask to be properly displayed.
Did you please get this?
It's a 30-day.
Okay, L5 is displayed. Representative Brooks.
Chair, thank you. This is fairly self-explanatory, but let me just kind of go through it. Before imposing a fine or suspending or revoking a permit pursuant to the section, department shall notify the dealer of the violation allow the dealer at least 30 days to cure the deficiency we had a amendment on a different bill a few days ago a very similar nature saying hey let's not go to just the the big old punitive baseball bat right off the right off the the get go. I will ask that you follow along in the bill, and that would be at page 5, beginning at the top of page 5 with line 1, where it says that a fine of up to $100,000 can be imposed.
Now, that is for a second violation, but
you see how quickly... I'm sorry, Representative
Brooks. Yes, ma'am.
I can hear all of everyone's conversations up here. Except for mine.
Representative Brooks.
Chair, thank you. I do appreciate that. I'll just kind of back up just a little bit, make sure everybody knows kind of where we're tracking on this. We're going to at the top of page five in the bill, as originally printed, we talk about a fine that could be imposed of up to $100,000. That's for a second violation granted. But you see how Indianapolis 500, this punitive fine structure gets. $100,000. I would ask that you let that sink in just for a second. $100,000 on an FFL. Many of them home-based businesses, many of them very small family-based businesses, that it would seem to me that this is beyond trying to ensure compliance. the fine structure of this is punitive to the level to where I think that what it's trying to do is really kind of put people out of business. So I am asking through this amendment to say, can we just hit pause for a little bit so that in that way, if there is... a violation that is found that we have the ability to just give 30 days, a 30-day cure period, to that dealer. Say, look, you might have messed up, crossed the line. We're going to, in the spirit of compliance, not necessarily overly punitive measure, going to give you an opportunity within 30 days to cure what we have found to be erroneous. I would ask for an aye vote on this, what I would consider to be a very reasonable structure.
Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is, in fact, a very reasonable amendment. The fact that well-intentioned people can make mistakes, that they can be offered the opportunity to make corrections to their work, was just illustrated by the sponsors who've worked this bill quite a bit and well-attentioned, but still brought some amendments today because it wasn't what they had hoped it would be. Now, if we were not allowed to amend a bill, unless we were risking losing our license to legislate or be faced with a $100,000 fine, probably nothing would move through this chamber. So if you make an error that isn't fraud, intentional misconduct, or an immediate threat to the safety of the public, why wouldn't we allow correction of that error? why proceed to possible revocation or fines? It's a higher workload on those in the state. It's certainly a stressor and high risk on the small business people. This is an absolutely common sense amendment. It should be accepted. It recognizes that every one of us is human, that we amend our bills, that firearms dealers can sometimes type a one when an eye was needed or some such clerical area and should not be subject to fine or revocation of license when something can easily be corrected that wasn't done for any nefarious purpose or doesn't leave any of the public at risk. So I would urge a yes vote on this amendment.
Is there any further discussion on L5? Representative Slough.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I particularly do appreciate this bill and the right for FFLs to make things right. I have a younger brother who is a super smart guy, but sometimes not the smartest guy. Would struggle with having things perfect at times. had a home-based FFL business, and I know he put a lot of effort and a lot of time into having that license and starting that business. I personally see that this would be a fair thing. He wouldn't ever want to intentionally do something that would be wrong or cause any kinds of problems, but if without any kind of warning or notice or time to cure, he could find himself in massive financial problems. So I think that, again, as the good representative has said, this is a pretty easy amendment to accept I think it just common sense to be able to allow somebody who not doing anything intentionally bad to be able to have time to fix a problem. I think we see that in a lot of things that we have. You have 30 days if your license plates expire. You have a 30-day grace period. If your driver's license expires, you have a grace period. I think this is similar in sense that it gives you a period of time to come into compliance, and I think that that's only a fair thing for small business owners who are just trying to take care of their family, earn extra income, and do the right thing. I urge a yes vote.
Is there any further discussion on L5?
Representative Sirota. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask for a no vote on this amendment. There is a requirement within the bill that the department is going to adopt rules that govern the imposition of fines. and those that the rules will include categories based on the severity of the the offense and those fines will range within each category but the fines don't come until after there is a second or subsequent offense made so this isn't something that comes upon a first violation, nor is revocation. That these are things when there are problems presented, that the dealer is issued initially for a second offense, a warning that includes the description of the offense and the penalty for what would happen for a second offense. So this is sort of that education first approach of saying, all right, we have found some violations of the law here. These are the things that you need to do to correct it. And then if you have a second offense, the next thing that comes is a warning and a clear description of what the penalty would be if you do not clean up whatever violation you have made. So these two things only come after there have been multiple offenses and the consequences of those offenses have been made clear. But I would also suggest that, you know, interested parties can engage in the rulemaking process around the imposition of fines that we are adding to the bill as an intermediate step between having your permit suspended for a period of time or revoked. I ask for a no vote.
Is there any further discussion on L5? Seeing none, the question before is its passage. All those in favor of L5, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no. L5 fails. To the bill.
Representative Hartzik. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. It's shift change. I spoke this morning. Now I'm back here this afternoon. As long as it's not 26 years.
Touche, touche.
So this morning when I was speaking on an amendment to this bill, we were talking about the second and third order effects in the communities, not only to the business, but to the communities. What I'd like to do now is zero in on the exact second and third order effects on a business and then the subsequent effects on the community So if we look at the bill pretty much starting around on page four when it starts listing what is required and everything that goes down to what would be a violation, then you flip over on the top of page five, and it says, for a second or subsequent offense committed or on or after January 1st of 27, there will be a fine of up to $100,000. Let me say that again. $100,000. Not quite a million, but a big chunk of change. You hit businesses with that. What do you think will happen to the business? Well, that answer would be they will probably go out of business. And then what will happen to the community? or the community will suffer. Therefore, I move Amendment 007 to House Bill 1126 and request that it be properly displayed.
The amendment is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So what this amendment says, if you look at it, It says multiple incidences, same clerical. I mean, how many times have we seen mistakes made multiple times? Look at your taxes. How many times have you ever made a mistake on your taxes? I know some of us never make mistakes on taxes, but we read about it all the time where that happens. This is saying that if you make multiple mistakes within that 30-day period, instead of being cumulative, we're going to call it one mistake. Now, they still got to correct it. We're not arguing that point. But what we are asking on this amendment is that instead of counting as multiple infractions over that time frame, it's lumped together as one infraction. And therefore they have to address that as a single infraction versus if it's $100,000 a shot, how many times could you take a hit if you had five infractions? That's half a million dollars. just imagine the liability insurance that would have to be carried imagine what would happen to the community imagine what would happen to the property all of that stuff that is lost so what i would urge is i vote on this amendment so we count things as a single infraction versus as multiple infractions i urge an i vote thank you is there any further discussion on the amendment
Representative Slough.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, a very good common sense way to make sure that our small businesses and small FFLs don't come under undue and very heavy financial burden. It would be too easy for a misunderstanding of a requirement or for the small mistake to be done many times in a small period of time. And if the penalty for that is $100,000 for every single one, very quickly you could have immense financial burdens placed upon a person who meant no ill will in an administrative error. this would cripple small businesses it would cripple a family it could potentially cripple multiple families if there were partners in a business I urge an aye vote
any further discussion to the amendment seeing none the question before us is the adoption of amendment L007 to house bill 11
representative Woodrow Thank you Madam Chair It is rad to serve with you It is rad to serve with you, sir.
Thank you.
Colleagues, we would ask for a no vote on L-007. This provision would undermine the integrity of the regulatory framework. In each instance of noncompliance, regardless of its root cause, represents a distinct failure to adhere to statutory requirements. Grouping numerous widespread errors as a single violation diminishes the severity of the noncompliance and creates somewhat of a difficult precedent. This amendment would weaken the deterrent effect of enforcement by minimizing the penalty for systemic operational shortcomings. While the intent may be to protect dealers from overly punitive actions, the consequences of failure to hold them accountable for failures that might occur at scale. To ensure accurate oversight, promote compliance, maintain public trust and safety, each instance of a violation must be treated and counted as a separate sanctionable offense. I would note that the Division already considers aggravating and mitigating factors which are stated in Rule 3-300C3A and B. Thank you.
Any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L007 to House Bill 1126. All in favor say aye. Aye. All in favor say no. No. Oh, all opposed say no. No. The no's have it. To the bill, Representative Wug.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So with this Bill 1126, it's once again like many other bills out here, it's going after small business owners. A lot of us have a big issue with that, and it would seem you're going after these business owners that are not guilty of anything. The reality is most firearms that are recovered after shooting are not purchased firsthand from these FFLs, and yet we punish them, whether it's with fees, whether it's with regulation on security systems they have to pay for, whether it's the penalties. So we're going to talk about adjusting the penalty. As the bill states, the bill permits the Department of Revenue to fine a dealer up to $100,000 for a second or subsequent violation of certain dealer requirements.
and before i go into that i move l 006 to house bill 1126 and ask it to be properly displayed the amendment is properly displayed please proceed thank you madam chair so like i said we're dealing with the fine here that's $100,000. I am sure that could easily put dealers out of business, and I am tired of the attack on small business owners, and I think it's very reasonable to change this to $10,000. So that's what this amendment does. Instead of $100,000, it's $10,000, which is still an extreme amount of money, but will hopefully allow this person to correct what they've done wrong and hopefully stay in business. So I urge an aye vote.
Representative Barone. Representative Barone.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with this. I would personally go down to $500, or if we can have Larry Don up here and just auction off the amount of penalty on this. What do you think, Madam Chair?
Do you think that would be a good way to do it?
To the bill.
To the bill. Representative Barone.
Thank you. I support this amendment 100%. Like I said, I believe it's still too high, especially for small business, small FFLs, their profits on their sales is not really that high. I mean, they're not making millions of dollars here. And they're just trying to stay afloat, put food on the table. And for them and their employees, some FFLs are family-owned. A lot of them are. Like the good representative from Empaso here, that's our colleague, family-owned. so it's basically just a family business trying to stay afloat for the family so we're not making they're not they're not making thousands of millions of dollars they're just trying to stay afloat this is a good amendment let's bring it down 100 000 fine is excessive uh 10 000 is still too high but at the same time it's a lot better than 100 000 i urge an aye vote any representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a great amendment, especially following on the heels of the last amendment where apparently we don't want to recognize that multiple errors can stem from the same misconception. I know there's probably not a lot of us anymore that actually write checks, but in January of this year, I found myself repeatedly putting dates of 2025. It was a quieter time, but we are in 2026, and if you were to make multiple errors with $100,000 fines, we're putting people out of business. It really seems to be what the bill is intended to do. But let's be at least somewhat reasonable. instead of just cutting somebody's throat immediately, the pinpricks of $10,000 fines at a time is probably a reasonable amount to inflict on somebody. Let's keep it at this level. I urge a yes vote.
Any further discussion on the amendment? Representative Minority Leader Caldwell.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly support this amendment here. And one of the conversations I had earlier today was I understand that it is up to $100,000 and that $100,000 is highly unlikely to happen. And our liquor stores fall under the same $100,000, up to $100,000 penalty. Here's my concern is that I don't know who's going to be in charge of deciding on these penalties necessarily down the road. Maybe the people who are in charge of it now wouldn't do it. However, I do think that gun stores and liquor stores may not be viewed in the same light by different people. And so I could certainly agree that even if a penalty is $100,000 for a liquor store, I think they very well may get a lot more, I don't know, leeway than a gun store would. SO WITH THAT, I THINK IT'D BE FAIR TO LOWER THE PENALTY IN THIS SITUATION.
SO I CERTAINLY SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT REPRESENTATIVE WOODROVE THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND THANK YOU TO THE Any further discussion on the amendment Representative Woodrow Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to the minority leader for his comments
We do understand that there might be some concern with the sticker price of up to $100,000. We want to make clear that such a penalty would be highly unusual. It would not be levied against a mom-and-pop shop. We can't go so low as $10,000 because that becomes just a cost of doing business for larger operators. We are happy to continue the discussion. I would note again that this is based off of the structure for liquor enforcement. There is no record in Colorado of liquor stores being driven out of the state. I do understand the minority leader's comments about, well, you know, liquor and guns might be viewed differently. But, you know, as it stands right now, there is no fine structure. So we just have a warning followed by suspension or revocation of the license itself. This provides a middle ground. And I'd also note that this could be part of rulemaking as well. So, you know, with that, we would ask for a no vote on the amendment. but I do appreciate where this amendment is coming from to both the drafter and the people who have spoken to it, the good representatives who have spoken to it. We can't go as low as $10,000. We look forward to continuing the conversation, however.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us today is the passage of Amendment L006 to 1126. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. No's have it. Amendment fails. To the bill. Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I cannot stress my concerns with the bill in its current form. I do want to commend the sponsors because I know we all want to make sure that we have safe communities and we want to make sure that we have common sense laws. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the policy that will get us to the goals.
I cannot stress enough that the laws that we continue to push here in Colorado when it comes to gun safety, gun prevention, gun violence, they're not working. And we still see criminals who do not follow the law, criminals who are essentially, they will find ways to get these weapons, and they will cause harm if they wish to do so. I will also put on the record again, as I've said time and time again from the well, that law-abiding people are not the ones committing these atrocities. these law-abiding people are in fact following law and the whether it's concealed carry or through the permitting process or the training and the concealed and the storage and all the things and like so I just I do have concerns with this bill and so in order to make it at least less concerning for me I move amendment L034 to House Bill 1126 and ask that it be properly displayed.
The amendment is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So all L34 does is strike fine authority. So again, while I know we want to make sure there's consequences for people who break the law I think that these fines can be more conspicuous and I think there can be a bit worrisome for people who are trying to follow the law and so I don't want to set up our people who are trying to comply with the law to even be more burdened with some of these fines that we have and so I encourage an aye vote on this amendment Representative Barron Thank you Madam Chair Good to see you up there Good to see you down there This is more like it, my colleagues. This is way more like it. I came up here before and said I would go down to a 500. Let's just get rid of it. Dan Wu came in with the pass and the good representative from Greeley comes in with a slam dunk on that LEU. I urge an aye vote.
Any further? Representative Sirota.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask for a no vote. I think that the cost to an FFL of suspension or revocation of the permit is actually far more costly than incurring a fine of up to a certain threshold. The fines are simply adding some middle step before an FFL were to have their permit suspended or revoked.
Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L034 to House Bill 1126. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. The no's have it. Amendment fails. To the bill. Representative Luck.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-21 and ask that it be displayed.
Amendment L-021 is properly displayed. It was distributed to you on March 18, 2026 at 1.42 p.m. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a continuation of the conversation that we've been having related to penalties and the dealing of violations. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone, especially if you listened in on the Legal Services Committee meeting this morning, that I am not supportive of rulemaking. I still believe in the three branches of government. I still believe in separation of powers. I still believe that the legislature should be making the vast majority of the rules, and if that means that we have to slow down a bit to figure out what those should be, then, well, I guess that's what we should do. And so I hesitate in grand measure to give the department authority to make rules related to the imposition of fines pursuant to what is laid out, where they can fine up to $100,000. How do we even know what is really in this bill, what we're really imposing upon the FFLs and if we think it is fair? So because I don't want to be opposed and not actually provide a solution, I have given you all a seven-page amendment. It looks like this. And I hope you all are following along in it because it lays out a process by which we can ensure some fairness in our compliance and know exactly what we are expecting of the FFL and how we are going to treat them. At root, this is creating a point system. So it categorizes particular violations into minor administrative violations, categories of minor administrative violations, moderate violations, and serious violations. And each one of those violations is connected to a particular point or point value system. when the inspector comes in and does the inspection they can then add up all of those particular points and if there is a range of points so one to three points there are particular consequences four to six points other consequences and it moves on to there such that once a dealer gets to 13 points that a department can revoke the dealer permit But can't just automatically revoke the dealer's permit, has to go through some due process protections, because, of course, those are very important, and those are all spelled out here. now unfortunately because of the time that we have been given I don't think it is wise to go through point by point an amendment that you all received yesterday and could have read on your own but I am happy to answer any questions as relates to this particular scheme and hope that I can garner your support so that we can do our work here and not delegate our work downstairs Thank you. Any further discussion on L021? Representative Richardson. Thanks, Madam Chair. Actually, this is a tremendous amendment for all the reasons that were stated. It is elegant, it is lengthy, but it is practical. And it allows us to know what the impact of legislation that we are pushing forward will actually be. hiding behind future rulemaking to eliminate fiscal notes just to get things to move is a technique but it's really not the best thing we can be doing for our citizens or those that we are seeking to impose penalties upon by and large the business people of this state are just trying to get by. They are going to follow the rules as they understand them, and they will make mistakes. But more often than not, in the vast majority, those are honest mistakes. We've seen several amendments that have just been cast aside that would have given some grace to those that are recognizably human and make human-like errors, but they were not accepted. We've said that massive fines are really never going to be given. They're just an upper limit. You don't put something in statute unless you expect it to happen. Unless you are specifically designing law to make it happen. And we shouldn't be offloading the dirty work to some regulatory agency. If we want something to happen, put it clearly in the bill, adopt this amendment. It is a good amendment.
Any further discussion on L021? Seeing none. The question before us is the adoption of L021 to House Bill 1126. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The no's have it. The amendment fails. To the bill, Representative Bottoms.
Thank you, Chair. Knowing that we often pass unconstitutional laws in this building, I come back with a very similar argument that I have many different times, that if there is confidence that this bill is constitutional, if both sides are confident that this is constitutional, then let's stand behind that and work toward maintaining that constitutionality. With that, I move 037 to 1126 and ask for it to be displayed. I gave you guys one.
037 is properly displayed. Please proceed.
This amendment basically says that if this bill is not constitutional, the whole bill is done. If it is constitutional, nothing to worry about here. If this is a constitutional bill and we have the constitutional right to impose all of these egregious effects into people's lives and financial penalties for actually believing in a second amendment, the Constitution, then this should be just fine. But if for some reason this is not constitutional and you can't impose all of these penalties, fees, fines, attacks, financial attacks, Second Amendment attacks into the average citizen and into anybody that is interacting in FFL, then this bill should be just fine. So I ask for an aye vote for the Constitution and also an aye vote for this amendment, both the amendment and the Constitution. I ask for an aye vote.
Representative Johnson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I also urge an aye vote for this amendment. If, in fact, you know, we say that nothing in this bill is unconstitutional, then guess what? This amendment does not take effect and does nothing. However, if constitutionality comes into play, this amendment saves us from having to come back into a special session. It saves us from having to face lawsuits. This is a great thing to have in a just-in-case moment. This is forward thinking. We need to be forward thinking for Colorado. We cannot afford any more lawsuits. We cannot afford a special session. It's already hot in the building now. Imagine coming back in August. I don't think we want to do that. So to encourage a no on a special session, a yes for the amendment, and a yes for the Constitution, please vote yes.
Representative Kelty.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I, too, stand in agreeance and support of this amendment. If you believe that your entire bill, if you're writing law that you believe in its entirety that it is constitutional, this amendment's a no-brainer. This should be an easy amendment to say, hey, I know that I put across good work. I know that I put across laws that are actually constitutional. And if the confidence is in your own law that you've created, the confidence is in yourself that you have created good law, then this amendment should be 100%. This should be welcomed. And I'm urging a yes vote.
Representative Barron.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know about all you colleagues, but I like options. This is a great option, great amendment. Do you concur, Madam Chair?
To the amendment.
Thank you. So, yes, this is a really good amendment, good option to be able to do this because of the reason that if you so sure it not unconstitutional let do it If it not unconstitutional great We were wrong bill moves forward If it is we told you so I urge a yes vote.
Representative Richardson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to frame what we're talking about, what the consequences of this bill could be, as we drive firearms dealers out of business in this state, potentially leaving citizens with no access to legally purchase or obtain a firearm, we are impacting potentially the rights that are protected by our Colorado State Constitution. So I know we've probably all memorized it by now, but Section 13 of Article 2 of the State Constitution reads, the right of no person to keep or bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in the aid of civil power when thereto legally summoned shall be called into question. We cannot perform our responsibility as citizens when summoned thereto to aid civil authorities, if we don't have access to firearms. So it may be a stretch. It may take a few laps around the Olympic-sized swimming pool that we haven't talked about today because one of our members isn't here. But this bill can impact our rights as citizens. And if it is found to, it should be struck down. So I would greatly appreciate us all upholding our oath and voting yes on this amendment.
Any further discussion on this amendment? Representative Woodrow.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, we would ask for a no vote on this amendment. So I value the Constitution deeply. I'm an attorney, and like all of you, I've sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. And I do believe that this bill is constitutional. Generally in Colorado law, we have a global severability provision, which states that if a piece or part of a statute that we enact is deemed to be unconstitutional, it doesn't kill the whole bill. And what this amendment seeks to do is to override that and say that if any piece of the bill is deemed unconstitutional, then the whole bill gets scrapped, which is something that I really don't think the minority party even wants because if this bill is scrapped, the current law in place which the division and stakeholders recognize is imperfect and needs improvement would be the default and it would stay the law. And so I respectfully request a no vote because in the very rare off chance that this finds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which it could because the only court that gets to review decisions from the Colorado Supreme Court is the United States Supreme Court, in the off chance that they would take this case and dean something in it unconstitutional like they did with Bruin or the other decisions, it would kill the whole bill and negate all the hard work that has gone into it. And so respectfully and in honor of the Constitution, I ask for a no vote.
Any further discussion on the amendment Seeing none the question before us is the adoption of Amendment 037 to House Bill 1126 All in favor say aye All opposed say no The no have it the amendment fails to the bill representative flannell thank you madam speaker chair madam chair I move amendment L 0 0 8 and ask that it properly be displayed the amendment is properly displayed please proceed
this amendment is an easy ask right now as an FFL ATF is only allowed to come and inspect records once a year at minimum, and I would ask that the Department of Revenue do the same unless the department has credible evidence of a violation of state or federal law or is acting pursuant to a criminal investigation. I don't think that state regulation should supersede federal regulation, and I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Any further discussion on L008? Seeing none, the question before us today is the adoption of L008 to House Bill 1126. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. No's have it. L008 fails. To the bill, Representative Kelty.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I move L053 to HB 1126. and I ask for it to be properly displayed.
The amendment is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We've been talking all day about easy amendments. Honestly, this is probably the easiest amendment of all the amendments to accept today. I spoke to the sponsors and I listened. This amendment basically states that no later than 14 days after conducting an inspection of a state permit holder, pursuant to the subsection 6, the department shall provide the state permit holder that a written summary of the findings of the inspection, except that if extenuating circumstances outside of the department's control prevent the department from providing the written summary within 14 days. The deadline for the department to provide the written summary to the state permit holder is extended an additional 14 days. So basically, if you're going to do a report on these individuals, on these businesses, and you have delinquencies, you find things that are at fault, you give them a report within 14 days. Should be no problem. However, we understand things happen. And in that situation, this amendment now provides an additional 14 days. You have 28 days to be able to give that report to the permit holder, to the one who had the discrepancies, to let them know what went wrong, what they found. This is right. When you're talking about making law, we should do what's right. This amendment allows that to be done. I asking for an aye vote from the sponsors As I said I listened They were concerned about the 14 days being a final deadline for the report because if something were to happen, and I agree with that. Things happen. So this allows yet another, an additional 14 days, 28 days, if something were to happen, as we discussed, to allow them to get that report. That's plenty enough time. I really don't see any issues with this. I hope the sponsors understand that I did listen, and I hope that they're listening to me and we can get a yes vote.
Any further discussion on L53? Representative Richardson.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I absolutely support my colleague in this. Again, it's reasonable. We're putting a lot of demands on small business owners, demanding perfection in many ways. If we can't at least put a little bit of a clock on state employees that we're tasking to go do our dirty work, then I'm not sure what we're doing here. Just to prove this. Let's take it. Let's make something reasonable happen with this bill.
Representative Barron.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I also come in support of this amendment. This is very, very reasonable. Thank you to the good representative from Colorado Springs. It is good to have a little bit, let's just put a little common sense into this. This is going to help out our businesses. And please, I urge a yes vote on this amendment. And thank you again for bringing it forward.
Representative Woodrow.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It remains rad to serve with you. It remains great to serve with you. Thank you. Colleagues, I would urge a no vote on the amendment. I do appreciate where the good representative is coming from on this. Just so you know, current practice from the division is that letters go out to FFLs summarizing the details of the investigation as soon as possible. But the division is still developing timelines and best practices. We need to remember that this is a new division still. It's only been around for a year or so. And so, you know, trying to impose upon them a 14 or with an extension 28-day deadline is a little too onerous. Perhaps this is something that in a year or two would make more sense once we have more data in terms of how long, you know, it takes for these reports to be generated. But most people are told of any issues same day. and it also depends on the complexity of the violations. I mean a clerical error is one thing. Something more substantial that requires more evidence gathering, more background might take longer and so we would ask for a no vote on this. Thank you. Representative Richardson. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you sponsor for pointing out
that this is a new division that really hasn't figured out how to do their job yet, what the rules should be, what timelines are reasonable. It really points to the fact that we just keep legislating year after year, adding more and more before it can be absorbed by even our state employees that have been tasked to carry out these laws, let alone the small business people that are trying to figure out how to implement last year's laws before we dump this year's laws on them. The word onerous was used. That is absolutely true. Thank you. What we are doing to our businesses is wrong. We are putting onerous requirements on them when we don't even know if our state agencies can carry out what we're tasking them to do. This amendment, along with all the others that have been submitted, should be approved. Any further discussion on L-53? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-53 to House Bill 1126. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Nose have it. The amendment fails. To the bill. Representative Brooks. Chair, thank you. I move L019 to House Bill 1126. That should be properly displayed. Might I remind you, Representative Brooks, props are not allowed in the well, including a paperclip. Just kidding. The amendment is properly displayed to the amendment. Thank you, Chair. The retention period is called out in the bill. On page 6, a little section there after page 17, basically the way that it is right now is that there is no specific retention period mentioned. It just says, Dealers shall make the records described in this section available at all times for inspection by a duly authorized peace officer. So in perpetuity, hang on to the paperwork, to be able to be inspected at all times. What this amendment does specifically is just try to draw a little bit of clarity around the retention period, saying that the retention period shall be seven years, which matches up, if I'm not mistaken, with alcohol, tobacco, firearm standards, seven-year retention period, and then at which time that FFL can dispose of the records in a manner befitting the sensitivity of the record, shredding, so on. So seven years saying, look, this is what we need to be able to get. Again, we're trying, I believe, the intent is try not to place onerous burdens, restrictions, these very difficult to achieve record-keeping mechanisms that we're asking of FFLs. Again, keeping in mind that many of them are family-owned businesses, small businesses. I have, by the way, I've got a good buddy of mine that is an FFL. He has been an FFL. He has held that for years, years. And yes, he runs a business as part of that. It important first of all to realize that there hardly any profit margin on firearms He going to make the vast majority of his profit off of gear tactical gear Off the firearm itself he not making any money It's really, it's just a mechanism to be able to establish a relationship with somebody in order to do other business. Mind you, my good friend that has been an FFL for years still has a full-time job. He has a full-time job that actually works probably, it's in the security industry. He works probably 60 hours a week. His FFL is based out of his home in rural parts of the state. Him retaining records or any, honestly, the fines, I know it's not this amendment, but any of these burdens upon which we're placing these individuals trying to run a business. I cannot even imagine what this bill might do to him. He'll decimate him, lose his family, lose his home, lose everything. It's more than just a business. He will lose everything, could lose everything. Keeping records for seven years consistent with the ATF standards is not a heavy lift. It's not a lot to ask. if we're trying to create regulation to make something in some of our minds better, can we please not do it in a manner that appears to look to destroy the very nature of the businesses? I would ask for a yes vote. Representative Kelty. Thank you, Madam Chair. and I stand up here in agreeance with my colleague from Castle Rock, and I support this amendment. It does fall within the guidelines of the ATF. Seven years is a good standard for them. It should be a good standard for us. You know, we mentioned that this is a new department. Well, it being a new department, there does need to be some guidelines. We put guidelines, we put restrictions, We put everything on our businesses, but we're not going to do it on the department that is going to regulate them, that is going to basically come after them, in my opinion. I mean, this bill, the bill that this amendment is attached to seems to not really care. I mean, it falls in line with them trying to constantly shut down anything to do with our second amendment. To the amendment, Representative Kelty. This amendment is important because we have businesses that are losing everything. It allows them to have the guidelines that they have to follow also be followed by the department that's coming after them. I'm asking for a yes vote. Any further discussion on L19? Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to note that the current form, DR 7602, actually states on its face that there's a three-year retention period for state transaction logs. The proposed seven-year period in this amendment would conflict with that by extending it by four years. It would also conflict with federal law, which requires retention for the life of the business for federal transaction logs. And just to be clear we talking about under federal law section 478 record retention states that the records prepared by licensed dealers and licensed collectors of the sale or other disposition of firearms and the corresponding record of receipt of such firearms shall be retained until the business or license activity is discontinued either on paper or an electronic alternate method approved by the director at the business or collection premise readily accessible for inspection Paper records that do not contain any disposition entries and with no dispositions recorded within 20 years may be stored at a separate warehouse, which shall be considered part of the business or collection premises for the purposes of the Act, and they are subject to inspection. So this amendment would allow dealers to destroy state transaction records after seven years. Again, that's four years longer than they're currently required to maintain them. and the ATF requires license dealers to maintain federal records until their business or license activity is discontinued. We understand where the amendment is coming from, but we would ask for a no vote. Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I truly appreciate the sponsor's response. He has just outlined for us how thorough and well thought out and well-established, the federal rules are for dealers across our nation, providing regularity, understandability, practical application. We don't need a state ATF. We have a fine federal one that's doing a great job, and that was just laid out for us in great detail by the sponsor. So whether this amendment passes or not, at this point, I think it will be not. I think what we really need to take away from this exchange is the federal ETF is doing a great job in regulating our firearms businesses, and we should be taking the money we're taking out of the pockets of our citizens and using it for something that makes a difference. So thanks for the discussion. Any further discussion on L19? L-19, seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-19 to 11-26. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. No's have it. L-19 fails. To the bill, Representative Bradfields. Thank you, Madam Chair. In this bill, it states that the records that the FFL is keeping, it needs to be available for inspection at any time. And really, folks, I think we need to be considerate of people and their businesses. So I would like to move Amendment 012 to House Bill 1126 and ask for it to be displayed. I need one for that. Turn it in. Oh, there you go. Thank you. L012 is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you. This is a very simple amendment. It just simply says that instead of just any time, 24 hours, 365, having the records being available during normal posted business hours and that the investigative purposes require the dealer consent or a warrant issued upon a probable cause Really, very simple, keeps it very easy to understand, and I ask for an aye vote on this amendment. Any further? Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the good representative from El Paso bringing this. Sometimes in this grand chamber, we lose track of what goes on in the real world around us. There are a lot of dealers out there that work out of their homes. It's a second job for them. They're not there at the beck and call of the state 24-7. Sometimes they're out at the firehouse, or they're serving as a deputy, or school teacher or other very valuable public service that is their day job. If we can't adjust to meet the calendars of the people we're trying to regulate, then we're no longer regulating. We're simply making them an arm of the state, and that's not what we should be doing. We need to recognize that small businesses are just that. They are parents. They're single parents sometimes. They've got to be off picking kids up from school. dropping them off. They're not going to be available every moment of every day. And if there is an investigation going on and they choose to cooperate, that's great. And if not, having a warrant for their record seems entirely appropriate. But let's look at this amendment for what it is. It's honestly presented in order to recognize that people do have lives outside of their jobs. outside of their FFL dealings, and we should recognize that. So I'd urge a yes vote. Any further discussion on L12? Representative Sirota. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this amendment probably still needs some work. There is perhaps a lack of clarity on what would even qualify as an investigative purpose in the context of an inspection. For example, what if a dealer has a compliance issue discovered upon routine or unannounced inspection that would necessitate an additional inspection at a later date due to ensure compliance? Would the second visit constitute an investigative purpose? And if that were the case, that would undermine the department's authority to actually enforce statutory requirements. And there could also be a fiscal impact to this amendment. So for those reasons, I would ask for a no vote. Any further discussion on L12? Seeing none, the question before us today is the adoption of L12 into 1126. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. L12 fails. To the bill. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment L043 and ask that it be displayed. Okay. Oh, L43 is properly displayed. Please proceed, Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the definition section of this bill, we find the term responsible person. And it's not explicitly laid out there. It's a reference. It's a reference to 27 CFR 478.11. That's what the meaning of responsible person is supposed to be in this bill. Now, under the terms of this bill, responsible persons are asked to do a variety of things or expected to do a variety of things. And so when we look at what that definition is, some questions arise. So that definition, 27 CFR 478.11, says any individual possessing directly or indirectly the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a sole proprietorship, corporation, company, partnership, or association, insofar as they pertain to firearms. It's interesting, right? It makes some sense on a surface level that you would want responsible persons to do certain things because they're somehow connected to the firearms being sold. It makes a lot of sense when you are talking about a sole proprietorship, right? An individual running an FFL out of their basement. makes sense even at a small business, a small corporation or company, partnership, etc., that you would have this, you know, one little shop. And I think that's what is in many people's minds related to these particular regulations. But what about department stores? What about when you get to a store where the C-suite is located in another state and they sell a variety of products and they just have one section of their store where firearms are sold. The C-suite would specifically fall under this because presumably the head of the business is an individual possessing, at least indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of that company as relates to firearms. At least I would hope that the person who is supposed to be at the top of all authority would have the authority to direct related to this. But more than likely, they don't get into the nitty-gritty of these questions. More than likely, they have layers below them of folks who actually do the management and direction of this. And as I mentioned, some of these companies, these big box stores, are multi-state if not multinational. And so to expect any individual, any, because that's the definition that is referenced here, any individual who possesses either directly or indirectly the power to direct or cause the direction of these management and policies, incorporates a whole host of folks that I don't think should be subject to these regulations. So I have submitted a new definition, a definition that says an individual who directs the dealer's management of and policies for firearms. This is the person who is directly responsible for making the decisions. If you know we understanding the bill sponsors intent properly then the intention is that the people making these policies and managing these products all are subject to understand come into compliance with this particular bill And I'll just give an example because one of the things in the bill related to responsible persons is that no responsible person can be, what does it say here, on page four, No responsible person can have been convicted of a violation, right, of any provision of this article or any other state law concerning possession, purchase, or sale, or any federal law concerning the possession or sale. There's other one. I'm missing it here. Must not have... Sorry, I missed it. In any case, we don't want to preclude people from being able to succeed in the corporate world because they're in the department, they're the COO, and ten layers below them is some guy who handles the particular policies and regulations as relates to firearm sales. We don't want to preclude that guy because somehow he has violated a law related to a former felon and can't possess a firearm. And so in any case, I just would ask that we narrow the definition so as to touch the people who actually have control and not be so broad strokes that it touches absolutely everyone who may be working in a facility in a managing capacity that may sell firearms. Any further discussion? Representative Richardson. Another great amendment brought to you by the party of Lincoln. It probably will not be accepted. but to add specificity to a bill is very important we shouldn't be releasing to the wild something that is just going to be sitting in rulemaking that could turn into something we don't understand I think the previous member just identified something that could be misinterpreted and brought definition to it good amendment, vote yes any further discussion on L43 Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L43 to House Bill 1126. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. The amendment fails. To the bill. Representative Flannell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask that L015 be moved. Can you move it, please? I ask to move L015, and I wish to... I move L015 and ask that it properly be displayed. The amendment is properly displayed. Please proceed. This amendment just asks that personal information, such as the information collected in these forms, as well as the firearms that people own, that there is no online registry created, because it is not the government's business as to what we own, who owns it, and I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Any further discussion? Representative Woodrow. Representative Barron. Thank you Madam Chair I come and support this amendment Yeah personal data to people are very very important So I think we should protect them even if we of course we disagree with this whole thing But let's just pretend like you're going to throw us a bone or something. Because this is a good amendment to protect people with their personal data. We don't want that to be out for any corporation or any government agency to be able to use it, to see it, to track us, to know what exactly we have. Like, come on, it's nobody's business what we have. So I reach an aye vote. Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to Representative Flannell for bringing another good amendment. Colleagues, we would ask for a yes vote. We see no issue with the amendment. While I do so, I want to make clear, because it's important to note that under CRS 29-11.7-102 firearms database prohibited, a firearms registry is already explicitly prohibited by law. under 29-11.7-102. One, a local government, including a law enforcement agency, shall not maintain a list or other form of record or database of A, persons who purchase or exchange firearms or who leave firearms for repair or sale on consignment, B, persons who transfer firearms unless the persons are federally licensed firearms dealers, or C, the descriptions including serial numbers of firearms purchased, transferred, exchanged, or left for repair or sale on consignment. This is to say that record retention in uncentralized locations, privatized by dealer access and made available upon inspection, is also not considered a registry. Additionally, CRS 29-11.7102 does not prohibit the state from requiring dealers to keep such records themselves. We are okay with an aye vote. Any further discussion on L115? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L015 to House Bill 1126. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Amendment passes. To the bill, Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 26-1126 layers a new state regulatory regime on top of existing federal ATF oversight by expanding who must be licensed, extending record-keeping to all firearm transactions, imposing detailed physical security mandates, and authorizing the Department of Revenue to fine dealers up to $1,000 for a second or subsequent violation. Its worst aspects are that it largely duplicates federal rules, forces dealers to maintain parallel records and double reporting, and sets six-figure fines that can easily put small shops out of business. small businesses are going to be affected by this by making it significantly costly significantly costlier and riskier to be an FFL in Colorado the bill shrinks the regulated dealer network that background check-based policy depends on pushing some commerce toward less visible less regulated channels I ensure you we don't need to do this although we've heard that all morning now into the afternoon that there are many concerns. And again, Colorado is pushing small business out of the state. And I know in House District 63, I hear from folks all the time, my small dealers, those who have FFLs, are struggling because people are going to Wyoming. They going to Nebraska They going to Kansas because it easier more cost to do this and that hurts the small business owners who are trying to feed their families who are trying to help the communities in which they serve. And something that is very concerning about this bill is we're rushing it through with the safety clause. Why are we doing this when we should be instead advocating for we, the people, the people who elected us? I move L036 to House Bill 1126 and ask that it be properly displayed. While we're getting this properly displayed, members, we have eight minutes and nine seconds left in this debate. L36 is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you can see on the board, it is nothing new that we haven't seen in this building. L036 to House Bill 1126 would act subject to petition. This would go, if you look at the screen, into effect after a 90-day period that allows for we, the people, to examine this. The people that this is going to affect, the small businesses should have a voice in this. And it's very hard for them to have a voice when this building is very hard to keep up with. We go into long hours debate or we go into short hours of debate, and that fluctuates with when our committees can be heard. Because we don't have definite times on when our committees can be heard, are business owners who operate typically anywhere from 7 to 5, 8 to 5, 9 to 6, 10 to 6, business hours, have a hard time to get here to the state capitol, a capitol that's supposed to represent we the people. I have heard from many of my small businesses, many of those who have FFL, saying it's very hard to figure out how to take a whole day off just for a bill to be pushed into the next day or another committee. It's very hard when they're told to come at 9 or 10 a.m. and they don't get a talk until 6 or 7 p.m. Or vice versa. They say expect a long day on the floor. We won't be talking until the afternoon. And then we rush things and we start committees at 10 or 11 a.m. and we are messing with the people schedule. By moving to a petition clause that won't take effect until August 12th of 2026, we allow the people to have time to examine this. We slow the process. We turned down the heat, which we have talked about doing all 65 days of session. We are already at the halfway point. And we are going to continue rushing things through and taking away the will of the people. Because this is adding more costs, it's adding six-figure fees. Should we not have the people that is effects have the ability to have their voice heard on a petition? We've already limited today's debate to three hours. That infringes on our First Amendment, us who are representing our districts, because I just mentioned our districts, the folks who own these small businesses, are struggling to come to committees to be able to testify. And I will hear, but we have Zoom. Unless the Zoom isn't working, technology is not always perfect. We saw this yesterday in committee when someone was trying to register to testify, and they were unable to because it got backlogged in the system. So sure, we have ways that they can show. And with that, I would urge a yes vote on the petition clause. Seeing any further discussion on L36? Representative Flannell? No. Seeing no further discussion on L36, the question before us is the adoption of L36. Next to House Bill 1126, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. L36 fails. To the bill, Representative Flannell. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have one last amendment, and I move amendment L055 and ask that it properly be displayed. Members, I spoke to the bill sponsors. Representative Flannell, if you could wait until it's properly displayed. I got too excited. L55 is properly displayed. Please proceed. I've spent a lot of time speaking to the sponsors about certain amendments that they would accept, and they have been willing to accept a few. One of the amendments that they are willing to bring down the cost to replace the fee of $100,000 with $75,000, though I think that this is still a lot of money and that this can definitely put a small business out of business I do think that it is a move in the right direction and I do appreciate it as a small business owner myself I do realize that $25,000 is a significant amount and so I urge a aye vote, thank you. Any further discussion on L55, Representative Woodrow Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you again to Representative Flannell for such constructive engagement on the bill. While we would prefer to keep it at $100,000, this is part of a negotiation. I do think that $75,000, and so does my co-prime sponsor, we do think that setting the maximum fine at $75,000 still is a high enough number that it won't simply become a cost of doing business for larger operators to violate the law and then say, well, here's your money. You know, I would disagree that it's a step in the right direction, but in the spirit of compromise, we would urge an aye vote. Any further discussion on L55? Seeing none, the question before us today is the adoption of L55 to House Bill 1126. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. L55 passes. To the bill. Representative Luck. Two minutes and 38 seconds.
thank you madam chair i move amendment l52 and ask that it be displayed
l52 is properly displayed please proceed thank you madam chair under this bill because of the
safety clause in the effectiveness section the requirements basically become effective right away, which does not leave our FFLs any time to actually comply. So I ask that the bill sponsors support the idea of making this act effective July 1st, 2026. There are other firearm related bills that are going through the system that Barring a Miracle will pass through and those effectiveness dates are July 1st, 2026. And so to be in compliance and help our FFLs all have a similar time frame within which to work and to get all of the things done they need to get, all the new equipment and training, et cetera, et cetera, I ask for an aye vote.
Representative Woodrow.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, colleagues. We, I believe, have about a minute and 10 seconds left for the debate on this bill. And this is a really tough amendment because July 1st is a very special date for me given that it my birthday but I am going to need to ask for a no vote We do need this legislation to be effective upon signing and so even though I love July 1st respectfully to you know Representative Luck
I ask for a no vote. Thank you. Any further discussion on L52? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L52 to 1126. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The no's have it. The amendment fails. Representative Soper to the bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L017 and ask that it be properly displayed.
L017 is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this adds a sunset repeal date of 2031, and that's from the premise that if we're going to treat FFLs here in Colorado as a licensed profession, then we need to do so in every regards. And for every other licensed profession that is through the state legislature, we do have a repeal date to where we come back and we see whether or not we're going to keep that. All those sunset reports that you read every year, this ties in exactly with that, and we would ask for a yes vote.
Representative Woodrow.
With the remaining 10 seconds, I ask for a no vote. Currently, the division is required annually.
Time for this bill has expired. The question before us today is the adoption of L-17. to House Bill 1126, L52 to House Bill 1126. No wait, sorry. L17 to House Bill 1126. All in favor say aye. Wait, stop, stop, stop. Let me redo it. No. Oh. Are you serious? Yeah. OK. Just hold on a second. Go with. We don't have to do it. We want to reset. Everybody breathe. Nobody go on. You ready? I'm ready. Thank you. Thank you. L7. The question before us is adoption of Amendment L17. A division has been requested. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please sit and remain seated. All those in favor of All those in favor of L17 please stand and remain standing. In one place. Or raise your hands and keep it raised until the count is taken. You may be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing in one place, or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. Thank you. Thank you. You may be seated. Amendment L17 is lost. The question before us is... The question before us is the passage of House Bill 1126 as amended and a division has been requested. The question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1126. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please sit and remain seated. All those in favor of House Bill 1126, please stand and remain standing in one place, or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. All those in favor of 1126, please stand and remain standing. The people drive Nice job Nice job. You did it. It's a piece of stuff. Okay. I feel right now. I got it for you. You messed up. You all put in the background. I don't know. Thank you. You may be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing in one place. Raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. more and You may be seated. House Bill 1126 is passed. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 26004.
Senate Bill 4 by Senators Sullivan and Gonzalez, also representatives Froehlich and Wilford, concerning who may petition to court for an extreme risk protection order. I request the bill be read at length in a British accent.
committee um we will first we will first begin with that the time for this bill is two hours that bill uh that time starts now with that representative richardson
well it has been previously arranged i do request the bill be read at length in the accent of those that we separated from 250 years ago and claimed our freedom.
That was a proper motion. Oh, stand by. The committee will go into a brief recess. The committee will come back to order. Representative Froelich.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 4. and the committee report.
To the committee report. Just the bill.
I move Senate Bill 4.
That is a proper motion. To the bill. Representative Richardson.
Let's try this a third time. For no apparent reason, I request the bill be read at length.
That is a proper motion. The bill will be read at length.
1 be it enacted by in the general assembly of the state of Colorado two section one in Colorado revised statutes 13-14.5-102 amend 3 1 2 and 11 and add 6.5 as follows for 13-14.5-102 in Colorado revised statutes 13-14.5-102 amend 3 1 2 and 11 and add 6.5 as follows for 13-14.5-102 13-14.5-102 amend 3 1 2 and 11 and add 6.5 as follows for 13-14.5-102 definitions 5 as used in this article 14.5 unless the context otherwise clearly 6 requires 7 1 community member means 8 a a licensed healthcare professional or mental health 9 professional who through a direct professional relationship provided 10 care to the respondent or the respondent's child within 6 months before 11 requesting the protection order or 12 13 b an educator who through a direct professional relationship 14 interacted with the respondent or the respondents child within six months 15 before requesting the protection order or 16c a co-responder who is part of a co-responder 17 community response as defined in section 24-32-3501 8d who 18in their capacity as a co-responder or a community member as 19 defined in this section who as part of a law enforcement agency 20 or emergency response team provides on-site crisis assessment 21 de-escalation or intervention services to individuals in crisis 22 who interacted with the respondent or the respondent's child 23 within six months before requesting the protection order but 24 who is not a law enforcement officer who responded to a 25 behavioral health-related call involving the respondent. Dash 2. Zero zero four. 1. 2. Educator means a teacher employed to instruct students or to a school administrator in a school district, private school, charter school three institute, or an individual charter school, or a faculty member at an four institution of higher education, including a community college, a five local district college, or an area technical college. 6. 6.5. Institutional petitioner means an entity that 7 employs or contracts with a community member as defined in this 8 section, including, but not limited to 9. A. A school district. 10. B. A private school. 11. C. The state charter school institute created in section 1222-30.5-503. 13. D. An individual district charter school or institute 14 charter school. 15. E. An institution of higher education, including a 16 community college, a local district college, or an area 17. Technical College, 18, F, a hospital OR healthcare facility licensed IN-19 accordance with the requirements OF Part 1 OF Article 3 OF Title 2025, OR 21, G, a behavioral health or substance use disorder 22, Treatment facility, behavioral health entities, or other facility 23, where behavioral health crisis services are offered 24, 11, Respondent, means the person, including a person under 25 18 years old who is identified as the respondent in a petition 26 filed pursuant to this article 14.5 27, Section 2 In Colorado revised statutes 13-14.5-103 amend 3-004 1-1-A and 1-B as follows 2-13-14.5-103 Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Orders 3-1-A a family or household member of the respondent a 4-community member an institutional petitioner or a law enforcement 5 officer or agency may request a temporary extreme risk protection order 6 without notice to the respondent by including in the petition for the 7 risk protection order an affidavit signed under oath and penalty 8 of perjury supporting the issuance of a temporary Extreme Risk Protection 9 order that sets forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the 10 petition or the reason for believing they exist and, if the petitioner is a 11 family or household member or community member, testing that the 12 petitioner is a family or household member or community member. The 13 petition must comply with the requirements of section 13-14.5-104, 3. 14 if the petitioner is a law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency. 15 and if the law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency 16 has probable cause to believe the respondent has firearms 17 within their custody, control, or possession the law enforcement 18 officer or law enforcement agency shall concurrently file a sworn 19 affidavit for a court to issue a search warrant pursuant to section 2016-3-301.5 to search for any firearms in the possession, custody, or 21 control of the respondent at a location or locations to be named in the 22 warrant If a petition filed pursuant to section 27-65-106 is also filed 23 against the respondent, a court of competent jurisdiction may hear that 24 petition at the same time as the hearing for a temporary extreme risk 25 protection order or the hearing for a continuing extreme risk protection 26 order 27, b, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a Dash 4, 004 1 licensed healthcare professional, or mental health professional, 2 community member or institutional petitioner authorized to file a 3 petition for a temporary extreme risk protection order
Mr. Chair, I have a request.
any records or 15 documents relating to diagnosis.
At request of the original motion, the reading has been stopped. Representative Richardson.
Thank you. It's been pointed out that we are Americans, not British, and I would request that the bill be read in a standard American accent.
In honor of our 250th anniversary, that request is honored. Please continue the reading. Thank you.
That may petition a court for an extreme risk protection order. 1 be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado, 2 section 1. In Colorado revised statutes, 13-14.5-102, amend 3, 1, 2, and, 11, and add, 6.5, as follows, 413-14.5-102. Definitions. 5 as used in this article 14.5, unless the context otherwise clearly 6 requires, 7, 1, community member, means, 8, a, a licensed healthcare professional or mental health 9 professional who, through a direct professional relationship, provided 10 care to the respondent. or the respondent's child within six months before 11 requesting the protection order, or 12.13. B. An educator who, through a direct professional relationship, 14 interacted with the respondent or the respondent child within six months 15 before requesting the protection order or 16 C A co responder who is part of a co responder 17 community response as defined in section 24 dash 32 8 d who 18 in their capacity as a co responder or a community member as 19 defined in this section who as part of a law enforcement agency 20 or emergency response team provides on-site crisis assessment 21d escalation or intervention services to individuals in crisis 22 who interacted with the respondent or the respondent's child 23 within six months before requesting the protection order but 24 who is not a law enforcement officer who responded to a 25 behavioral health-related call involving the respondent dash two zero zero four one two educator means a teacher employed to instruct students or two a school administrator in a school district private school charter school three institute or an individual charter school or a faculty member at an four institution of higher education including a community college a five local district college or an area technical college 6 6.5 institutional petitioner means an entity that seven employees or contracts with a community member as defined in this eight section including but not limited to 9 a a school district 10 b a private school 11 c the state charter school institute created in section 1222-30.5-503 13 d an individual district charter school or institute 14 charter school 15 e an institution of higher education including a 16 community college a local district college or an area 17 technical college 18 f a hospital or health care facility licensed in 19 accordance with the requirements of part 1 of article 3 of title 2025 or 21 g a behavioral health or substance use disorder 22 treatment facility behavioral health entities or other facility 23 where behavioral health crisis services are offered 24 11 respondent means the person including a person under 25 18 years old who is identified as the respondent in a petition 26 filed pursuant to this article 14.5 27 section 2 in colorado revised statutes 13-14.5-103 amend dash 3-004 1-1 a and 1 b as follows 2-13-14.5-103 temporary extreme risk protection orders 3-1 a family or household member of the respondent a 4-community member an institutional petitioner or a law enforcement five officer or agency may request a temporary extreme risk protection order six without notice to the respondent by including in the petition for the seven extreme risk protection order an affidavit signed under oath and penalty eight of perjury supporting the issuance of a temporary extreme risk protection nine order that sets forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the ten petition or the reason for believing they exist and if the petitioner is a eleven family or household member or community member attesting that the twelve petitioner is a family or household member or community member the thirteen petition must comply with the requirements of section 13-14.5-104, 3.14 if the petitioner is a law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency, 15 and if the law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency, 16 has probable cause to believe the respondent has firearm 17 within their custody, control, or possession, the law enforcement 18 officer or law enforcement agency shall concurrently file a sworn 19 affidavit for a court to issue a search warrant pursuant to section 2016-3-301.5 to search for any firearms in the possession, custody, or 21 control of the respondent at a location or locations to be named in the 22 warrant. If a petition filed pursuant to section 27-65-106 is also filed 23 against the respondent, a court of competent jurisdiction may hear that 24 petition at the same time as the hearing for a temporary extreme risk 25 protection order or the hearing for a continuing extreme risk protection 26 order. 27 b notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary a dash four zero zero four one licensed healthcare professional or mental health professional two community member or institutional petitioner authorized to file a three petition for a temporary extreme risk protection order upon filing the four petition for a temporary extreme risk protection order is authorized to five disclose protected health information of the respondent as necessary for 6 The full investigation and disposition of the request for a temporary 7 Extreme risk protection order When disclosing protected health 8. Information the licensed health care professional or mental health 9. Professional community member or institutional petitioner shall 10. Make reasonable efforts to limit protected health information to the 11. Minimum necessary to accomplish the filing of the petition upon receipt 12. Of a petition by a licensed health care professional or mental health 13. Professional community member or institutional petitioner and 14. for good cause shown the court may issue orders to obtain any records or 15 documents relating to diagnosis prognosis or treatment and clinical 16 records of the respondent as necessary for the full investigation and 17 disposition of the petition for a temporary extreme risk protection order 18 when protected health information is disclosed or when the court receives 19 any records or documents related to diagnosis prognosis or treatment or 20 clinical records the court shall order that the parties are prohibited from 21 using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other 22 than the proceedings for a petition for a temporary extreme risk protection 23 order and shall order the return to the covered entity or destroy the 24 protected health information including all copies made at the end of the 25 litigation or proceeding the court shall seal all records and other health 26 information received that contain protected health information the 27 decision of a licensed healthcare professional or mental health dash 5 0 0 4 one professional community member or institutional petitioner to to disclose or not to disclose records or documents relating to the diagnosis, 3 prognosis or treatment, and clinical records of a respondent, when made 4 reasonably and in good faith, shall not be the basis for any civil, 5 administrative, or criminal liability with respect to the licensed 6 healthcare professional, or mental health professional, community 7 member or institutional petitioner. 8 Section 3. In Colorado revised statutes, 13-14.5-104, amend 9, 1, A, and, 1, B, as follows, 1013-14.5-104. Petition for extreme risk protection order. 11. 1. A petition for an extreme risk protection order may be filed 12 by a family or household member of the respondent, a community 13 member, an institutional petitioner, or a law enforcement officer or 14 agency. If the petition is filed by a law enforcement officer or agency, a 15 county or city attorney shall represent the officer or agency in any judicial 16 proceeding upon request. If the petition is filed by a family or household 17 member or community member, the petitioner, to the best of the 18 petitioners ability, shall notify the law enforcement agency in the 19 jurisdiction where the respondent resides of the petition and the hearing 20 date with enough advance notice to allow for participation or attendance 21 upon the filing of a petition the court shall appoint an attorney to 22 represent the respondent and the court shall include the appointment in 23 the notice of hearing provided to the respondent pursuant to section 24 13-14.5-105 1a the respondent may replace the attorney within 25 attorney of the respondent's own selection at any time at the respondent's 26 own expense the court shall pay the attorney fees for an attorney 27 appointed for the respondent 1. b. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a 2. licensed health care professional, or mental health professional, 3. community member or institutional petitioner authorized to file a 4. petition for an extreme risk protection order, upon filing the petition for 5. an extreme risk protection order, is authorized to disclose protected health 6. information of the respondent as necessary for the full investigation and 7. disposition of the petition for an extreme risk protection order. When 8. Disclosing protected health information, the licensed healthcare 9 professional, or mental health professional, community member, or 10. Institutional petitioner shall make reasonable efforts to limit 11. Protected health information to the minimum necessary to accomplish the 12. Filing of the request. Upon receipt of a petition by a licensed healthcare 13. Professional, or mental health professional, community member or 14. Institutional petitioner, and for good cause shown, the court may 15 issue orders to obtain any records or documents relating to diagnosis 16 prognosis or treatment and clinical records of the respondent as 17 necessary for the full investigation and disposition of the petition for an 18 extreme risk protection order when protected health information is 19 disclosed or when the court receives any records or documents related to 20 diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment or clinical records. The court shall order 21 that the parties are prohibited from using or disclosing the protected 22 health information for any purpose other than the proceedings for a 23 petition for an extreme risk protection order and shall order the return to 24 the covered entity or destroy the protected health information, including 25 all copies made at the end of the litigation or proceeding. The court shall 26 seal all records and other health information received that contain 27 protected health information. The decision of a licensed health care. Dash 7, 004 1 professional, or mental health professional, community member or 2 institutional petitioner to disclose or not to disclose records or 3 documents relating to the diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment, and clinical 4 records of a respondent, when made reasonably and in good faith, must 5 not be the basis for any civil, administrative, or criminal liability with 6 respect to the licensed healthcare professional, or mental health 7 professional, community member or institutional petitioner 8 section 4 In Colorado revised statutes, 13-14.5-107, amend 9, 2, b, as follows, 1013-14.5-107. Termination or renewal of protection orders. 11, 2, renewal. 12, b, a petitioner, a family, or household member of a respondent, 13, a community member, an institutional petitioner, or a law 14 enforcement officer or agency may, by motion, request a renewal of an 15 extreme risk protection order at any time within 63 calendar days 16 before the expiration of the order. 17 section 5 in colorado revised statutes 13-14.5-113 amend 18 1 and 4 as follows 19 13-14.5-113 liability 20 1 except as provided in section 13-14.5-111 this article 14.5 21 does not impose criminal administrative or civil liability on any person 22 including a community member an institutional petitioner or entity 23 for acts or omissions made in good faith related to obtaining an extreme 24 risk protection order or a temporary extreme risk protection order 25 including but not limited to reporting declining to report investigating 26 declining to investigate filing or declining to file a petition pursuant to 27 this article 14.5 this article 14.5 does not impose criminal or civil dash 8 004 one liability on a peace officer lawfully enforcing an order pursuant to this 2 article 14.5 3 4 this article 14.5 does not require a family or household four member of the respondent a community member an institutional five petitioner or a law enforcement officer or agency to file a petition for six a temporary emergency extreme risk protection order or petition for an seven extreme risk protection order eight section six safety clause the general assembly finds nine determines and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate ten preservation of the public peace health or safety or for appropriations for eleven the support and maintenance of the departments of the of the state and state 12 institutions. Dash 9-004.
All right, we will move to the bill, Senate Bill 004. Representative Bradley.
OK.
There we go.
Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to serve with you. It's a pleasure to serve with you. So we heard a lot about this bill, And I wanted to bring some of what I believe are the unintended consequences of this bill. So I move Amendment L050 and ask for it to be displayed.
That is a proper motion. Give us a moment to get it displayed. That is properly displayed. To the amendment, Representative Bradley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. A court shall not grant a petition for a temporary extreme risk protection order if the petitioner is the assaultive party of domestic violence or stalking in a previously filed criminal case against the respondent in the current petition for a temporary extreme risk protection order and it goes on to say a court shall not grant a petition for an extreme risk protection order if the petitioner is the assaultive party of a domestic violence or stalking in a previously filed criminal case against a respondent in the current petition for an extreme risk protection order. And I come to you not because I believe that this is a violation of due process and burden of proof concerns. I believe that ERPOs are civil orders, not criminal convictions, yet they can remove a constitutional right. And I believe that this has widespread ability to be misused in several situations. Victims of domestic violence or harassment could be falsely accused by an abuser seeking control. That's the whole process of domestic violence. It's someone taking control or power over someone less powerful. A bad actor can weaponize the system, file an ERPO with many people under this bill, their health care worker, whoever they want, trigger firearm removal, leave the victim defenseless during a vulnerable period. An abusive partner doesn't need a weapon if they can use the legal system to disarm their victim. ERPO laws target people deemed at risk, but victims of stalking or assault are often in high-risk categories themselves. Temporary firearm removal may leave them unable to defend against repeat offenders and known threats. These laws assume the state can protect you, but police response is minutes away when danger is seconds away. and in rural Colorado, 45 minutes to an hour away. ERPO petitions rely on predicting future behavior, which is inherently subjective. Stalking reports have come out in Colorado. Domestic violence reports have come out in Colorado. Over 36,000 domestic violence incidents are reported each year in Colorado. Each incident typically involves at least one victim, so this is often used as a baseline estimate of victims annually. stalking 60,000 to 90,000 stalking victims per year in our state alone. 60,000 to 90,000 stalking victims per year in Colorado alone. And with this, because there's no due process involved, a stalker or a domestic violence offender can file an ERPO against the victim. And then the victim has no rights to defend themselves and their families. And I will tell you, as a victim of stalking for the last year of my life, this is important to understand unintended consequences. If my stalker had turned, the roles were reversed, and filed an ERPO against me and my ability to protect my four children, this is the unintended consequences of what this bill will do. This is a great amendment. Carve these people out. Make sure domestic violence victims and stalking victims aren't re-victimized. I've been victimized for a year of my life, and I came to work every day. But I will be damned if I don't protect my children and continue to jump through hoop after hoop. I am a mama bearer. 60,000 to 90,000 stalking victims every year. Carve them out. Make sure they can protect themselves from these psychotic people that harass them on a daily basis I speaking to you personally as one of those 60 victims This is an amendment that should be accepted I will call this amendment People that are victims of domestic violence and stalking should be protected. They shouldn't be falsely accused and have their guns taken away. I own guns. I own a lot of guns. and I will protect my family and I will not let laws like this falsely accuse me and lose my Second Amendment constitutional rights from someone who has come after my family for a year
while I was waiting for people to lock him up. I will not do it. Carve them out. Protect people. I don't come up here a lot to be well yeah I do actually. I do come up here a little. I do. You're welcome, Colorado. I do. I do. But I will tell you this has been one of the hardest years of my life, and I will not be a victim. I will not be a victim. And I will not be falsely accused so that my Second Amendment rights are taken. I'm coming asking for bipartisanship. Show the domestic violence victims and the stalking victims of our state that we will not be falsely accused and have our second amendment rights taken. I urge an aye vote. Representative Barron. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also support this amendment, of course. It's a great amendment. In passing this bill, I understand that the bill's sponsors are trying to protect people. Unfortunately, it's not the right way. This is just one of those pieces that we can actually fix. just one, to protect the people that are being stalked. 60,000 to 90,000 alone in Colorado. That's 60,000 to 90,000 people that could be exempt from this, that can protect themselves from people that are stalking them. It is very easily understood that the stalkers could use this, use this law, use this bill to disarm their victims. Very easy. In the spirit of Infringement Day, I urge an aye vote. Any further discussion on Amendment L50? Representative Brooks. Chair, thank you. Stand to support this amendment. there have been several times I know that we all know because we've sat in committee sat in this chamber there have been many times that there have been personal stories of domestic violence that our members can either relate to from a personal standpoint or they know others that have. I believe that this amendment speaks directly to those stories, speaks directly to the ability to ensure that we're not creating a hole in a law that predators can take advantage of. Those that are predatory in nature seek to prey on the vulnerable if we are not protecting the vulnerable from the predators we are in effect supporting the predators There are different ways that you could argue against this amendment. And I imagine that we'll hear some of those arguments soon. but what we ought to be doing is ought not to come up with arguments simply to try to strike down what somebody on this side comes up with because it came out of this side I believe that the verbiage of this amendment is very reasonable it seeks to protect if that is not what we're doing here I'm a little unclear because we ought to be seeking to protect. We ought to be seeking to ensure that we're not creating loopholes, that we're not creating opportunities for predators and for those that are of a violent nature to be able to take advantage of those that are not able, already proven, to defend themselves. I have several guns around my house. There's a shotgun right by my bed. Now, I will tell you this, that if you want to make an argument that victims of domestic violence are likely to have the guns taken away from them and used against them, I suppose you can make that. I find it to be hollow. If somebody breaks into my home and I'm not there and my wife goes to get to the shotgun and is used against her, at least you tried, man. Not going down without a fight. Not going down without a fight. We're going to ask people to go down without a fight? because there's statistics saying that, ah, that gun might be turned around on them. How can we ask people to go down without a fight? This is a very reasonable amendment. Again, it seeks to protect those that have already been shown to be in harm's way. The laws of Colorado that we make here are supposed to be for a reason, than they're supposed to be to help protect some of those folks. I would ask for an aye vote. Representative Slaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is a fantastic amendment. One of the biggest problems that I have with extreme risk protection orders is that it gives people with ill intent the possible opportunity to take away the personal protection of other individuals. That would obviously be the case of something that somebody who had an order against them would try to do to somebody to weaken that individual stance and keep them from being able to protect themselves. This is a great amendment. This is something I think is almost so obvious that it should be a unanimous yes on this. Thank you. Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I come in strong support of this amendment. You all know my story when it comes to domestic violence, and there were very close cases where this could have impacted my mother specifically because there were some counter arguments that my dad tried to take to the courts to basically paint her as a perpetrator and the perpetrator. the reason why we were in the situation to begin with. And I think looking after domestic violence, people, and victims, we shouldn't be able to take away their privilege to defend themselves, especially when the perpetrator, you know, the time and process when it comes to these trials and convictions and the whole process, knowing and seeing it for myself takes a long time. And I think that we should be able to make sure we look after our victims who want to defend themselves, and we should not make it easy to go after people who wanted to defend themselves in these type of cases, especially when it comes to domestic violence and i think this is something that i hope the sponsors will consider um it's a good amendment and i think i speak for people who have gone through domestic violence whether it's um you know children or relatives of people who have gone through domestic violence we want to make sure we defend ourselves and not do any ill harm or an intent you know the unintended consequences of the policy that we are going to push forward today making sure that we look after our victims and make sure that they're safe that they're able to be protected because I think that's what we all want. And so I would encourage an aye vote on this amendment. Thank you. Representative Bradfield. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really encourage you all to vote yes on this amendment. This might not be a situation you're familiar with, but I think we can all put ourselves in that situation. and why not have a bill that is really complete, that has thought out various circumstances that would need a protective order. So for that reason, I encourage a yes vote. Representative Kelsey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I stand here in support of this amendment as well. So we have to make sure that if we want protection for individuals, we have to look at the full scope. And when a bill or something can be utilized as a weapon versus the protection that you're intending, then that must be adhered to. As a survivor of domestic violence, I could see how the person who was in my life could use this to further the threat to me and harassment and abuse. And I would never want that to happen to anyone. So being able to protect women like myself from laws being utilized or turned on us that were technically supposed to protect us, I think it's important that we acknowledge and realize the other side, and I call it the dark side. So if we can prevent that from happening, I'm so sorry. That would be the best thing to do. I lost my words. But that's why I stand in support of this amendment, because we don want to put people who don deserve to be put in harm way from monsters who mean to do them harm at any means possible and who can twist something to come after them when they the ones who need to be protected So I'm asking for a yes vote on this amendment so we can do that. Thank you. Representative Barron. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, sorry, I'm coming up here again because I thought of a good point that I just thought of while I was listening to some conversation. This would also protect, for example, myself. Let's say somebody was stalking my wife, and that stalker wanted to disarm her. My wife owns guns. I own guns. And that stalker does this ERPO on her. That would also include my guns, because it would be in the household. So what fault of mine would that be? I would also be disarmed. So I believe that this is a good amendment, not just for the women that need to be protected, but also for myself, or the husband, or the opposite, let's say a man does it, you know, the wife as well. So this would disarm the wrong people as well. So I truly think this is a good amendment. I won't take too much time on it, But this is a great amendment, and let's get this passed. Thank you. Any further discussion on Amendment L50? Representative Slaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the discussion that was happening after we had spoken, and this point came up about who owns firearms and in the household and things like that, I realize I don't think my wife owns anything in our home, firearm-related. But she's trained. She's familiar with how to protect herself if need be. And she would depend on things that belonged to me. and if for some reason I made somebody upset at me and they thought a good way to get back at me was to petition the court to have my firearms removed, that would leave my wife and my kids defenseless because my firearms had been removed. So to the great point of my colleague also from Weld County about how he owns some, but his wife owned some too, and if either of them had one of these petitions filed against them, all of the firearms in that household would be taken. Even if it was against me, my wife would be left defenseless also, as would my children. And I don't know that I think that that is an appropriate or proper response or situation for us to be placed in. I think this, again, is a great amendment that helps to settle the question that individuals who mean to do a person harm are not the right person to be filing any kind of a petition. Thank you. Any further discussion on Amendment L50? Representative Froelich. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. and thank you for bringing this amendment and this discussion. It is so important. I think you have bill sponsors here who have a track record legislatively of looking out for survivors of violence. The point of an extreme risk pretension order is to keep folks safe from folks who wish to do them harm who are experiencing a mental health breakdown So it is meant to be utilized to keep exactly folks who have experienced stalking and domestic violence safe from those individuals. I think we can have an interesting discussion of whether or not more guns make us safer and whether or not possessing guns in the home make our vulnerable population safer. That is not really what's covered in this amendment. Unfortunately, this amendment, it falls under some challenges of separation of powers. You can't actually tell the court that they shall do something as many times as we have tried, especially in the domestic violence arena. So I'm going to have to ask for a no vote on this amendment. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L50? Seeing none, the question before us is the... Thank you. Thank you. because here's the other thing the question before us is the adopt oh aml bacon thank you thank you members i know some of us were not here and so I want to reiterate this point I can imagine that many of us want to support this community but we have been advised and I also believe, you know, from attorneys and our chief attorney, that this amendment is written in a way that violates the separation of powers and that it directs a court on how to deliberate. The language which says a court shall not grant. That is the judicial branch. And so the reason why I'm up here to say this again is to actually talk about the language. I would also say then, if we come back with even some sort of conversation about if any part of this law is found to be unconstitutional, it would invalidate it all, that's why we're looking at the words. And I would welcome any debate, but in regards to directing a court how to deliberate, that is outside of our scope. Technically speaking, this protective order goes to a judge to weigh evidence before it is issued. That is the whole point of it. For purposes of due process, while this is not a crime, this is a civil action, you still have to weigh the evidence and outweigh if the person is a danger to themselves or others. So to tell a court how to deliberate, again, is a violation of separation of powers. And we just wanted to say that so that some people can understand our outcomes and our votes here. The question before us is the adoption of Amendment L50. Representative Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, this is a curious question. I think that there are valid arguments on both sides related to whether or not this is available to us as a legislature. In some ways, we are doing this just in other words, right? We are saying a court can hear particular complaints so long as they come from particular classes of individuals, but not other classes. So we are directing the court related to which IRPOs they can or cannot receive. and so I just wonder if perhaps the amendment sponsor would be willing to withdraw this particular language, maybe go back to the drawing board, tighten it a little bit, so that we don't have any question related to whether or not this body can actually direct them to consider certain types of petitioners over others as the rest of the bill contemplates. AML Bacon. Thank you. I also caution that as you determine which cases can be heard and cannot be heard, to not violate the Equal Protection Clause either. Representative Bradley Thank you Mr. Chair In the spirit of listening I will withdraw this amendment but I'm going to come back with one tightened up Thank you We will also The committee will stand in a brief recess The committee will come back to order. For a point of clarity, since Amendment L50 has been withdrawn, the division vote was requested on Amendment L50. Amendment L50 has been withdrawn, so we are back to the bill. Representative Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L034 and ask that it be displayed properly That is a proper motion. Hold for it to be properly displayed. That's a different Mr. Chair. Okay, that is properly displayed. To the amendment, Rep. Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a simple but critical amendment to Senate Bill 004. This strikes every reference to an institutional petitioner and removes the new definition that creates this category. This amendment would delete the language that adds an institutional petitioner to the list of those who may file for a temporary or full extreme risk protection order. It would also eliminate the definition of institutional petitioner that now includes school districts, private schools, charter schools, institutions of higher education, hospitals, healthcare facilities, and behavioral health treatment centers. The intent behind this bill to protect Coloradans from harm is one we all share, but good intentions do not justify bad policy. We've already expanded petitioners to include individual community members, including family, law enforcement, teachers, doctors, mental health professionals, and now co-responders. That is more than enough. These are people with direct personal knowledge and real accountability. Institutions are different. A school district, a hospital board, or a university administration may or may not have a personal relationship with the respondent. Allowing these entities to petition for the temporary seizure of firearms invites abuse. A district might file to avoid a lawsuit after an incident. A hospital might act to cover itself rather than a hospital might act to cover itself rather than have a lawsuit. lawsuit and a question how does this compete with safe to tell that is already implemented in our k-12 schools this is not how due process works extreme risk protection orders already operate on a lower evidentiary standard and can disarm someone before a full hearing adding faceless institutions to the mix further tilts the scales away from individual rights and toward unchecked power it weakens the Second Amendment protections Coloradans expect and deserve while doing little to improve actual safety. This amendment keeps the expanded tools in the hands of accountable individuals who know the facts on the ground. It prevents government and corporate entities from becoming de facto gun regulators. It respects the principle that liberty is best guarded when power remains with the people, not institutions. I urge you to support this amendment, protect due process, protect individual responsibility, and keep Colorado's red flag law focused on the threats, the real threats assessed by real people, not by committees or risk-averse bureaucracies. Thank you, and I ask for your vote on this amendment. Rep. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do absolutely support this amendment. I just want to kind of direct folks' attention back to the death of Claire Davis at Arapahos High School many years ago. As a result of that, the Claire Davis Act, Senate Bill 15-213 was passed. And in part that bill eliminated or reduced waiver and introduced a waiver of liability for schools if they did not act in a reasonable manner to address public safety And I do think there is a considerable risk the way this bill is written that school districts, particularly in light of the Claire Davis Act, might be a little too quick to pull the trigger, no pun intended, too quick to use the authorities in this bill as more of a shield of their own liability than protection of students or others in the school. I think this is very dangerous ground to be treading on when we've set up a bill that puts great risk of liability on a school district and expense, and then as a companion provides a tool now to avoid that liability. So I think removing the institutions as this amendment calls for is the right move to make. Wrap around. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We need to be able to know who is bringing these claims forward. To put it under an institution as a whole, for example, the Fort Leapton School District says Joe Schmo is very, very dangerous. We believe Joe Schmo is very, very dangerous. Therefore, we should disarm him. Joe Schmo has a right to know who exactly thinks that. To put it under an umbrella of an institution is very vague. it's not fair to somebody that might not be that dangerous, dangerously claimed he was, or she was, or Joe Schmoe was. So, to be able to face your accuser, either protect yourself from that accuser, I say, oh, you know what, I understand why that accuser said that, because we had a disagreement once, a few months back. But if it's a whole institution, like, well, I don't understand why. Who wasn't in that institution? So the person that does this claim must be able to prove in front of the person that he's claiming is dangerous why. And that person has a right to defend themselves as to why. So I really do agree with this amendment, and I believe that we can move forward with this. I urge an aye vote. Any further discussion? Rep Wilford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We're going to ask for a no vote for a couple of reasons. This amendment will completely eliminate the need for our bill, so it guts the bill. and it also continues to put the burden on frontline workers who lack the time and the resources to go to court. I'm just going to leave it there and, again, ask for a no vote. It's starting for the discussion. Rep around. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So that's the whole point. We need to be able to have the accused know who the accuser is, not just an institution. I'm coming back here again to say that because I believe that this is very important. I don't want to be accused by, well, school district RE8, not knowing there's hundreds, if not thousands of employees or people that are involved with that school district I don know who it is Why What the reason why Of course somebody could tell me this is the reason why but like okay then who said this Because I pretty sure I can defend myself if it was this person or this person or this person. So to put a name to your accuser is very important. So I still urge an I vote. thank you mr. chair just to shed some light on this with respect to what transpired in committee we had a school board member come in support of this particular provision in light of her own experience and the school board member is very petite and she was recounting a story recently after the school shooting in her district when there were some very upset parents, and one of those parents who was particularly upset was tall, tall, very, very tall. And her testimony continued to reiterate that this man was intimidating because he was tall, very, very tall. And it sounded as if there was not really all of that interaction, much interaction between her and this gentleman apart from this one instance, and she fell intimidated by him in large part because he was angry at what was going on with the security and with the risk that had just taken place vis-a-vis the school shooting and that he was tall. And it's concerning that that would be the only nexus, that that one moment of conversation and the man's physical appearance could combine to result in him being stripped of his ability to defend his family. And so I agree. I agree with this amendment to strip the institutional language and just to allow it to be those who have a much more intimate and longstanding relationship with the defendant. Rep. Wilford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think it might be useful to talk about some of the criteria, specifically that a judge has to weigh and consider when they are thinking about granting an ERPO. The Violence Protection Act identifies factors for judges to consider when determining whether or not to issue an order, including evidence of a recent act or credible threat of violence by the respondent against self or others, a pattern of acts or credible threats of violence by the respondent within the past year, a conviction of the respondent for a crime that included an underlying factual basis of domestic violence, a credible threat or the unlawful or reckless use of a firearm by the respondent, and a history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of unlawful physical force by the respondent against another person, or the respondent's history of stalking another person. There has to be at least one of these factors included in an ERPO. You can't simply go to a judge and file an ERPO because somebody is tall or you think that they are scary. That's not how this process works. And so I want to share that, you know, there are very specific criteria here that are outlined and they are working well. Secondly, you know, we talk all the time in this room about everything that is on, let's say, for example, a teacher. everything that is on a teacher to do constantly. If a teacher has information that may be about a student or another parent or a colleague and an ERPO is a tangible next step that frankly they should be considering exploring, does it really make sense for a teacher to have to take off time from the classroom, have to, you know, go and file one of these orders, go in front of a judge, or does it make sense for the school district to be able to be the filer? and to take on that responsibility and take on that burden so that they don't have to. And I think the answer is that we should be allowing these institutions to take on that burden and to do that work to make sure that individuals are safe. And I guess the last thing that I would offer is that if a judge decides that they are going to grant an ERPO, there is an entire hearing process that happens. And so an individual absolutely has the opportunity to be heard and to have the evidence laid out in front of them, most likely including the individual that had information that led to the filing of an ERPO. There is process. There is due process included. An institution should be able, again, to carry the burden of frontline workers who lack the time and the resources to go to court. Rep. Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I guess with Safe to Tell and with child abuse reporting, we are the mandatory reporters. It's the person who has the most intimate firsthand knowledge. And actually for mandatory reporting for child abuse, we are not allowed to pass it along to somebody else. It needs to be a very quick reporting within 24 hours. And you are the mandated reporter because you have the best information. You know, if you pass that along to somebody else, there could be misunderstandings. There's vague understandings of what happened. There may be vague information conveyed. And so, you know, as a school principal, as a district administrator, I would expect that the person who has the concerns make that report, not somebody with second or third hand knowledge that may be giving inaccurate or incomplete information. So I still have concerns about the institutional reporting requirements. And I know that it seems like it's a burden for that individual because of everything else they have to do. But if you're going to ask them to do it, at least make it to where it's the most accurate information getting to where it needs to be given. And I think if it's that much of a concern, then it should be immediate and accurate information. So that's why I think institutional petitioner isn't going to get to what needs to happen, which is immediate response. Representative Slaw.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to address institutional burden because, again, to use another family example, My wife works for one of these institutions that's named in this bill, and to me, she bears some of that institutional burden when she is walking around in public. If UC Health files a petition against an individual, and then my wife is at the grocery store wearing her scrubs coming home from work, and it says UC Health on there, and there's an individual who's had one of these pulled against them by that institution, we don't know what the mental state of that individual is. I don't know that. I don't know that she's not going to be now targeted... Just because she's wearing the uniform of the institution that has filed that ERPO. I don't think that that's fair to target, to put her in a target, because somebody else of a huge organization, of a huge institution, filed something. Thank you.
Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-34. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The no's have it. Amendment L34 is lost. To the bill. Representative Bradfield. To the bill. Representative Bradfield. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, have an amendment. I'd like to move amendment 027 to Senate Bill 004 and ask that it be displayed. That is a proper motion. Give us a moment to get that displayed. That is properly displayed. To the amendment, Representative Bradfield. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Knowing that you all have your bills right out on your desk, we'll just kind of walk through this together because it's quite simple, but it makes so much sense that I know you will agree with me, and therefore vote yes. So if you'll turn to page three, starting on line six, it says 6.5. An institutional petitioner means an entity that employs or contracts with a community member as defined in this section, including but not limited to. Number one of the amendment says go to line eight on page three and strike these words, including but not limited to. Well, we have to put something there in place of that. So that takes us to number two, and we are going to eliminate those words, including but not limited to, and replace meaning. And then you go down, meaning a school district, a private school, a state charter school, individual district charter school, institute charter school, an institution of higher education, on and on and on, a hospital or health care, a behavioral health or substance use disorder. We've got all of those listed. We get down on the same page to page line 20, and we are going to get rid of the word or and substitute and, and it would read like this, a behavioral health and substance use disorder treatment facility. Now, all of this makes great sense. It just brings greater clarity to this bill, and that's all I wanted to do with this amendment, and I ask for a yes vote. Thank you. Any further discussion on Amendment L-27? Representative Luck. Thank you Mr Chair I think this is a good amendment and if you consider the fact that this particular type of as the representative from El Paso County just read to us that the institutional petitioner means an entity that employs or contracts with a community member which could include a licensed health care professional. So every business that employs or contracts with a nurse, let's say, because maybe they have a particularly dangerous working environment, so they have somebody on staff that is there in the event that a mine has an accident, they would be covered by this. You have other businesses that do have mental health professionals on staff, people who they contract with. In fact, a dear friend of mine is such a contractor. She comes in during different instances when there is harm or someone dies dies or there is some sort of need within the business to provide mental health counseling, she's on call to come and serve them as their contractor employee. And so this really, if we don't limit this, opens the door for almost any entity, any business to be able to file as an institutional petitioner. And that's just gone too far. Representative Barron. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And hearing that explanation right now from the representative, before me. Thinking about it, Chevron, Occidental, oil industry, I just thought about this right now. They have HR departments. Whenever there's an incident on site, the people involved in that incident need to leave the site immediately, take a drug test, alcohol test, and mental health test, which these companies employ therapists to come in for those testings under the HR department as contractors, they would also be included under this. I just remembered that. And now you're including, if they're contracted under the HR department for an oil company, now oil companies would be covered under this. So I believe that this is a good amendment, and I still urge an aye vote. Representative Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a good amendment because it, as was stated, adds specificity. It adds clarity. To simply say that this is a list that's not all inclusive, leaves open that this list could contain anything. It could be a doggy daycare. It could be a 7-Eleven. It could be anything that does or does not include the items that are listed. This needs to not be left open-ended. This bill represents a tremendous growth in what was originally envisioned with the first ERPO bill, but this just leaves it wide open to anything you might consider to be an institution that is on this list or is not, and that's way too broad for a piece of legislation. I would urge a yes vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-27? Representative Wilford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone that we are asking for a no vote on this amendment. There seems to be this common misconception that ERPOs are passed out like candy. They're not. In fact, in 2023, only 75% of the ERPOs that were filed were granted, and that's out of 168 that were initially filed. These are not massive filings Secondly we asking for a no on this amendment you know for a number of reasons but first and foremost because if you strike or and substitute and on page 3, line 20, the and makes it impossible for somebody to actually be able to file because it's not possible for somebody to work at every single institution outlined all at once. So we ask for a no vote. Representative Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There may have been a limited number of ERPOs filed in the past and a smaller fraction granted, but when you open it up the list so broadly that just about any institution you could conceive of could file, you're going to see more filed and our courts are overloaded. They're not able to focus on what they should be. This opens the aperture just way too wide and puts a tremendous burden on our courts potentially and we should be a lot more thoughtful than that. So still urge you guys vote. So any further discussion on amendment L-27? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of amendment L-27. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All as opposed say no. No. The no's have an amendment. L27 is lost. To the bill, Representative Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L034 and ask that it be displayed properly. As a proper motion, give us a moment to get that displayed. I'm sorry. That is properly displayed. I withdraw my motion to, I read the wrong number, to move L034. I would like to move, did I? I move L036 and ask that it be displayed properly. Properly. That is a proper motion. It is properly displayed to the proper amendment L36. Representative Garcia-Sandler. We will get it proper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill expands extreme risk protection orders, Colorado's red flag law, by adding powerful institutional petitioners, health care facilities, behavioral health centers, K-12 schools and colleges. The goal is public safety and no one disputes the need to keep firearms out of criminal hands. But when we hand this extraordinary power to institutions with vast resources, bureaucracies, and sometimes political agendas, we must build in real accountability so the law is not weaponized against law-abiding Coloradans. My amendment simply adds the following language to the bill. An institutional petitioner that files a malicious or knowingly false petition and is convicted of a criminal offense or is found liable in a civil action pursuant to Section 13-14.15-132 in connection with the malicious or knowingly false petition is prohibited from filing a temporary extreme risk protection order or an extreme risk protection order pursuant to this Part 1. This builds directly on existing statute Section 13 already allows criminal prosecution or civil liability for anyone who files a malicious or knowingly false petition This amendment takes the next logical step If an institution is actually held accountable convicted or found liable, it loses the privilege to file future petitions. No repeat offenders, no second chances to harass or disarm citizens on false pretenses. Why is this necessary? Because As individuals file petitions out of personal fear or concern, institutions file with the full weight of lawyers, administrators, and PR machines behind them. A school district, a hospital system, or a university can ruin reputations, trigger costly legal battles, and strip Second Amendment rights with a single filing, sometimes to avoid their own liability, sometimes to virtue signal, sometimes for reasons we may never know. this ban, there's nothing to stop a bad actor inside those institutions from trying again and again. My House District 65 families, farmers, ranchers, veterans, and working parents expect us to protect both safety and liberty. Due process is not optional. False accusations are not harmless. This amendment deters abuse, restores balance, and ensures that only responsible petitioners keep this tool. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It does not weaken the bill's intent. It strengthens the integrity. It tells every Coloradan that in this House, accountability applies to everyone, including the institutions entrusted with power. Thank you, and I ask for a yes vote. Representative Aron. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also come up here to support this amendment. And I heard one of the bill sponsors come up here and say that these ERPO are not being handed out like candy. Maybe not right now. But once people outside this building know what we're doing here, there is a huge, I'd say 90% possibility they will be handed out like candy. And then expanding it like this to institutions, even more so. This amendment right here now puts a whole institution at risk of lawsuit or penalty if they accuse somebody falsely. Like, instead of having a name behind that accuser, now it's the whole institution at risk. One of two things is going to happen. That institution is going to be found at fault, and it should be under this amendment, or if it doesn't happen, that one person, only that one person is found at fault. So I urge an aye vote on this amendment. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also urge an aye vote. While we're talking about protection, we've heard the story of the boy who cried wolf. We want to make sure that this amendment is doing exactly that, the boy who cried wolf, that those who do this with ill intent will get the consequence. Too often we see things that can affect other people because of ill intent and the person who filed that has no punishment. We need to make sure that there are consequences when someone does a false claim knowingly or does a claim with the intention of harming the other person for whatever reason, especially institutions who have a ton of money behind it and that way when someone's trying to get their rights back a single person versus an institution with a lot of money which one is gonna win usually the one with more money this helps add a safeguard to ensure that the story we've all heard the boy who cries wolf is actually being grounded we teach this to children Now let's teach it to the state saying that they can't misabuse this power. IRGS vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L36? Representative Wilford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So this amendment does not solve a problem that we're seeing in the court system. Since 2020, there have only been four identified cases of misuse related to ERPOs. And importantly, of those four, none of them actually resulted in an ERPO being issued because the judge identified the misuse through the judicial process. Courts already take into account previous convictions when assessing a petitioner's claim, and barring someone with a previous conviction does not stop legitimate petitions from being filed. So I would encourage a no vote on this amendment. Representative Barron. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I should stay there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I come up here and wonder, since when has one or four cases ever stopped from passing legislation? I remember last week we passed a bill on microplastics when there was only one case reported. So we're passing legislation on one to four cases. Why can't we just pass an amendment that protects that and doesn't leave that door open? Just like the bill sponsor said in the week prior to this. So still urge an aye vote. Representative Froehlich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The point of the fact that there has been less than one malicious filing per year since the bill went into law is not the reason for the bill. It is the reason the system is working. It's evidence of the fact that the system's working. There seems to be a misperception coming forward that anybody and their mother can file and initiate an ERPO process. Your mother can, actually, because family can. 50% of ERPOs are filed by law enforcement. 25% by family, 25% by the categories that we've added before. What we're doing in this bill is adding a category that makes sense, which is institutions, so that teachers who are often the people who hear these, and remember, 50% of the folks that are making threats are making them to themselves, So this is suicide prevention. And educators are some of the folks that are hearing these threats to self, these expressions of suicidal ideation. That's why the institutional folks are being added. And the co-responders are being added because 50% of law enforcement are the folks initiating ERPOs, or 50% of ERPOs are initiated by law enforcement. and we are increasingly using co-responders to go out and they are supposed to respond to mental health episodes. And if they have someone in crisis who is saying that they are threatening themselves or others, that the co can begin initiate All of the language in the bill in the original bill and in this bill are about initiating petitions That a long way through a court process before an ERPO is granted So let's get realistic about what's actually going on here, and we urge a no vote on this particular amendment. And before we continue to let the chamber know, we have 58 minutes and 15 seconds remaining. Representative Barron. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I come up here to rebuttal the previous good representative here. By that same logic, there was no need for that microplastics legislation last week. The system's working. There's only been one case. There's no spills. There's no need for that legislation by that same logic. Let's pass this. If you're going to follow that same logic, just to prevent that. So I still urge an aye vote. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want clarification. We heard when one of the sponsors first came up, they said four. And then when one of the other sponsors came up, they said one. And I get it's one or four, whichever number it is, that is still something that's happened in the system. I understand that, you know, the court systems, when this is going through, can catch some of this before it becomes an ERPO. But the intent of this amendment is if someone puts it in, that they should have repercussions for even putting it in the system if they have malish or ill intent. Because otherwise they're going to keep doing it. There is no repercussion. And while the courts might catch this before it finishes the process, we also need to be mindful that we do not have infinite money in the state. Every time something goes to the courts, it takes resources, time of staff, money to process. This would help to eliminate maybe that one or four. That way next year we have zero. This is really just saying if you do this with ill intent, there will be a consequence. Because they filed it, it takes up resources. Let's make sure that those who are actually coming to put these petitions in are with the intents that are coming from this bill and not for any ill matter. I would urge a yes vote. Representative Wilford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Members, it's already a crime to file a malicious or false ERPO. Secondly, to the question specifically about the point that I referenced and my colleague referenced, we said that there have only been four false ERPOs filed since 2020 when the program went in, and my colleague made the point that that's less than one per year. I hope that helps clarify. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L36? Representative Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to reiterate again what my colleague just noted. That is, there is already crime that covers this. Putting this into the statute is in conflict with the criminal statute, may be in conflict with the criminal statutes and requirements we already have. It's important that we, and my good colleagues from the other side often say, we don't want to be incorporating things in the statute that might be in conflict or that are unnecessary. This would be that kind of an amendment that would be unnecessary and possibly creating conflict. I would urge a no vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L36? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L36. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The no's have it. Amendment L36 is lost. To the bills. Representative Richardson. Thank you Mr Chair I move L041 to Senate Bill 4 and ask that it be properly displayed That a proper motion Give us a minute to get that displayed That is properly displayed. To the amendment, Representative Richardson. Thank you. The language in this is pretty simple, and it's somewhat similar to what we were just discussing. Recognize that the sponsors say there's already criminal penalties attached to those that would make false, knowingly false or malicious accusations. This does not add a criminal penalty, but it recognizes that somebody, an individual who files a malicious or knowingly false petition is burdening the state. And rather, while it may not happen often or may not happen at all, this may be looked at as completely preemptive, but an ERPO is preemptive, and 50% of them are found to be unnecessary. So putting something in to prevent something bad from happening in a bill that is designed to prevent bad things from happening, I think is consistent. And I think it is right that somebody who holds licensure from the state and then burdens the state by making a false or malicious petition under this bill should lose their ability or their license to operate that the state had granted. If you're going to burden the state and its citizens and you do so while also being allowed to, you know, earn a living under some state licensure or allowance, that should be removed. You have forfeited that, and I would urge a yes vote. Any further discussion on Amendment L-41? Amel Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our colleagues. I see a few issues in regards to just generally a community member and what that is. But if we are going to set one statute currently, there are a bunch of laws by way of who qualifies for accreditation or licensure. For example, we all passed a law to support someone who might have a misdemeanor conviction or a felony conviction on if they are able to get licenses. So we literally just passed one of those. And so I just want to put that out there that this is intertwined with multiple, multiple statutes in regards to convictions. And so I do believe this would be in conflict to those. Any further discussion on Amendment L-41? Representative Richardson. Again, if you are going to use the tools of the state to act against the state, the state should strip you of authorities they've given you. It's simple, and I think we should pursue it. Any further discussion on Amendment L-41? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-41. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All as opposed say no. No. Then those have it. Amendment L-41 is lost. Representatives of the law. Thank you Mr Chair I appreciate that we have heard in a lot of the recent discussion about knowingly false petitions It not lost on me that the thought sponsors say there have only been four of those I'd argue that there were four of those in the first year, and we don't have any data of every year since then. So saying that there have only been four is short-sighted and short information. To that point, when an individual has false claims against them, fighting that comes at a real cost to that individual. If those costs are incurred by an individual from a district that is primarily lower income, they may never be able to financially recover from attaining justice. And to that point, I move L026 and ask that it be properly displayed. As a proper motion, give us a minute to get that displayed. That is properly displayed to the amendment. Representative Slough. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is a simple amendment. And this amendment is also part of the language that passed this House with these words when the ERPO bill was first passed in 2019. This has already passed this House with bipartisan support. Let me begin by stating that there's a lot of discussion that's been had about the process and about due process and people that are in real danger or pose real threats. I acknowledge that when somebody is in a real crisis and poses a real and true and legitimate threat to themselves or others, that it isn't out of line to think that something could be done. that doesn't negate due process and doesn't negate their constitutional rights. But with any powerful legal tool, especially one that can temporarily remove a person's constitutional rights, we have an obligation to ensure that the process cannot be abused. Under current law, a petition that can be filed that immediately places someone under a temporary extreme risk protection order before they have had the opportunity to defend themselves in court, that is an extraordinary power. In most cases, it is used responsibly, but if someone knowingly files a false or malicious petition, the consequences for the accused individual can be significant. Legal expenses, reputational harm, time away from work, and the stress of defending themselves in court against an allegation that was never legitimate to begin with is significant. I've never experienced an ERPO being filed against me, but I have experienced having to pay court costs to defend myself and being cleared from false accusations of individuals. And I can tell you that all of these things that I said, the legal costs, the time away from work, the stress involved, all of that is absolutely real and should absolutely be considered. This amendment does not punish people who bring forward concerns in good faith. It does not discourage family members, law enforcement, or others from seeking help when someone is genuinely at risk. Good faith petitions, as they are called, remain fully protected. What it does address are the rare but serious situations where the process is used as a weapon, where someone knowingly files false information in order to harm another person. Members, when the state creates a legal process that can restrict a constitutional right, we must also ensure that there are safeguards against misuse. Accountability for malicious or knowingly false claims is a principle that already exists throughout our legal system. From defamation law to false reporting statutes, this amendment simply applies that same principle here. I recognize that some may say that that's exactly why we don't need this amendment, but I would say that's exactly why we do need this. It needs to be spelled out that in these cases where somebody is losing a constitutional right, People are required to know that they may face the facts of having to pay actual damages, attorney fees, costs incurred from the other person having to defend themselves. This amendment is about fairness. It's about balance and about protecting the integrity of the law. For those reasons, I respectfully ask for your support of this amendment. So any further discussion on Amendment L-26? Representative Froelich. Thank you. This is already covered in law. We ask for a no vote. So any further discussion on Amendment L-26? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-26. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All as opposed say no. No. The no's have it. Amendment L-26 is lost. Representative Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L47 and ask that it be displayed. That is a proper motion.
Representative Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In committee, we heard that most of the petitions that are accepted are petitions from law enforcement. And in fact, most of the petitions that are not from law enforcement do not get accepted. And so this amendment just simply says that before a petitioner can file, they have to go to law enforcement and make sure that there is enough to substantiate their particular request and that law enforcement has to submit an affidavit to the court for review. We all know how backed up our courts are. We all know how much burden that they are seeing. and if we are aware of the fact that non-law enforcement petitioners are not successful in bringing these cases for various reasons, then it only makes sense to ask for the law enforcement community to just do a check and make sure that indeed these petitions would satisfy even the basic statements or conditions of these before burdening our courts even further. So I ask for an aye vote.
Is there any for Representative Brooks?
Representative Brooks. Chair, thank you. I respond to all sorts of different things. It's good. You were looking at me. We made eye contact. I figured I knew who you were talking about. This, you know, so, all right, let's look at the other amendments that were offered. And I suppose that we can view them as more of kind of a, through a punitive lens that saying if you have a bad act or if you've got somebody that is doing something that is abusing the system, that this will happen. Fine. This is different. This is saying at least let ensure that there is the need that is stated first Let run it through I don know somebody that does this stuff for a living somebody that wears a badge somebody that understands the intricacies and let's at least have some minor burden of proof there before we're taken into the next step. That then prevents any abuse, potential abuse, intent to abuse, unintentional abuse of filing an ERPO. This is a little bit more preventive instead of and I'm not saying that the other amendments weren't good amendments. This one is a little bit more on the front end to ensure that we are thinking it through a little bit more. Perhaps somebody doesn't understand. Perhaps somebody doesn't understand necessarily what the consequences are. Perhaps somebody doesn't understand exactly what it is at that moment that they're doing. Law enforcement has the opportunity to then come in and then run it through a little bit of a law enforcement filter. At least be able to have some sort of professional opinion injected into the process. I think that's a good way to go. I think it makes sense. I would ask for an iPhone.
Is there any further discussion? Representative Ferlich.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you there.
It's good to see you as well.
Folks, let's remember what precipitated the very first IRPO law. It was named after Deputy Zachary Parrish III, a Douglas County Sheriff's Deputy, who was shot in 2017 and killed by a mentally ill individual in an event that Douglas County Sheriff Tony Sporlock described as an ambush-type attack. The shooter fired approximately 100 rounds, killing Deputy Parrish and injuring four other law enforcement officers involved in a standoff at the shooter's apartment. For weeks leading up to the shooting, law enforcement officers knew that Deputy Parrish's shooter was experiencing a mental health crisis. Indeed, the shooter's mother sought to restrict the shooter's access to firearms, but she was ultimately unsuccessful. At the time, we lacked formal legal procedures to remove firearms. This amendment essentially puts police back into that same position that they were in when they approached that shooter's apartment. Now you want to insert police investigation. In the case of this assailant, the mother was asking for help. She would have filed an ERPO. Now you want to insert police to do an investigation before the ERPO proceeds. Please vote no on this amendment.
Representative Brooks.
Chair, thank you. We've got a couple of representatives here from Douglas County that are going to take exception to the exception to this amendment. first of all I would be happy to point out that in Douglas County where they do not believe in red flag confiscations they do believe in due process they do not believe in swiping people's guns I can tell you exactly how many anybody know how many red flag confiscations in Douglas County have been executed That right Zero None So I would ask that before we invoke the name of a slain member of our law enforcement community in an attempt to try to back up your argument that we really look at would that family want that, and obviously does the county want it because the statistics say the county does not.
Representative Bradley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, would echo what the good colleague from Douglas County said. I knew his wife, the slain deputy being spoken about, was a fierce Second Amendment defender. Thank you.
Representative Luck.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who do want to see these ERPOs executed, it occurs to me that you would want to support this particular amendment because if petitioners who are not law enforcement are by, I think, two to one, I don't remember exactly the statistic, I had written it down, but by a high margin not actually successful in getting their petitions granted, it's the law enforcement community that's interested and effective in getting their petitions granted I would think that you would want to help facilitate such that their petitions are granted and this amendment would help with that so I ask for an aye vote
Representative Wilford
Thank you very much Mr. Chair I just wanted to come up and briefly respond to some of the comments that a colleague, I think from El Paso County? Douglas. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I couldn't find your name quickly enough. To some of the comments that were just made about Deputy Parish. And I did want to remind the body that the original IRPO bill was actually named after Deputy Parrish. And the sheriff from Douglas County at the time worked with bill sponsors and was supportive of the bill. And so us sharing the story and the reason behind the bill is not meant to create any level of disrespect. In fact, we have the highest respect for this individual who gave their life and are sharing the example so that everybody understands why this law was initially created and why we are seeking now to expand it.
Representative Brooks.
Chair, thank you. Okay. Let's, I'll give the no disrespect intended as far as using the name. However, I will just point out, because I think you probably would figure that I'm pretty tied in with kind of the history and the politics of not just this particular sheriff, but the one that preceded. And the difficulty that that particular sheriff had when it came to red flag. It was almost nothing short of an uprising. That was not what Douglas County voters wanted to hear. It's not what they wanted to see. I will not use the names of the previous sheriff, but I can tell you that it is akin to a foul word these days in Douglas County That is why I know so very clearly that there have been exactly this many red flag confiscations This is zero by the way I can do zero I not just making a fist. I'm going zero. Confiscations in Douglas County because the current sheriff has done a very good job of ensuring that the job that they were doing in Douglas County is reflective of the will and the people of Douglas County. The current sheriff has gone a very long way to provide distance from the decisions made by a previous administration. That is not to impugn previous administrations, but it is to illustrate simply that the will of the voters of Douglas County were significantly different than the story and the examples that were just given in order to support the argument against this amendment. Take it from a couple of folks, a couple of representatives from Douglas County that were pretty squared up on this and still very much would ask, I'll give time. for a yes vote. We represent most of Douglas County, if not all of Douglas County.
I ask for a yes vote. Representative Marshall.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We don't need to go down on these tangents, but when we have a very great public servant that's having their name slandered, when the entire Douglas County The delegation was down here my first session to pay tribute to that individual. And I get it. There's people who are very angry with him. In fact, they tried to recall him and failed because the majority of Douglas County thought he was a fantastic individual and man. I had very much friction with that sheriff. and I respected him a hell of a lot. We got in some very heated arguments. And what was the individual's name that this ERPO law is named after? Zachary Parrish? What was his middle name? What was his middle name? Spurlock. Thank you.
Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is, Amendment L-047. All those in favor say aye. All those in favor say aye. All those against say no. The noes have it. This amendment, this, sorry, this fails. To the bill. Representative Bottoms.
Thank you, Chair. I think the fill-in chair is doing just fine. So, we heard a lot of testimony, but I also have a lot of personal information here when it comes to how these red flag laws actually take place. I know it was brought up in committee that, you know, there's like a 48 or 72 hour, I think it's three day, Time frame. I'm just saying numbers. That somebody can, you know, they go to the house, they confiscate, then there's a setting for whether or not they're actually guilty of something, and then they have 72 hours to come and confiscate the weapons. that's not actually what happens we have too many too much evidence too many people that have testified that they come get the the the first knock on the door is to come get the weapons that's the first thing that happens and this is before anybody has ever investigated this so so in other words you are guilty until proven innocent this is consistent with this law The red flag laws are you are guilty until proven innocent. We've had people have their guns taken away and have been kept for two years, three years. There are many, many testimonies about this. There are even articles in the newspaper in Colorado Springs about this, that this person still has not been able to get their firearm back. And they were found, they were exonerated, there was no issue for red flag, and they were never given their firearms back. Some people are still waiting. There was an article also done about a prize shotgun that was confiscated. The first time they heard something was the knock on the door. They come in. They take a family heirloom shotgun, and this has been over two years. They still have it. They have not had it returned. but we're supposed to stand here at this dais and say, oh, that doesn't happen. Well, do some homework. It's happening. It's happening regularly. Because in this setting, not in the United States of America and the republic that we have built and stand on, but when it comes to red flag, you are guilty first. And then you have to somehow prove your innocence, and then you have to come back and try to figure out how to get your possessions back that were confiscated illegally by our own government and kept away from people in the process, this is where we actually are in the state of Colorado. We unconstitutionally take people's possessions because we've deemed them to be these horrible weapons that they are in danger of using on themselves or somebody else because we come up with these ideas of red flag laws, that we come up with this. and and I don't I don't know any of the sheriffs that you're talking about were involved here I just know this this is an attack on the second amendment this is attack on the rights of the people I don't know too many sheriffs that like that I don't know any of the ones involved in this but they don't like it when they when they are forced to go to somebody's house and break the constitution and break the law and we've heard that from many many many sheriffs in testimony The first time this bill came through, which was egregious then, the second time that we see this, and every single time we're going to add a red flag law to this, we are breaking the Constitution. That is illegal, but guess what? In the near future, we're going to go back to the Constitution. So I would like to move. I do move 0492004.
That is a proper motion. Give us a moment to get that displayed. And while we are getting that displayed, members, we have 28 minutes, 45 seconds remaining. I probably won't take all of that. That is properly displayed to the amendment Representative Bottoms This amendment says that a law enforcement agency or officer thereof shall not seize the respondent property or firearms until after a court has issued a temporary extreme risk protection order or an extreme risk protection order pursuant to this Part 1 and the respondent has seen the order Now, we heard in testimony that, actually, we heard this in testimony mostly from the sponsors of the bill, not from people testifying. Because the people testifying said, no, this actually happens quite a bit.
You get your firearms taken, and then you can't get them back. And then we're going to be told here in a minute or two that that's not true, that doesn't happen. It does happen. But let's just say that I've lost it, and I have no evidence that this has happened. Nobody came and testified. Nobody sent emails about this. Nobody talked to the newspaper or the TV or anything. Let's just say I made all that up right now, which actually you can verify. Well, then there's no reason to run this, because if they're not taking the weapons until after this has been investigated, and they have been actually found. Now, I know this is still a civil issue, but if they have actually been found guilty and then their weapons are taken from them, then there's no problem with this amendment. But seeing as how we've had multiple, multiple times when they've come in and confiscated firearms and many of those people still do not have them back after being found innocent of any of these accusations, then this should be an easy amendment to embrace and adopt. Because this one, hold on, this one's constitutional. I know that that's odd in this room, but this one's constitutional. Let's let people be found guilty after they have gone through the process rather than found guilty and then go through the process and have their guns confiscated just because somebody down the road that could just be taken out of vendetta has said they're guilty. And the one that was in the, the gun that was talked about in the Gazette was over a $100,000 valued shotgun, fairly heirloom, still has not been returned. Let's just go by the Constitution. Let's just go by the Constitution for funsies.
Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-49?
Representative Brooks. Sure. Thank you. I appreciate your work. I am coming up to support the amendment, although I have to admit, I'm not so sure how applicable it is across the entire state. The research that I had done actually had shown that there was something like, gosh, I don't know, 20-something. no, no, it's even bigger. 37 of Colorado's 64 counties have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. 37 of 64 have declared themselves sanctuaries. I know the town of Castle Rock is a Second Amendment sanctuary. I know that Douglas County is a Second Amendment sanctuary. As a matter of fact, I did some research just a little while ago also, and I came up with an interesting statistic that there had been zero zero red flag confiscations in Douglas County and that is because our sheriff does not stand for this type of law enforcement behavior He does not believe in this type of law enforcement behavior. And I will tell you that the good representatives from Douglas County also believe that this is a fantastic amendment, even though it wouldn't necessarily apply directly to Douglas County because they are one of the 37, 37 counties that have declared themselves a Second Amendment sanctuary. That is, you know what that is? That's counties one by one by one, all the way up, you're going to keep going to 37, saying that they do not believe in the laws that we are passing. They do not agree. They represent a constituency that goes the other way with the efforts from this chamber. They are representing 37 counties that do not agree with what we're doing right now. They represent 37 counties that believe that this is probably a good idea for the other counties that are representing constituencies that do not believe that an absolute removal of due process and rights is appropriate. I would ask for an aye vote.
Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-49?
Representative Wilford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We ask for a no vote on this amendment. Members, an ERPO?
What?
I said no.
No.
We don't want to vote yes.
We want to vote no.
Vote no.
Okay.
Sorry about that.
Representative Wilford. All right.
We're going to focus. Anyway, so we've been using the term ERPO throughout this entire debate, and I'm going to be really clear about what it means. ERPO stands for extreme risk protection order. Extreme risk. That is exactly why the process is set up the way that it is, And I want to talk about the process for just a moment. So an individual goes and they file the extreme risk protection order. Upon receiving the petition for the ERPO, the court sets a hearing date and promptly notifies the respondent about the hearing. They can also appoint an attorney to represent the respondent. After that, the petitioner goes in front of the judge. they have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, present evidence, and the court can also examine witnesses as well. And then the judge is able to make a determination as to how long an ERPO might be in place. Prior to the hearing, there a court may grant a temporary order, a temporary extreme risk protection order, if the court finds that the respondent poses a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others. So yes, in that scenario, if an ERPO is granted temporarily, yes, an individual's weapons, their guns would be removed. And again, that is specifically because there is a potential for that individual harming themselves or others. Colorado ranks among the top 10 states with the highest rates of suicide and firearms are the most lethal of suicide methods with more than 80 of suicide attempts using a firearm that results in death So when these weapons are being taken away, it literally is a matter of life or death, and that is why we have the process that is set up. And this process for ERPO is not unlike other processes that we have. If you have ever gone in front of a court and you filed a protection order, this is the same process. I've gotten a protection order. I filed out the form. I went in front of the judge and explained why I wanted a protection order, and that protection order was temporarily granted. The individual named in the protection order then received notice that they were named in the protection order and that a hearing had been set in front of a judge, at which point that individual was able to come in front of the judge and have a conversation about whether or not the protection order should be granted and for how long it should be granted. This is not new. We are not introducing a new process. And furthermore, there is not one single finding by courts that the ERPO law is unconstitutional. Not one single case since it was passed in 2019. I would ask for a no vote on this amendment.
Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-49?
Representative Slaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that we had the process read to us and appreciate that we heard exactly what the problem is, that when there is a temporary ERPO granted, that it does indeed skip due process. Property is seized before the individual is able to respond. That when you read the language of it, yes, there is notification of the ERPO hearing, but the TERPO still allows and provides for firearms and property to be seized.
Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-49? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-49. All those in favor say aye. All as opposed say no. The no's have it. Amendment L-49 is lost.
Representative Bradley.
And before you begin, we have 18 minutes left on this bill.
Representative Bradley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am back. I feel like I should sing. Guess who's back? Sorry. I move Amendment L051 and ask for it to be displayed. That is a proper motion. Give us a moment to get that displayed. And welcome back, Representative Bradley. Thank you.
That is properly displayed. To the amendment. The respondent in the current petition for an extreme risk protection order was the victim of the criminal offense or the protected person in the criminal protection order.
This is just covering if a neighbor calls, a domestic violence is in progress, and both the husband and wife are taken into custody, that the person that is innocent... is not in violation of ERPO laws, and they aren't having their guns taken away from them. This is also going to help keep the fraud level down and false accusations. We worked on this for the last hour, and I would appreciate an aye vote. I've already talked to you guys about my story. I've already talked to you that there's 36,000 domestic violence victims in the state of Colorado, between 60,000 and 90,000 stalking victims in our state. we don't want to take the right to keep and bear arms from those of us who feel like guns are the equal the equalizer the greatest equalizer and i know people have said that guns can be turned around and used on you well i'd rather have that option i'd rather be able to defend my family i don't want that option taken away from me and let me tell you for the last year of my life you better believe i've been happy to have a nine millimeter ruger by my side thank you representative sukla
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So when this amendment was up before, one of the main talking points was separation of powers. So I'm not a lawyer, but I'm trying to figure this out. My understanding that a bill was a law and my understanding that an amendment was a change to make the law better or worse or whatever, but that's what the amendment done. So if a bill is really a law and this amendment is something that is going to change the law, but then after the law is passed, because the bill is actually – what a bill actually does is does tell the court system what they're going to do or what they're not going to do. So I think that the argument about separations of powers and that a bill which creates law is conflicting doesn't hold any water. And I think that this is a very good bill. I've got to tell you, my dad always said that a gun is an equalizer for a woman. We've just seen two women that have went through domestic violence experiences in their past. and I got to tell you what is wrong with if somebody, as this amendment says, that they cannot have that gun so that those women can protect themselves. If we're about common sense, this amendment is about common sense, and it should be accepted. Thank you.
Representative Brolich.
Thank you so much. Thank you folks for this conversation because, of course, it is of particular interest to the bill's sponsors and I think to the body as a whole to protect folks who are experiencing stalking, domestic violence, and violence in general in their lives. We just have, every year we have a domestic violence fatality review board that goes over every incident of a fatality in domestic violence. Having a gun in the home increases the likelihood, regardless of who the gun is registered to, of a fatality occurring on a magnitude of three times. Our latest domestic violence fatality review included eight children who are considered by the fatality review board collateral damage. Five of those incidents all of those incidents involved a gun Five of those children were granted custody to an abusive parent which we deal with in another bill But the presence of a gun in a home where domestic violence is occurring, it does not matter who the gun belongs to. The most famous case was a professional boxer, Christy Salters Martin, incredible athlete who bought a gun to protect herself from her abusive husband. Even this incredible athlete was shot with her own gun when she attempted to leave her abusive husband. This is an incredibly difficult subject. We do not want to give the impression at all, ever, that we are not on the side of victims, that we do not want to reduce domestic violence, that we don't want to reduce intimate partner violence. This is a scourge. even in incidents where the gun was used in what we call DGU, which is defensive gun use, 10% of the time the victim was injured, and 11% of the time the victim was injured when they did nothing at all, when they did not possess a gun. Brandishing a gun reduced injury to 4%, using another weapon by 5%. And still worse, simply running away is the best thing to do, or calling police. They both average around 2% injury prevention. The presumption that more guns or victims carrying guns is going to make this situation better is just simply not true. In this case, stalkers should be served with an ERPO, if law enforcement feels that way. and if that stalker, which is the intent of this amendment, if that stalker chooses to flip the tables and try to get the guns taken away from their victim, that is precisely what the whole court process is supposed to determine. And I remind you that we've had less than one vengeful IRPO filed a year and all four of them, the IRPO was not filed. The system is working. We understand the desire for, of course we understand the point of victims desiring to defend themselves and to be free from violence. We want that too. That's actually the point of this law. So we ask for, sadly, honoring this discussion, but it doesn't mean that we should vote this amendment, and we do ask for a no vote on this amendment.
Is there any further discussion on Amendment L51? Representative Luck.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll make this quick. We still have a lot of things to cover, but if I understood correctly, the bill sponsor just argued that in 10%, only in 10% of the instances was a person injured, which flipping on its head, if I understood correctly, that means 90% of the time they aren't. And so are we suggesting that we would rather deprive the 90 of the protection that firearms afford in order to somehow possibly protect the 10 that were harmed Is there any further discussion on amendment L51
Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of amendment L51. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All as opposed say no. No. The no is having amendment L51 is lost. Also, we have nine minutes, 20 seconds left. Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move Amendment L-52 to Senate Bill 4 and ask that it be properly displayed.
That's a proper motion. Give us a moment to get that displayed. That is properly displayed to the amendment. Mr. Minority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So amendment L-52, in spirit of the last amendment we saw, carves out or prohibits an exception. So I didn't sit in this committee. But, however, I did talk to a lot of the people who are waiting to testify on this committee. and a lot of the members were veterans, military veterans, and their concern that they raised time and time and time again in the committee was that the problem with this bill is that if they go and get help from a health care provider, say a counselor, that they are now going to be essentially worried or scared or maybe not going to go and get the help that they need as a military veteran with PTSD because we all know that military veterans oftentimes are gun owners. And so I was going to run this similar amendment earlier. However, we got feedback from the assistant majority leader about maybe some legal issues with it. And so this is a new version that has been redrafted. And what it says is that the institutional petitioner is prohibited from filing a petition. And I think that maybe meets the requirements of the debate we had earlier as far as the legalities, as far as directing courts. So this just prohibits it from happening to begin with. Therefore, we're not directing the court. And I think it satisfies what was requested. Our military veterans, a lot of them come back. They do things that we can't even dream of. They need help. They are gun owners, and they are scared to go and get help now, or they will be, if this bill passes in its current form. And so I think this is a good faith, good effort amendment to address those concerns that we heard from literally hundreds of veterans over the course of this bill going through the process. I certainly urge an eye vote on this.
Thank you. Representative Kelty.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm up here to actually give my full support to this amendment offered by my colleague from El Paso County. I have seen firsthand, as a veteran, I have seen firsthand the impact of this type of law, this type of intrusion on an individual's life, especially a veteran. I've seen where veterans will not get help for their issues whether it's PTSD or any other mental help that they would like to seek because they afraid of losing their Second Amendment right I seen where they are afraid of losing the security clearances I seen where they afraid that they will lose their ability to own a gun to either hunt because they're hunters, or even just to protect their families. So this is a real thing. I know many of you are not veterans in this room. There's only a handful of us. But I'm telling you, I've seen this myself. this is a huge impediment on our veterans. They will not seek the help that they need most of the time because they're afraid of losing their rights. And to many veterans, including myself, one of the rights that I hold dearest to my heart is my Second Amendment right. and my brothers and sisters of uniform are the same so by instilling this amendment it will at least give them the relief of mind to know that they can also take and seek the help that they need and not lose those rights that they fought for and some died for for so long please vote yes on this amendment
Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-52? Representative Froelich.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We definitely share the desire to address the fact that suicide is a problem in the veterans community and that veterans are taking their lives at an alarming rate. It was interesting in one of our many previous debates on different gun violence prevention measures that a member of the minority who had also served in the armed forces said when they came back from service, they were not in a place mentally of stability. And they asked their army buddies, please take my guns away from me. That person didn't have a family member filing an ERPO, but they did have buddies that understood that they were in crisis. This amendment would mean that that same person in an institution, under the same suicidal ideation, under the same seeking of treatment, under the same crisis, that that institution would not recognize that mental health crisis and not file, begin the proceedings of a NERPO. So we know this is a problem. We share the same ideal of addressing veteran suicide, which is nothing short than tragic. This prevents the institution where that person is seeking treatment to file a petition. That's the point of our bill. So we do ask for a no vote.
Is there any further discussion on Amendment L52? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L52. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The no's have it. Amendment L-52 is lost. There is two minutes, 50 seconds remaining. Representative Luck.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L-48 and ask that it be displayed.
As a proper motion, give us a moment to get that displayed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is properly displayed to the amendment.
Fantastic. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So while we were talking about this bill in committee, there was a lot of gray because we don't really have data in this space. We don't really know all that much about who's filing, why they're filing, who they're filing against, what the conditions are, what the situation is, Why the risk is present and what is the remedy or the result. In fact, one of the particular data points that was given to us was something about one out of 17 ERPO's results in the saving of a life. There was no clarity as to what that meant. Does that mean that 17 times that we remove guns through an ERPO, 16 of the times people end up dying and one time they don't? There's a lot of different questions related to this. And so I'm running an amendment that just asks that the court, as they process this, will keep track of some aggregate data, some information that will help us to understand whether these petitions themselves are the reason why certain things are not happening. This really is a George Bailey or minority report kind of space that we're operating in. We don't know what would have otherwise happened. And yet there is some way to be able to understand who's George Bailey. Whoa. So it will help us to understand and fill in some of the gray. I am not in favor, I've said it multiple times from the well, of the government collecting data on individuals when it is related to personally identifiable information. You will note that nothing in this allows for the collection of personally identifiable information. We are talking about broad-stroke categories related to age and sex and race, ethnicity. Is it such that only males between the ages of 30 and 42 are being ERPO'd, or do we have a broader cross-section that can help us understand what might be going on in this space? you will note that it has a request for understanding the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent are they family members are they institutions are we seeing institutions using this and if not do we need to give them this right you know it's curious a couple of years ago when we were looking at the second iteration of expanding these provisions and and who can file an erpo claim we argued from this well that there would be a tension that is placed between a provider and their patient or between a teacher and their student if this was enabled to go forward and we
were basically representative luck thank you for your time time has expired on senate bill four so the question before us is the adoption of amendment l40 on the we are on the amendment on the amendment
I don't know. I don't know. We got done. Oh, oh, oh. Yeah. Yeah. Should I put it on this one? I know. I ain't mad. I hear really. I'm gonna say it. Yeah, everybody. I'm gonna press it. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. You know what? Yeah. I'm never mad at your office. I'm mad at a lot of people. And you can give your wife back to me. I disagree with Paula. I know we look at both businesses. I'm never ever going to get a whole food operator. Never in my life. If you even would be honored to have me at any sort of honor for you, I will mention that. and I like well I Understanding church I think seven right direction Hey you the chair You can be admitted at the same time I want to ship the gown. Yeah, there you go. I'm going to take this. He'll run up there for you. We can get through it.
Thank you. Thank you. A division has been requested. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please sit and remain seated. All those in favor of Amendment L-48, please stand and remain standing in one place, or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. All right. All right. Thank you. be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing in one place or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. You may be seated. Amendment L48 is lost. The question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 4. All those in favor say aye. all as opposed say no the ayes have it senate bill four is passed
mr scheeble will you please read the title of senate bill 43 senate bill 43 by senator sullivan also representatives frolic and brown concerning the regulation of firearm barrel barrel transfers and a connection therewith creating a criminal penalty for the unlawful sale of a firearm barrel Also for the members time limit for this bill is two hours starting now Representative Brown
Rep. Frolick. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 43 and the State Affairs Committee report.
To the committee report.
In the committee, we added an amendment about gunsmithing schools, and we asked for an aye vote.
Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Minority Leader Caldwell.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I request the bill be read at length. Thank you.
A bill for an act.
The bill will be read at length. 101 concerning the regulation of firearm barrel transfers and... 102 in connection therewith, creating a criminal penalty 103 for the unlawful sale of a firearm barrel. Bill Summary Note, this summary applies to this bill as introduced and does not reflect any amendments that may be subsequently adopted. If this bill passes third reading in the House of Introduction, a bill summary that applies to the re-engrossed version of this bill will be available at http colon slash slash leg dot colorado dot gov. The bill requires a firearm barrel to be sold or transferred in person by a federally licensed firearm dealer. A person who is not a federally licensed firearm dealer shall not possess a firearm barrel with the intent to sell or transfer, or with the intent to offer to sell or transfer, the firearm barrel. Unlawful sale of a firearm barrel and unlawful possession with Senate 3rd reading unamended March 2nd, 2026 Senate amended 2nd reading February 27, 2026 Senate sponsorship Sullivan, Coleman, Cutter, Danielson, Joday, Kip, Coker, Wallace, Weissman House sponsorship Froelich and Brown Shading denotes House amendment double underlining denotes Senate amendment capital letters or bold and italic numbers indicate new material to be added to existing law dashes through the words or numbers indicate deletions from existing law intent to sell a firearm barrel are each an unclassified misdemeanor a person must be 18 years old or older and legally allowed to purchase a firearm under state and federal law to purchase a firearm barrel subject to certain exceptions the bill requires a federally licensed firearm dealer to record a sale or transfer of a firearm barrel for at least five years The bill requires the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to create a form for federally licensed firearm dealers to record a sale or transfer of a firearm barrel 1 be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado, 2 section 1 In Colorado revised statutes, add 18-12-118 as 3 follows, 4 18-12-118 Unlawful purchase or sale of a firearm barrel, 5 penalty, definitions 6, 1, as used in this section, unless the context otherwise 7 requires 8. A. Family member, means 9. I. A person related by blood, marriage, or adoption 10. 2. A person who has a child in common with another 11 person 12. 3. A person who regularly resides or regularly resided 13. With another person within the last 6 months 14. 4. A domestic partner 15. V. A person who has a biological or legal parent-child 16. Relationship with another person, including step-parents and 17. Step-children and grandparents and grandchildren 18. 6. A person who is acting or has acted as another 19 person's legal guardian and 20, 7, a person in any other relationship described in
Representative Brown
1 section 18-6-8 18-6-800.3, 2, with another person 2, B, Firearm Barrel, means the tube through which a 3 projectile or shot charge is fired A firearm barrel includes any four forging casting printing extrusion machined body or similar five article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may sixth readily be completed assembled or converted to be used as a seven firearm barrel or that is marketed or sold to the public to 8 become or be used as a firearm barrel once completed 9 assembled or converted A firearm barrel may have a rifled or 10 smooth bore. 11. C. Firearm barrel does not include a firearm barrel 12 that is permanently attached or affixed to a firearm. 13. 2. A. IT is unlawful for a person to sell or transfer a 14 firearm barrel, unless the person selling or transferring the 15 firearm barrel is a federally licensed firearm dealer and the 16 sale or transfer occurs in person. 17. B. A person who violates this subsection, 2, commits 18. Unlawful sale of a firearm barrel Unlawful sale of a firearm 19. Barrel is an unclassified misdemeanor punishable, upon 20 conviction thereof, by a fine of not more than $521 and 30 days imprisonment in the county jail, except 22 that a second or subsequent offense is a class 2 misdemeanor 23. 3. A. It is unlawful for a person who is not a federally 24 licensed firearm dealer to possess a firearm barrel with the 25 intent to sell or transfer, or with the intent to sell or transfer, or with the intent to sell or transfer. offer to sell or 26 transfer the firearm barrel in violation of this section 27 b a person who violates this subsection 3 commits dash 3 043 one unlawful possession with intent to sell or offer to sell a two firearm barrel dot unlawful possession with intent to sell or offer three to sell a firearm barrel is an unclassified misdemeanor for punishable upon conviction thereof by a fine of not more than five five hundred dollars and 30 days imprisonment in the county six jail except that a second or subsequent offense is a class two seven misdemeanor 8. 4. A. A person may purchase or otherwise acquire a 9 firearm barrel from a federally licensed firearm dealer only if 10. I. They are at least 18 years old, and 11. 2. They are not prohibited from possessing, receiving, 12 owning, or purchasing a firearm under state or federal law. 13. B. A person who purchases a firearm barrel in violation 14 of this subsection, 4, commits unlawful purchase of a firearm 15 barrel. Unlawful purchase of a firearm barrel is a civil 16 infraction. 17. 5. A federally licensed firearm dealer shall legibly 18. Record the following information pertaining to the sale or 19. Transfer of a firearm barrel on a form to be prescribed by the 20 Colorado Bureau of Investigation, 21, A. The date of the sale or transfer, 22, B. The purchasers or transferees driver's license number 23 or other official government identification number and the 24 state or territory where it was issued, 25, C. The make, model, and caliber of the firearm which the 26 firearm barrel is designed for or used I. N. 27, D. The purchasers or transferees full legal name. 4. 0. 43. 1. E. The full legal name of the employee who processed the to-sale or transfer of the firearm barrel. 3. F. The purchasers or transferees full residential for address and telephone number. And 5. G. The purchasers or transferees date of birth. 6. 6. A federally licensed firearm dealer shall retain the seven records required pursuant to this section for at least 5-8 years. A dealer that does not retain their records pursuant to 9 this subsection. 6. I. subject to the penalties described in section 10 18-12-401.5 7 a 11 7 this section does not apply to 12 a the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel to a federal 13 state or local law enforcement agency 14 b the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel to a federal 15 firearms licensee 16 c the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel to the united 17 states military 18 d the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel to a person 19 who in the same transaction is separately purchasing a firearm 20 and undergoing a federal and state firearm background check 21 pursuant 218 USC SEC 922 T and section 18-12-1 12.5 22 E the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel to a federally 23 license collector who is acquiring or being loaned a firearm 24 barrel of a firearm that is a curio or relic A.S. Defined IN 27 CFR 25478.11, 26, F. A transfer of a firearm barrel that occurs by 27 operation of law or because of the death of a person for whom. Dash 5, 043. 1. The prospective transferer is an executor or administrator of 2 an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will. A transfer or 3 sale of a firearm barrel by an executor or administrator of an 4 estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will must be 5 conducted by a federally licensed firearm dealer and is subject 6 to the requirements of this section. 7. G. The sale or other transfer of ownership of a firearm 8 barrel if the sale or other transfer of ownership is to and 9 authorized representative of a city, city and county, county, 10 state, or the federal government, and the entity is acquiring the 11 firearm barrel as part of an authorized voluntary program. IN-12 which the entity is buying or receiving weapons from a private 13 individual, and 14, H, the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel that occurs 15 between family members. 16, 8, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation shall create a 17 form for retail record keeping pursuant to this section. 18, section 2. In Colorado revised statutes, 18-12-401.5, amend. 19, 7, A, introductory portion as follows, 2018-12-401.5. Permit required, issuing agency, cash fund, 21 inspections, penalty, report, rules, repeal 22, 7, a, except as provided in subsection, 8, of this section, if the 23 department finds that a dealer failed to post the required notice or make 24 a report concerning unlawful purchases in violation of section 18-12-111, 25 failed to make a record required pursuant to section 18-12-111, 26 failed to make a record required pursuant to section 18-12-402, 27 transferred a firearm without a locking device or failed to post the dash six zero forty three one required notice concerning locking devices in violation of section two eighteen dash twelve dash four oh five failed to comply with any of the requirements of section three eighteen dash twelve dash four oh six failed to comply with any of the requirements of section four twenty nine dash eleven point seven dash one oh five five violated any other provision of this article twelve or any five other state or local law concerning the sale of firearms or violated any six federal law or rule concerning the sale of firearms or firearm component 7 for which the penalty includes potential revocation of the person's federal 8 firearms license the department shall 9 section 3 effective date applicability this act takes effect july 10 1st 2026 and applies to offenses committed on or after said date 11 section 4 safety clause the general assembly finds 12 determines and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate 13 preservation of the public peace health or safety or for appropriations for 14 the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state. 15 institutions.
Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Representative Brown. Seeing no further discussion on the committee report.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to move L045 and ask that it be displayed.
That is properly displayed to the amendment. Representative Supland.
All right, thank you. Basically what this amendment does is it exempts agriculture from transferring barrel to barrel. and this particular bill I have a lot to say about because of how it affects me. So about four years ago, I got a perry dog problem. Boy, do I got a perry dog problem. I got a 50-acre field. And so the ranchers where I'm, we shoot a gun called a 17. We shoot a 17. 17 is a rifle that will shoot at 2 feet a second Buy one for 300 bucks Well I couldn keep up with all the prairie dogs so I talked to a couple of my buddies and they brought out these special guns that are called a 17 Fireball. And they brought another one called a 20 Special. And so what happened was, actually we better stand up a little more here. Okay, so what happened was they came out there, They got their pickups. They backed them into my field. And then they got their shooting tables out there. And they got these little clickers on how many that they hit. So on a 17, you can shoot a prairie dog from 200 yards. And these special guns, because a 17 fireball can shoot up to 4,500 feet a second, so almost twice as fast as a 17, they got set up. and I set them at 150 yards and they're like, no, you've got to back us up. You've got to back us up to 250 yards. Well, if anybody knows much about these peri dogs and what they do to your field, you can't see a peri dog hardly from 250 yards. But that's how far they wanted me to set them up. And so I did. And then they started shooting these peri dogs. They start at daylight. Peri dogs have sensor dogs and they talk to the other dogs and then they're a really smart animal and they go in the hole after you shoot if you're very close. So they're there for about an hour and a half, hour, and they said, and I was paying them a dollar a dog, and so they said, well, we shot 141. And I said, there's no way you shot 141. Some of them you said was 300, 400 yards. I was looking at binoculars, and they said, yeah, that's how many we shot. And so they left, and I went to town. Well, after they left, I thought they were lying to me. So I went out there on my side-by-side, and sure enough, out there in my field, it looked like Hiroshima. There was peridogs everywhere. And I left. And then after I left and I went to town, I came back. This was something that was very interesting. is I'm coming back about two hours later, I look out in my field, and there's all these blackbirds, and they were them turkey buzzard blackbirds, and there was 30, 40, 50 of them, and there was these three things moving around. I couldn't figure out what these three things were, but they were badgers. And then there was two other things, and they were really tall, and one was a golden eagle, and one of them was a bald eagle.
and what was interesting is the badgers would uh they would run around and they'd run off them blackbirds and they'd go to another prairie dog and then but when them when them badgers uh when they seen them eagles nobody screwed with them eagles them eagles eagles ate whatever they wanted why this amendment is important that field is what i need to grow that feed for my cattle and what happens is those prairie dogs there's so many of them they will build a mound that can get up to two feet high and when you run one of them 250 000 uh yes ma'am when they run one of them 250 000 swathers through there and they get into those sickles they ruin that equipment the other thing that happens is they'll suck in the dirt from the prairie dog hole and and then when i go to sell that hay to the horse people there on the racetrack at Albuquerque, they'll turn down my load because I got all that dirt mixed into that So I talking thousands and thousands And I would say this if anybody is worried about me killing all the perry dogs because that ain't going to happen. Because I told my friends, I said, if we have a nuclear bomb, there's going to be two things that live. And one of them is going to be a cockroach, and the other thing is going to be a perry dog. this barrel deal is important because i cannot build one of those 17 fireballs they do not sell the ammo we have to make our own ammo they are a precision gun that i have half and it's a screw on barrel and i have to have that barrel so that i can shoot the perry dogs out there 400 yards so that i can keep my field clean so that my cattle when they're running through there and my horses when they're running through there, or the neighbor's kids are running through there, they're not going to step in one of them holes and get hurt. This is a very sensible bill. We live differently over there, and let us country boys be country boys and approve this ag-exempt bill. Thank you. All right, Rep. Brolich, tough act to follow. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm so glad that of our two hours, we get to spend some time talking about prairie dogs. I actually have some experience on this on city council. We had to choose between vacuuming them up or gassing them. But we didn't have an option for the professional who was coming in to deal with prairie dogs for going through gun barrels to use them. So we think there are other ways you can deal with prairie dogs and we ask for a no vote on this amendment. Rebsukla, please tell us more. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is other ways, and I can tell you one thing. I don't feel like gassing them is an ethical way to treat the animal. They are better off blowing them to smithereens and they never felt a thing than they are gassing them. That's unethical. And I still say that this is a good amendment and vote yes. Rep. Froehlich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. What's your position? It is true when you gas the prairie dog, there's a certain percentage when they are... Members, it's too loud in here. We cannot hear the amazing conversation about prairie dogs happening in the well. Everybody should pay attention. We're learning a lot. Rep. Froehlich. When they are vacuumed up and hit the back of the truck, the first certain percentage, don't survive that. So that is a very, you're right, it is sad that they meet their demise. But really, fundamentally, there's nothing in this bill that limits how many barrels you can purchase. Only thing that we're asking is that you go to an FFL. So take care of your property in any way you need to. Use as many barrels as you feel you need to use. Swap out your barrels. we have research that says they can last quite a long time but again nothing in this bill prohibits you from replacing your your barrel on your gun so this amendment we need a no vote thank you Brad Blunk thank you Mr. Chair I wasn't intending to come and speak on this one but I do too also have experience with our fields and prairie dogs in our fields are much smaller than the good representative out down in the beautiful section of southwest Colorado. I will say that when you look at all these other options for dispensing with prairie dogs or pocket gophers or the other vermin as Elmer Fudd would say they very costly It's exceedingly costly. But having this kind of ammunition and precision firearm that is designed to actually take care of these is much cheaper. It's also my understanding that these barrels are specially made and not just available in any particular store that you would go to. And so I do think it's important that we allow for the supply chain to continue operating in the way that it has when this particular firearm is very much narrowed to this purpose. Brett Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to appreciate the amendment that my colleague from the Western Slope has brought. I am inclined favorably towards this amendment just because it uses the words varmint, which I don't think I've ever seen in statute. I will also say that I have learned how to spell that word just from seeing this amendment today. I will still ask for a no vote. My community in particular cares very deeply about prairie dogs. We see them as a keystone species on our prairie. I also recognize that many people, you know, many ranchers, like my good colleague from the Western Slope, also deals with sort of the impacts on their livestock. But in this particular case, we think that the bill does not actually prevent a person who was utilizing a barrel for the control of prairie dogs on their property from accessing a firearm burial. they just need to do it through a licensed dealer. So we ask for a no vote. Any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of L45. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. L45 fails. Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Rep Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L46 and ask that it be displayed. Okay, that is properly displayed to the amendment. Rep Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In committee, we were told that the purpose of this bill was to close a loophole with respect to the creation of ghost guns, as well as to potentially minimize the possibility for suicide. If that is the stated goal of this bill, that goal is not satisfied or even necessary when you already have a firearm barrel in your possession. If you already have a firearm barrel in your possession, presumably you already have the ability to create a ghost gun or you have the ability to commit suicide. And so this bill will do nothing with respect to that particular population. And so I'm asking for an exception to be made such that in the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel, if a person is exchanging an old used firearm barrel for the new barrel, they do not have to go through the protocols outlined in this bill. You see, there are folks out there in the world who shoot a lot. Think of professional shooters. And they tend to change their barrels out, depending on the particular firearm, maybe every 1,500 to 5,000 rounds. In fact, the bill sponsors noted that they received correspondence from some of these shooters who said that they go through hundreds. Hundreds of barrels in a calendar year. Hundreds. And so why should they have all of this reporting requirements imposed upon them if they already have the barrel and they can just come in and say, I'd like a new one, here you go, and avoid all of the recording of their information and the other invasive aspects of this bill. I don't see how including those kinds of folks in this actually addresses the problem that has been stated to be the reason for this bill, and so I ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion? Brett Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this discussion, and I appreciate my good colleague from Penrose and her engagement here. We ask for a no vote on this amendment. We think that this particular amendment is pretty broad and that when it comes to the need to purchase a new barrel, obviously all that this bill requires is that you do it through a licensed dealer. It does not prevent you from actually doing it for obtaining a new barrel. In this particular case, I think the way that this is written, any person who needed a barrel for any gun could probably get one without going through the requirements of this bill. So it would basically invalidate the entire bill, but I appreciate the discussion and the concerns of my colleague. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-46. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. L-46 fails. Any further discussion? Rep Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L-47 and ask that it be displayed. All right. That is somewhat properly displayed. To the amendment. Rep. Leclerc. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is another request for an exception to this particular bill and all of its requirements, which are requirements, right? There are new requirements, unlike what was just suggested. there are burdens that are being placed on people as they go to seek to purchase barrels and so again going back to what the bill sponsors have said is their intention with this bill I am asking that an exception be made in the event that the barrel is both 16 inches in length or longer and of a caliber greater than 0.25 why is that because when you are in that particular space Those weapons are not traditionally ghost guns, right? They're rifles, hunting rifles. And so you don't normally see them in the ghost gun space. You're not being created, as we've discussed in other bills. And they're not traditionally used for suicide either. And so I would just ask that we exempt these particular types of barrels so that, again, the intention of the bill sponsor is honored, but we're not unduly burdening other categories of firearm owners because they don't actually apply to the stated concern. Red Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, I want to thank my colleague from Penrose for this amendment. I'm going to ask for a no vote on this amendment. I know that many of the most destructive weapons have barrels that would fit into this particular category And so we think for the purposes of this bill and the way that it seeks to prevent criminal activity particularly from ghost guns, that this would be destructive towards the intent of the bill. So we ask for a no vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-47. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed to say no. No. The amendment fails. Seeing no further discussion on the committee report, Reb Sloth. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Though I think it would be very hard, we've heard about individuals who would use an excessive number, not excessive, an exceedingly large number of barrels in any given year. I think it would be very hard to do that, given our magazine restrictions in the state of Colorado. but being a veteran and being a member of the the Armed Forces I guarantee I know some people that would absolutely be able to burn through enough ammunition they would need to have a barrel change regularly that being the case I move amendment L 049 and ask that it be displayed That is properly displayed. To the amendment, Repslaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is pretty straightforward and simple. This amendment makes it so that anybody who is an active, reserve, National Guard, retired, or former member not dishonorably discharged to the United States Armed Forces is exempt from this. This is similar to what we have for the excise tax that we have on ammunition and other purchases in the state of Colorado. I think that that is completely fair. Everybody has heard me speak many times about my service in the military. Many other members here in this chamber service in the military. I am grateful for their service. I'm grateful for the service of brothers, uncles, fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, all the way back to several great-great-great-grandfathers who were members of the Continental Army and who fought in the War of Independence. there is no reason that those who have suffered and borne the possible wounds, scars, efforts, hardships, stresses, struggles of war, of training, should be penalized and not able to purchase extra barrels. They're individuals who oftentimes would probably be continuing to keep their skills up so that they can continue to live the oaths that they once swore. They would want to be able to maintain that proficiency, and that requires extra barrels. There's no reason that they should be regulated. There's no reason that they should have to purchase these from any kind of a particular dealer. Barrels are just a common part of a firearm, just the same as buying any other part. I could go down to my local Ace Hardware and purchase myself several replacement firing pin retaining pins, and nobody would ever know that because it just looks like a cotter pin. It just another part of a gun For those reasons I think that it is not a bridge too far at all to ask that our military service members be exempt from this policy Thank you, and I urge an aye vote. Rob Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I am definitely up here in support of my colleague's amendment L049. Veterans have a lot of obstacles in their lives that they have to go through, and yet we keep making more and more for them. Exempting them from this bill is something that they actually deserve. Gun ownership, gun maintenance, safe gun ownership, safe gun operation, everything to do with a weapon. Military, veterans, they're the experts. They're the experts that have lived it for many years growing up from 18 years old all the way up to even in their 40s when they retire. It's part of their life. It's part of their culture. It's part of their tradition. To exempt them shows them that we understand that. To exempt them shows them that you honor and you understand their lives, their traditions, and the things that mean so much to them. I'm asking for a yes vote on this amendment. I'm asking that not just for myself as a veteran, but for all my brothers and sisters who are veterans, whose lives will be impacted by this, that don't deserve to be so. Actually, no one in Colorado deserves it. But for the love of God, at least, at least show the honor to our veterans. Thank you. AM Al Winter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I urge a yes vote on this. We trust you veterans, and the people that are running this amendment trust you. We'll see who else trusts you. I urge a yes vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-49. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The amendment fails. To the committee report. Rep. Flannell. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The committee report is adopted. To the bill. Rep. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today, we come before you to talk about Senate Bill 43, a bill that will help to address the growing concern in our state, which is the proliferation of untraceable ghost guns and 3D printed firearms. I think it's important to note that this bill does not ban firearm barrels or prevent law-abiding Coloradans from owning or replacing them. Instead, it establishes common-sense regulations to ensure that firearm barrels are purchased through federally licensed dealers and that a clear record is maintained for law enforcement purposes. By requiring in-person sales and maintaining basic purchase records, we are closing a loophole that allows dangerous firearms to be assembled anonymously. The bill balances public safety with responsible gun ownership, ensuring that hobbyists, collectors, and firearm owners can continue to legally purchase and replace barrels without unnecessary restrictions Senate Bill 43 also includes thoughtful exemptions for military government and licensed collectors It's about responsible oversight, traceability, and not banning lawful gun ownership. And it ensures that a key firearm component is sold in a way that prevents illegal and untraceable firearms from entering our communities. And I'd ask for an aye vote. Rep. Berlich. Rep. Plinnell. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move Amendment L034 and ask that it be properly displayed. Okay, that is displayed. Rep Flanell, to the amendment. As my colleague from Boulder and Broomfield just said, that this bill somehow allows hobbyists, sportsmen, and gun owners to enjoy this sport, and they can get replacements, and it's not going to impact them at all. I ask that this amendment be brought forth because this bill does not address transfers. It doesn't include a temporary transfer for the purpose of repair, replacement, modification, or installment of a firearm barrel. So I don't know how they expect this to be done, but when people do need replacements, which is often the case, or if they need a repair, which again is often the case, especially if you are a competition shooter, if you are like my colleague from Delta and enjoy shooting prairie dogs, you are going to be using that barrel quite a bit, and it's going to be needing repair or replacement. And at that point, I don't know what you're supposed to do. if you go through a background check, which we've already stated, I've heard in committee, that's not doable. So I ask that this amendment be accepted because it does not define transfer in the bill. And I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Brett Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank my good colleague from El Paso County. I think it's important to note that this bill doesn't prevent anyone from transferring or particularly from anything that is – all that we are requiring is that people, in order to purchase a barrel, go through a licensed dealer. And so that to this amendment, unfortunately, because temporary is not defined, and also because we are talking about repair, not just repair, but replacement modification or installation, which is basically any time, as I read it, any time you would need to replace your barrel, this amendment would essentially invalidate the entire bill. And so we would ask for a no vote. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us, Rep. Flanell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In terms of temporary, so if you have to get your barrel repaired, I would imagine that you go to a gun store or a gunsmith and you hand your barrel over and you leave it there for a few days, maybe a few weeks, and they repair the barrel. To me, that would mean transfer, per definition. So again, I ask for an aye vote. Rep Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also rise in support of this amendment. As many of you know, or at least I hope you know, out in my district, House District 54, we have the Cameo shooting range, which is the state's largest shooting range. It's quite the economic driver for Palisade and Debeck. It's called Cameo. It shows what you can do to be able to take a brownfield and turn that into an all-terrain sports shooting complex for both pistols, shotguns, rifles, and all calibers. The one thing that we have hosted every year since Cameo opened is competition shooting events. And at some of these competition shooting events, like Girl in a Gun, for example, There's so many rounds that are actually fired, and there's so much pressure put on precision accuracy that sometimes there's only a few rounds that are put down a barrel before they change out the barrel altogether. They're professionals. It's like any other sport. It's highly competitive. They make millions of dollars just like other professional sports. Same types of shooters that you would see in the U.S. Olympics, for example. and they're wanting complete accuracy and they need to change out the barrels on the spot and you actually see them doing so. So for having an amendment that talks about the temporary transfer for the purpose of a repair, this is completely reasonable and understandable and I would ask for a yes vote. Rep Brooks. Sure, thank you. We talked about this a little bit at Committee. I had either the great misfortune or the fortune, depending on how you look at it, of sitting in the State Affairs Committee when this bill was heard. And I had asked a question. I know I look really young, but I'm just old enough that I can remember back when I saw a bunch of firearms that were sitting around on my relative's walls, and they're all pucked out, because gunpowder used to be corrosive. It's not corrosive now, but for family heirlooms, if you're wanting to switch out a barrel because it's been damaged because of corrosive gunpowder, you want to keep that as a useful firearm, as a family heirloom, the repair piece of this would be applicable. We would do it naturally, especially in Douglas County where we're law-abiding citizens. We would do that naturally in whatever the law-abiding manner prescribed. I will take exception, by the way, to my colleague that called out our colleague from Cortez about being a county that likes to shoot prairie dogs. We like to shoot prairie dogs, too, in Douglas County. I like to shoot a prairie dog now and again. We got a whole bunch of them in unincorporated Douglas County which is about five minutes in my backyard And you got to worry about cattle stepping in the holes I mean, they present a true problem. I know that I'm not as rural as my good colleague from Montezuma, Delta, Dolores, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Montrose, Ure, and San Miguel counties. but we do have some rural elements to Douglas County that I embrace and I live on the very back side of that law abiding county and I absolutely still embrace the need to be able to go out as you were mentioning and I really appreciated you know setting up shooting tables and the different barrels and everything else you talked about because I get that I'm not as rural as my colleague but I do understand that. I embrace that. And I will tell you that if we're trying to swap out a barrel from a family heirloom that was destroyed from a corrosive gunpowder in ages gone by, that we ought to be able to do that. I would ask for support on this amendment. Matt Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a good amendment. I do appreciate it being put up on display because it is pretty simple to read. I was a little confused by the sponsor who got up and said that the bill wasn't about transfer. It was about sales when the title is concerning the regulation of firearm barrel transfers. And then he took issue with what does temporary mean. Well, everything is temporary. There is nothing permanent. firearms parts wear out bills are amended sometimes thankfully repealed everything is temporary this shouldn't cause confusion it is simply releasing the firearms dealer from having to create the extensive records that this bill demands for every simple action that they take in maintenance or repair of one of their clients firearms. So I would urge a yes vote. Brett Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate my good colleague from Elbert County and his thoughtful discussion. I did not realize that we were going to be having an existential debate about the nature of permanence here in the well today. But I certainly appreciate that. It is important, I think, from a legal perspective to define what temporary means so that such language would not be, I would call, abused and basically invalidate the requirement in the bill, which is that these purchases are made through licensed dealers so that there is some record that law enforcement can fall back on when a barrel is used for a criminal purpose. So for that reason, I think this amendment, unfortunately, is too vague for me, and we would continue to ask for a no vote on this amendment. Rep. Richardson. I think this amendment actually very eloquently states what the temporary nature of this is. It is specifically for the purpose of repair, replacement, modification, or installation of a firearms barrel. Once those activities are completed it is complete That temporary nature is ended I think it is extremely well defined specifically defined and should not lead to any confusion. This amendment should be adopted. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L34. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The amendment fails. To the bill. Rep. Hartzok. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. So, what are we at? We're pushing almost evening now. So I was really enjoying that last debate there. I was thinking back to a lot of times out there in the range of swapping out barrels, and I'm like, I know what that's like. So, speaking of the range, and I mean, I guess I do understand that maybe our good colleague from up in Delta Way got the biggest range. We kind of think out where I'm at there in Elbert County we've got the Ben Loban gun range, that's where I go out shooting. We've got a 600 yard range we do a lot of hunting at and that's kind of what we're going to get to here when you look on top of page three for another person. When it comes to hunting even though you're not doing you're doing precision shooting maybe not as much as when you do an Olympic competition but you still want top-notch rifles you want top-notch barrels because after you pull that trigger and it's going down you want the right rifling you want the right twist on it the right length everything else for especially when you're doing those long distance shots and those are things that you don't want to get rid of those are things that you want to keep so in that respect I move L 029 to Senate Bill 43 request that it be properly displayed. That is properly displayed. To the amendment, Rob Hartzik. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if you will go to page 3, let me actually start at the bottom of page 2, where there's a person in the other relationship. So then you flip over to the top of page three, line one, where it says, with another, we're going to strike that person. We're going to put an and in there. And it says, person with a valid hunting license. I've taught my kids how to hunt. I've taken them hunting. I've taken them out on the range many, many times. We sit there and we practice over and over and over. So we are down to precision. So when we're out hunting, when you take a shot at the elk, you don't have to chase it halfway across the countryside. It's one shot and it takes the elk down. When you're out there hunting and you're doing things, and particularly with family and taking the boys out there, that is the best way to get a great exercise. Talk about organic meat. You know where its harvest is at. You know where it's cooked at. It is a great way to go about doing that. In order to do all of that, you want a precision barrel that goes with that precision rifle. In order to do that, I would ask for an aye vote on this amendment so a person with a valid hunting license we can pass this along to. Thank you. Rep. Bradley. Oh, I'm sorry. Rep. Bradley, sorry about that. No, you're fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in strong support of this. My husband takes four boys hunting. Four. They need to be able to have the ability to do that. So please please at the very least let support this amendment for all the people in Colorado that love our outdoors and love to hunt Thank you Rep Brown Thank you to my good colleagues for this amendment. I really appreciate it. I just want to sort of note, you know, my understanding is that a common caliber rifle that you might use in a hunting situation can shoot somewhere between 5,000 to 15,000 rounds before a barrel might need to be replaced. And I can tell you that from experience, the hunters in my family have had their rifles for decades and have never had to replace a barrel. So I think ultimately, while I certainly appreciate the concern that my good colleague from Parker brings and my other colleague from Douglas County, I think this is ultimately unnecessary. I think it's not what we are talking about here for the folks that hunt is not an unreasonable burden to have to purchase a barrel through a licensed dealer, and so we'd ask for a no vote. Rep Slough. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, a couple of years ago, well, I'll start differently. This last year was my first opportunity to go hunting. Though I've been shooting firearms since I was about four or five years old, I'm kind of a wimp, and I don't like to kill things. So I've never really been into the hunting thing. That said, I feel like it's an important thing to learn how to do. So I went this last year. I went with two of my really good friends and two years before that on a hunt up in the mountains one of those friends was hiking through the mountains tracking some elk he tripped over a log fell on his gun broke the stock and bent the barrel sufficiently that it was no longer able to be fired so even though that was almost a brand new and not inexpensive firearm he had to buy a new barrel almost right away. So I recognize that some of the times you may fire a firearms barrel several thousand times before you start thinking about replacing it. Sometimes you need to get a new one right now. And that may be from a store, from a hardware store up in the mountains. And sometimes that may be off of an internet retailer who sells parts. Because after all, we're talking about a firearm part. We're not talking about anybody purchasing a full firearm or anything like that. We're talking about a part. And this isn't anything that's special or anything in particular. It's a part. And many people own different lengths of barrels for the same firearm so that they can just change what they're doing with that. Rep Froelich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the discussion. Two challenges with this amendment. One is, as we've previously stated, the infrequency with which one needs to change the barrel out on a hunting rifle, although you can trip and need to do that. But the second is that this doesn't talk about that. It just simply talks about you have a hunting license. So go ahead, make your ghost gun in your 3D printer, and if you have a hunting license, you can invalidate what we're trying to do here. So please buy your barrels from an FFL, regardless of whether you have a hunting license or not. We ask for a no on this amendment. AML winner. I thought that we made ghost guns and 3D printing illegal. Yes. Didn't we make those things illegal? No, so you said that if you make a ghost gun or a 3D printer, they've been made illegal, correct? Rep Relic. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the clarification, yes, the whole point is that our ghost gun laws and our 3D printing laws, there is a loophole, and that is the barrel. And so we're asking you to buy your barrel from an FFL so that we know that you are not placing that barrel into 3D-printed or otherwise ghost gun plastic gun. Brad Richardson. The longer we talk... Thank you, Mr. Chair. The longer we talk about this bill, the more confused I get. we started with the sponsors saying that there were ongoing concerns about ghost guns and that buying these barrels in some other manner than through an FFL would allow ghost guns to be made, but ghost guns are already illegal. We heard arguments against this amendment that this doesn't happen with any frequency. So we shouldn't adopt the amendment because hunters don't have to replace their barrels very frequently. But during the 3D manufacture bill debate, we found from the fiscal analysis that ghost guns would probably never be made, never be prosecuted. There was one, again, oddly identified white male in the last five years that had been convicted of a like crime. So we're talking about something that rarely, if ever, happens to start with in the bill overall, but then saying that we shouldn't adopt an amendment because what it points to doesn't happen very frequently. I think we're getting just in this few first minutes kind of a direct feel that this bill is not directed in anything that really happens ever and isn't needed. Now, the last thing I must point out is that somehow buying from an FFL a barrel means that you're not assembling a ghost gun. The FFF dealer in this bill isn't required to ask what you're using the bill for, or the barrel for, just that they record the sale of it. So this bill doesn't prevent what was just proposed by the sponsor. But it's a good amendment, and I would urge you to vote yes. Repslaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, my previous amendment was struck down for now, and I talked in that amendment about that I was a veteran, military service member, in training. I have my hunting license. I have my concealed carry permit. What I wonder is how many times does an individual have to prove that they are trustworthy and that they should be allowed to purchase firearms or firearm parts. Again we talking about a part I proven that as a hunter even if I a new hunter I proven in one more way that I am a safe firearm owner Again, how many ways does an individual have to prove that they shouldn't have to have more regulations put on them to purchase firearms or firearm parts? How many more ways? I only have so many cards in my wallet. I'd love to have a larger collection of things in my wallet that say that I should be allowed to buy whatever firearm I want, whenever I want, and to buy whatever barrel or part or piece of a firearm anytime I want. How many more cards do I need to stuff in my wallet to say that I'm a trustworthy firearm owner? Rep Gilchrist. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just, my colleagues had mentioned that 3D printing and ghost guns weren't a problem, so I just wanted to correct the record there. We stated a lot of this data in the 3D printing bill debate earlier this session, but I wanted to start with the firearm suicide rate in California actually increased by 6% for every 20 ghost guns recovered per 100,000 people. A review of crime gun recoveries in cities found that in the past five years, 3D printed gun recoveries in 20 cities have increased by a thousand percent. One thousand percent. In 2024, the most recent year of data, Denver recovered 64 3D printed crime guns and in 2020 it was just nine. Just recently an 18 year old in California is facing charges for allegedly using a 3D printer to manufacture ghost guns in his bedroom. He had two working printers and 27 unfinished or unfinished weapons, and some were modified to act as machine guns. There are many more data points like these. Rep. Richardson. While it may seem that we're making laws that are California-like, we don't make laws for California. There is only one similar crime to the creation of a ghost gun that's been convicted, tried, in this state in the last four years. That was brought forward by our fiscal analysts. I think we have to believe our professional staff when they provide us data. Vote yes. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L29. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The amendment fails. To the bill. Representative Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L003 to Senate Bill 43 and ask that it be displayed in whatever manner pleases you. Rep. Richardson, could you restate your motion with the proper... I will restate that. It is L033. that I wish to move to 43. To the amendment, Rep. Richardson. Thank you. Again, very simple amendment, but very practical. I represent four full counties, three partial counties. Those four full counties are much less than 50,000 people, and I can't bring maps or props to the well, but having looked through my district which is about 140 miles east to west 100 miles north to south even if you just on I there is a gap from Deer Trail to Burlington a little over 100 miles where there are no FFLs If you don't live on I-70, you live 50 miles north or south, you're talking travel times of well over an hour just to get there, another hour back, to get something that we should be able to order through the mail. It's not a dangerous item. It's a piece of metal. We are putting just, I won't say ridiculous, that we are putting very significant requirements and hardships on people that use firearms as a tool in their day-to-day world. world. We're just kind of grasping at straws here. You need a barrel for your gun. Order a barrel for your gun. Install the barrel for your gun. You have something that was legal before. It's legal afterwards. If there's a problem in the cities, let's deal with problems in the cities, but let's not inflict our solutions on places where we aren't having a problem. Again, one recorded like crime of creation of a ghost gun with a 3D printer or CNC machine. I didn't track that down. I doubt it was in a rural area. I think we can safely carve out all of our smaller counties from this bill and I would urge a yes vote. Rep. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I strongly urge a yes for this. This is what we talk about in the building all the time, is the urban-rural divide. For House District 63, six of my seven counties are less than 50,000 folks. That means you're going to make my folks, my counties, have to drive even more have to add more regulations, more burden to get to the same concept. If this is an urban-centric issue, why are we not making it to that center? Why are we affecting the entire state? This is good governance to make sure that the targeted areas you're approaching are actually targeted without doing consequence on other areas. Out in Eastern Plains, we want to be left alone. We want to operate what we've been doing. We want to make sure that we can have access to what we already legally have access to. We'll have legal access to this afterwards. So why are we adding so much extra regulation and burdens? Our roads are deteriorating, but you want us to travel more on them. We already are limited resources, and you still want to continue to make sure that we are barred from other resources. For rural areas, please vote yes on this amendment. Brett Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the engagement of my colleagues on this. I will say that I certainly appreciate that maybe in a suburban community or in an urban community, people may have different sense or values about firearms as in a rural community. Obviously in a rural community they become tools that are utilized in agricultural work in many ways and in other cases for defense But I also know that whether you live in an urban community or a suburban community or a rural community we should all be safe from criminal activity. And the kind of activity that we are talking about here, un-serialized 3D-printed firearms, 3D printed firearms that have been used in mass shooting events in Colorado. I don't care if you live in a suburban, an urban, or a rural area. Everyone should be safe from that. And that's what this bill is about, making sure that we have protections for folks, regardless of the county that they live in or the size of that county or the number of people in that county or whether it's urban or rural. Everybody deserves that protection. So we ask for a no vote on this amendment. Red Black. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm kind of confused because on one hand, this body has passed legislation to prohibit the creation of these guns, whether ghost guns in the traditional way of old-time gunsmithing, that's been the heritage of Americans since before the republic was founded, and now most recently in the 3D printing space. And so why do we need the next layer if our laws work? And if they don't work, why would anybody actually follow this one? The other part that is confusing to me is the bill sponsor's argument just now lends itself to the idea that there is something inherently evil about a gun that was created by something other than a licensed manufacturer. And I don't understand that particular argument. I thought that the evil came from doing harm unjustly to another, not the origin of the particular weapon. And I will also just note that knowing folks throughout the state that live in rural Colorado, if the idea is to limit criminals or not to encourage criminal activity, it would be wise to actually take this amendment because the consent of the governed in rural Colorado is not present on laws like this. Seeing now, Rep. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the sponsor's desire for safety for all citizens. This amendment helps ensure the safety of my citizens, and I would ask for a yes vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L33. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The amendment fails. To the bill. Rep Luck. Rep Soper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L050 and ask that it be properly displayed. That is properly displayed. To the amendment, Rep Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, members, one thing that's laid out in the bill was a bit of a, we'll just call it a fallacy or an error, in that for an antique firearm you could buy the firearm or the replica of the firearm from someone who's not an FFL. However, if you want to just buy the barrel itself, then you had to go through an FFL. In talking to the sponsors, that was never really the intent to accompany these types of barrels here. And this is very clear. It just says the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel for an antique firearm as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 921. This is also almost the exact same language that's already in our Colorado Criminal Code for definition of firearm. So it's well settled in terms of our definition, and I'd ask for a yes vote. Red Brooks. Thank you, Chair. I actually just got a piece of antique firearm history, so I would ask for a yes vote for the puckle gun. Red Prelic. Heads up, folks. We urge a yes vote on this amendment. And we've enjoyed our conversations with a good representative from Delta. I knew that. I was going to get it. I just want to verify. Anyway, so yes to this amendment. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L50. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The amendment is adopted. Rep Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L4-3 and ask that it be displayed. Okay, that is properly displayed to the amendment. Rep Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In committee, there was some confusion related to the definition that is listed for firearm barrel. And during the course of that conversation, a few things were cleared up. One being that the bill sponsors don't intend to cover straws for things like spit wads. That's good to know. It also got cleared up that there was a desire to have two additional elements that had to be both met. one that it was forged, cast, blah, blah, blah, and that it was marketed or sold. And so I just wanted to provide the clarity that was brought out in committee in this amendment to just ensure that the bill sponsors intent, as was stated in committee, is accurately displayed within the drafting of this particular definition. I ask for an aye vote. Brett Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. and I want to thank my good colleague from Penrose for her engagement on this particular issue. And I did enjoy and appreciate our conversation in committee on this particular issue. And so I will just mention that we will ask for a no vote on this amendment, in part because we believe this is already sort of a settled question in the courts and really in our bill. the bill at issue was a question about whether or not we have sufficient understanding of what a firearm barrel is and whether or not our bill in particular outlaws items that might be sold at a hardware store such as a pipe or a straw. and you know to be clear to be regulated an item must be marketed to the public as a firearm barrel or be readily completed Colorado courts in the case RMGO versus Polis have ruled that readily converted refers to the original intent of the manufacturer meaning that raw metal tubes intended for plumbing would generally be excluded. Based on the text of the bill, it doesn't outlaw standard metal tubes sold at hardware stores, and it provides specific multi-part definition of what constitutes a firearm barrel already. So I think what's important here is that, you know, based on case law and based on the way our bill is written, it is really about the intent and manufacture of the item, it is about the marketing of the item, and it is about exclusion of integrated parts because our bill also clarifies that it does not apply to barrels that are permanently attached to a firearm or those sold as part of a complete firearm purchase. So while I certainly appreciate the intent of this and I've appreciated the discussion, I think based on case law and the way our bill is written, it is unnecessary, and we ask for a no vote. Rep. Black. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, I'm not changing any of the substance of what was just mentioned. I'm just making sure that it is clear in its language as much as is possible. If you look at the definition of firearm barrel, it says firearm barrel means the tube through which a projectile or shot charge is fired. Full stop. the tube through which a projectile or shot charge is fired. That could be a potato launcher, a t-shirt launcher, a cannon, a circus cannon, a straw for a spit wad, right? All of those things fit strictly in that. And during committee, we talked about the fact that the other sentences are supposed to be limiting sentences, but that's not how it's written. In fact, it actually is written in the opposite way because it says, a firearm barrel includes includes it's not exclusive to these things it includes these things among other things that it could include and so providing a bit of clarity shouldn't be a problem if indeed the bill sponsors are trying to achieve what they have stated up here and in committee that they are trying to achieve. I still ask for an aye vote. No further discussion before us is the adoption of L43 all those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. No. The amendment fails to the bill. Replica. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L3A and ask that it be displayed. That is displayed to the amendment. Replica. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill punishes folks who intend to sell barrels. Now, we have talked about how there are some folks who go through hundreds of barrels in any given year because of their extensive use of firearms. They may have a cache of firearm barrels in their storage, just things that they have purchased maybe on sale or in preparation of this bill becoming enacted. They want to rush out and get as many as they might need in whatever period of time they anticipating And so they will have you know quite a few In other contexts in law intent to sell can be proven or shown evidence can be shown that when there is a large quantity of something, that there is an intent to sell because, well, they could never use that many of whatever, and so therefore they must have been intending to sell it. This amendment simply says that mere possession of multiple barrels is not on its own proof of a person's possession with intent to sell or offer to sell a firearm barrel. In other words, just having 50 firearm barrels does not in and of itself prove or substantiate a claim that the person intended to sell them. There would have to be much more to bring someone up on charges under this particular provision. I ask for an aye vote.
Hey, my winner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think what this is going to create, if you all remember the magazine ban, PMIG did a magazine drop and flooded the state with them. And actually, they're in Virginia doing the same thing right now. and one thing that's historic about gun control is is when a bill like this comes up you all end up being the best salesmen there are for something so i could totally see barrel manufacturers just churning barrels out selling them at a discount that way those of us that are law-abiding citizens can stockpile these for the reasons that my colleagues have stated in all the amendments before so i rise in support of this amendment number one as we put our caches of barrels together which i'm sure a lot of people will do that we don't get caught up in this that it's intent to sell. Those of us that do shoot for hobby and do shoot for sport, you do shoot barrels out. I know for those of you that don't shoot, it seems like that it's not possible to do, and we're just using that as a straw man argument, but that's the farthest thing from the truth, especially if you shoot competitively or if you shoot rounds that go so many feet per second, because you'll literally burn the barrel out of a gun, depending on, especially if you're shooting wildcat rounds, and that's a whole other argument that you all wouldn't understand. But at the end of the day, this is just going to create a massive influx for barrel manufacturers, and they're going to appreciate the business that you've created for them. So I, on the other hand, urge a yes vote on this so those of us that buy 20, 30, 40, 50 barrels don't get caught up in any craziness. Thank you.
Brett Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. and I just want to mention that really our bill is not really about possession of barrels at all and that there's really nothing in the bill that would indicate that anyone who had multiple firearm barrels was intending to sell them or violate the law in any way. So we think this particular provision is completely unnecessary and while I certainly appreciate the sponsor's intent, we would ask for a no vote.
Seeing no further discussion, Rep Black.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In this bill on page 4, we do note that there is a crime created, unlawful possession with intent to sell or offered to sell a firearm barrel. That particular provision, intent to sell, what are the elements of that? There would have to be a demonstration that they intended to sell, and all I'm saying is that the mere possession of multiple barrels barrels does not lend itself to proof, right? You have to have more than that related to intent to sell. When we think about it, the drug categories when we think about it in the drug context having a large amount of drugs can be used to show an intent intent to sell I just want to make sure that we precluding that as a possibility in the event of this bill passing
Rep. Verlick.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for this discussion and for bringing this amendment. It's my understanding, legally, the only time quantity is equated with intent to sell is in drug possession. this bill does not contemplate the legal proof necessary for intent to sell purposefully because we don't want to get people caught up in things. And so we do not wish to implicate or not implicate the quantity in the intent. So we ask for no vote.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L38. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed to saying no. No. The amendment fails. Brett Brooks.
Chair, thank you. I'd like to draw your attention to page five. Top section there on page five. Federally licensed firearm dealer shall retain the records required pursuant to this section for at least five years. let's not forget that we're talking about something that's not serialized it's very difficult to track but yet we're going to want the FFL to hang on to that information for five years hanging on to information for five years for something of this nature seems excessive I move L027 and ask it to be properly displayed
That is properly displayed to the amendment.
Thank you, Chair. Not a particularly difficult amendment, and again, if we're looking to just replace the language, which is on page 5, related to five years. This is to amend the language to strike five years and substitute 24 hours instead. It's a much more reasonable period of retention for something that we already know is not serialized, difficult to track to begin with anyway, so what is it that we're tracking? What is it that we're keeping? What is it that we're retaining? If what we're retaining is of a very... I guess transitory or aloof. I want to keep away from using, yeah, exactly, ghost, because we're all just moving through this life. We'll avoid the existential conversation again. But I do believe that this is a much more reasonable retention period for FFLs, and I would ask for an aye vote.
Rev. Prolick. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair and thank you to my colleague from Douglas County. If we could do a little experiment I'm not allowed to do it and I don't think we're allowed to do this in the well but why don't you look in your phone and see when the last picture was taken. The very oldest picture. Mine is from 2000 and how many pictures do you have? That represents an incredibly small fraction of the amount of record keeping that we're asking of FFLs. So we're literally asking record keeping on the level of what you keep in your iPhone every day. The second piece of this is you must have incredible faith in law enforcement that in conducting an investigation they would need to access that. They would only need to access those records for 24 hours. So 24 hours is not quite there for us on that, and we ask for a no vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-27. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed to saying no. The amendment fails. To the bill.
Rep. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. From the previous discussion, I understand the transient nature of record keeping, and I do have valued photos on my phone that I actually want to keep, but we're directing people to keep data, and I think there are some more reasonable time frames. I move L-018 to Senate Bill 43 and ask it to be displayed in a manner that appeals to the body.
That is properly displayed. To the amendment.
Again, I do recognize that 24 hours might be too short a time, and we do have great faith in our law enforcement, but they are not supermen, though they are heroes. This amendment would reduce the record retention time frame to two years, and I base this on some research with a body that might surprise you. If you'd like. So there's this group called Brady that I know is referenced often by those in the majority party. And their research indicates that when a weapon is illicitly obtained, it is generally used within a two-year period. So I think if we want to rely on Brady for legislation, we should rely on their data. and I think a two-year retention period consistent with what they have found is adequate, and I would urge a yes vote.
Rep. Verlick.
Thank you so much. For the folks listening at home, Brady is a super cool organization named after Ronald Reagan's press secretary who was shot in an assassination attempt. We're going to urge, and not surprisingly, a no vote. As I mentioned before, the record-keeping request is so minimal in this bill. Literally one piece of paper, which you can photograph and keep in your iPhone or keep on your laptop or whatever that is, it's already minimal. It does not need to be reduced more. We ask for a no vote.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L18. All those in favor say aye. Will those opposed to say no? The amendment fails. To the bill, Rep. Gonzalez.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I obviously am coming here in opposition to House or Senate Bill 43. This bill is an unnecessary and extreme expansion of gun regulation that targets a non-deadly firearm component, simple metal tubes rather than criminals who misuse guns by criminalizing private good faith transfers of spare or replacement barrels and even creating a pre offense based purely on alleged intent to sell the bill invites selective enforcement against otherwise law-abiding gun owners while doing little to deter actual violent offenders who do not obtain parts through lawful channels. The in-person FFL requirement for every barrel transaction will fall hardest on rule car ratins who with limited access to dealers effectively turning routine maintenance and hunting related barrel sweeps into costly time-consuming ordeals. Its sweeping reprieve keeping mandate forces dealers to collect and store detailed personal information on every barrel buyer for at least five years creating a de facto registry of gun owners and their components that raises serious privacy and data security concerns. At a time when Colorado faces major budget sorefalls and persistent violent crime directing state resources toward tracking and policing ordinary barrel sales is a misplaced priority their roads the second amendment rights while failing to address the real drivers of violence therefore I move amendment L22 to sign up bill 43 and ask that it be properly displayed that is properly displayed to the amendment Rep Gonzalez thank you Mr. Chair so all this amendment does is a repeal and report so the judicial branch shall prepare a report for the general assembly with information regarding how often a criminal offense pursuant to the section is charged in the state how many successful prosecutions have been brought based on an offense listed in the section and whether this section has produced any measurable public safety benefits the report must be delivered to the general assembly no later than january 15th of 2031 and depending on the report this section is repealed effective june 30th 2031 and i ask an
vote on this amendment. Seeing no further, Rev. Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also rise in support of this amendment. Members, this is entirely reasonable to hear how many people have actually been convicted of the offense that's in the bill. It's important that we know is this really a widespread problem? Is this something that really was not an issue at all? Was it a red herring? And the only way we find out is
through the collection of data and report coming back to the General Assembly. And this calls for just that over a five-year period. So I'd ask for a yes vote.
Brad Brown.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank my good colleague from Weld County as well as my good colleague from Delta County for their comments. We asked for a no vote on this. I think, honestly, we already know the proliferation of ghost guns and the amount that they are contributing towards death and destruction and criminal activity, and that's why we're running this bill. We don't need the Judicial Department to spend a bunch of money and tell us something that we already know, and so I would ask for a no vote as this is unnecessary.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L22. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Aye. L-22 fails to the bill. Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-26 to Senate Bill 43 and ask that it be properly displayed. That is properly displayed to the amendment Thank you Mr Chair Members, I'll direct your attention to page 3 of Senate Bill 43. In Senate Bill 43, there's a couple sections here, page 3, lines 19 through 22, page 4, lines three through seven that make it a unclassified misdemeanor which is punishable by up to not more than five hundred dollars and 30 days imprisonment and then it's a class two misdemeanor for any repeated offense i'm speaking very closely to my house judiciary committee members here when And we tend to be hesitant on creating new penalties and crimes or increasing penalties. And so what this will do is we'll change the misdemeanor, the unclassified misdemeanor punishment to a civil infraction. That seems fair. Again, the amount of times that I've heard between House Judiciary and here about creating new penalties or, you know, penalizing people. This seems fair. drop it to a civil infraction, I think around it's a $100 fine instead of an actual misdemeanor, which people can go to jail for. I think that's fair and reasonable, and I think it's very in line with the legislature and a lot of the bills that we see come through here. So I certainly encourage an aye vote on this amendment. Brett Brown.
Thank you to the good minority leader, and I appreciate his engagement here. And I certainly am not in the business of creating excessive penalties for criminal activity, especially given the prison population problem that we have. I will note that the misdemeanor that is in this bill is consistent with existing law for similar infractions. And I will also note that my good colleague from Denver told me over here that interfering and disrupting a caucus proceeding is also a misdemeanor. And so if that's a misdemeanor, this is a, I would say, I would think that the infractions that we're talking about in this bill certainly exceed disrupting a caucus process. And so I would ask for a no vote on this amendment.
Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think maybe we found an area of agreement here that a misdemeanor for interfering with caucus or assembly is a misdemeanor, and that seems a little harsh, so I would agree if he would have looked to make that a civil infraction as well. But I will stand by that something that is totally normal and legal and fine today, we are now making a misdemeanor which we can put people in jail for. It just doesn't seem fair or right. One day, nothing, and then the next day you can go to jail for it. I don't think that's right, and I don't think that's in line with what the legislature tends to agree on, at least sitting on House Judiciary. I mean, we try to increase penalties on a lot of things, and it doesn't happen. So with that being said, I appreciate my colleagues' disagreement there, but there's a lot of areas of law that we have misdemeanors that probably shouldn't be. So again, I'll urge a high vote on this. Rep. Richardson.
Thank you Mr Chair I do think this amendment is entirely appropriate If the fear is that coming by a barrel illicitly is going to allow you to complete a self unserialized firearm, that act in itself is a felony. having a hunk of metal with a hole down the middle of it isn't going to hurt anybody but that act of assembly has already been made a felony I don't know why we need to stack up some lesser included offenses that really would mean little or nothing when going into a court of law so please accept this amendment
Minority Leader Caldwell Thank you Mr. Chair I mean while we're on the topic I do fear what some would call a fallacy. I don't, the slippery slope. Today it is barrels, which is essentially a hunk of metal with a hole down the middle of it. And what I fear is that we're making that a misdemeanor, which, again, today is perfectly legal and fine. This bill passes. It will now be a misdemeanor. And then next year we're back here. And the next thing you know, it's the grips. It's the front grip accessory. It's the buttstock. Then it will be the barrel shroud. and then next thing you know it'll be a carrying handle like where does it end and I think we're setting a horrible precedent with just essentially an accessory to the gun now making it a misdemeanor punishable by jail doesn't seem right so again urgent I vote on this amendment seeing no further discussion the motion before us is the adoption of L26 all those in favor say aye all those opposed say no the amendment fails to the bill Brad Richardson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps a little palate cleanser. I move L051 to Senate Bill 43 and ask that it be properly displayed.
That is properly displayed. To the amendment, Rep. Richardson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the great staff here for getting this displayed. We talked a little earlier about trusted agents in the state, our military, our veterans, our hunters, that we should be able to trust them. in that list of folks that I think should be entirely trusted with the barrel of a gun, a hunk of metal with a hole down the middle of it, would be members of the Civil Air Patrol that hold the rank of major or above. You may be familiar with some of those people. 65 of them sit in this chamber, and though I hesitate to offer something that places us above, perhaps the citizens that we serve, I think it's entirely appropriate that we recognize ourselves as trusted people that are not attempting to do any harm. So I urge a yes vote.
Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the commander of the legislative civil air patrol for the house, I certainly encourage an aye vote on this amendment, which is a great reminder that I have some forms on my desk. There's like five or six of you that still haven't done it yet, but certainly get your ...work turned in, support this amendment. This is very important. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-51. All those in favor say aye. Aye! All those opposed say no. No. The amendment fails to the bill. Rep. Johnson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-023 to Senate Bill 43 and ask that it be properly displayed. Hi. Sorry. Hello.
Okay, to the amendment.
Rev. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we are talking about things that will infringe, they don't take into consideration of rural values and access, and we've heard a lot of debate today, I think we need to allow the people to have a say. I would strongly urge a petition clause.
Reparant.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is simple. Members, colleagues, simple. Leave it to the people if they think this is going to be bad. I know we bring this up a lot, but it's very important. I'm pretty sure you're all expecting this amendment to come forward on all your bills that have a safety clause when really not necessary. Leave it to the people I urge an aye vote.
Brad Brown.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank my good colleague from the Eastern Plains, again, for her commitment to engaging with the electorate and to making sure that people have a voice in this building. I will say that I think we're talking about life, health, and safety here. In particular, we're talking about criminal activity and the use of guns that have been used in mass shooting events. And so for me, that seems like a necessary place for a safety clause. And so I ask for a no vote on this petition clause. But I certainly appreciate her commitment to making sure voices are heard.
Brad Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. and while I recognize you're trying to clamp down or create new criminal activity, I would remind you that the incidents that you referred to are already crimes. So I think we can take a slower step here and maybe allow the people to have a voice.
Brad Black.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to that point, this act becomes effective July 1st as it currently stands. So what's another month and a half?
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L23. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The amendment fails. Rep. Block.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L37 and ask that it be displayed.
That is displayed to the amendment. Rep Luck.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the bill an FFL may only sell a barrel if the purchaser is at least 18 years old and is not prohibited from possessing receiving owning or purchasing a firearm under state or federal law To determine if someone is 18 or older can be a pretty straightforward endeavor, assuming they didn't make a fake ID. They can just hand over their driver's license, and again, if people can do math, which based stuff of the school results in our state, that might be in question, but that's a conversation for another day. The other portion, though, as relates to possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm and being prohibited to do so, is not as straightforward. When I first read this bill, I thought, oh, that is requiring a background check as relates to the purchase of barrels. But the thing about it is the background check system that is used by FFLs cannot take a barrel request background check. What is required in order to use it is a serialized number for a regulated part. And so if you don't have that, you can't access the background check system, which means that the person in front of you, you may or may not know, can legally possess a firearm. And when I asked the FFLs in committee about this and about what they were likely to do related to the risks associated with possibly selling a barrel to someone who is prohibited from owning a gun, I was told that they will just not sell barrels. They will cut off this particular strain of commerce because the risk is too great. they cannot confirm if someone actually has the legal right to own or possess a firearm and there is nothing that has been moved in order to try and rectify that problem and so another question i asked was what does that lend you to believe about this and one of the witnesses said it lends them to believe that the idea is to actually eliminate firearms through the fact that people will not be able to purchase replacement barrels, and therefore the current weapons that they own will become inoperable. Because they can't buy it. And so I am moving this amendment so that we strike that latter part. And all we require is that they be 18 years of age or older. I ask for an aye vote.
Rep. Brolich.
Rep. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's actually a very practical and reasonable amendment. We can't be asking firearms dealers to do things that they cannot possibly do. They can't look at a license or into the eyes of a purchaser and divine whether they can legally possess a firearm or not. That can only be done through a background check, which is not required by this bill for the sale or transfer of a barrel. So to ask a firearms dealer to do the impossible is something that should not belong in the laws that we pass in this chamber. So I do urge a yes vote.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-3-7. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The amendment fails to the bill. Rep Luck.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well if that can be the solve to this very real problem let try another I move amendment L44 and wonder what will happen if I don ask for it to be displayed
Nonetheless, it was displayed to the amendment. Rep. Black. Thank you, Mr. Chair and non-Potterson staff.
A long, unanswered question just was answered. I appreciate it. So this particular amendment says, all right, if you're going to keep in both of the requirements, one, that the person has to be 18 and that the FFL has to know that they're able to possess and own a firearm, then let's make it easy on them. Let's make it such that a person's driver's license has a notation that they cannot legally own a firearm. And that way when they give the license over, both the age and the ability to own are all included in that one simple act. In fact, I would say that this is a better way to go than spending large amounts of money through CBI on staff and resources, infrastructure to do regular background checks. Let's just make it such that every person's driver's license who's not allowed to own or possess a firearm in the state of Colorado says as much. It could be a fun, you know, design, right? We could have a contest of what it looks like, have a stamp on your driver's license so that all you have to do is hand it over, and there it is, plain as day. And everybody else who is allowed to own a firearm can move on easily in these various transactions. I ask for an aye vote.
Wrap around.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with this amendment simply because we already have a stamp on these IDs for organ donors. And this is the easiest way to do it since you have to go through the legal process to get an ID, go to the DMV, show proof of who you are, all of this legal process. If you are not legally allowed to own a firearm, like the good representative here that performed me said, we can have a stamp on the ID as well. I'd say an AR-15 with a circle around it and a cross. Or just a little slash. A red one. A big red one. That'd be nice. Put it right next to the name. That way you see the name. The birthday is right below it and you'll see that little stamp. It's the easiest way. It makes sense that when somebody gets his second amendment taken away, their ID is confiscated. They need to go back to the DMV to purchase another ID, $15, along with that stamp. They cannot pick up that ID without the paperwork saying they cannot own a gun. So this is a very, very sensible amendment to make it easier for the FFLs, the gun stores, to be able to notice which people cannot buy this barrel because they cannot own a gun. Even though we still cannot agree that a barrel is not a gun. It's a gun part. Without the rest of the components to make the gun, the barrel does nothing. Absolutely nothing. But if we going to go that route obviously this chamber is pretty straightforward on wanting to pass this bill This is a great amendment that going to be good for the gun store owners everything to say hey, I'm sorry, your ID says you cannot own a gun, you cannot buy this barrel. So I urge an aye vote.
Rep Richardson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this body has to accept this amendment. We denied the last amendment, which would have relieved the firearms dealers from the impossible task of looking at somebody and just determining whether they should or should not possess a firearm. As it stands right now without that previous amendment, we're putting our gun dealers in an impossible situation, which is not being able to sell an otherwise legal item to somebody that they do not know whether they can or cannot possess a firearm. So this allows that to be determined. It provides another piece of verification from the state that can be relied on by these businessmen who are just trying to do legitimate business. So I would recommend an aye vote or an explanation of how a firearms dealer is supposed to determine if somebody who wants to purchase a barrel can legally possess a firearm. So I would leave it like an answer to that or an acceptance of this amendment.
Seeing no further discussion, the most rep for like. Thank you so much.
You know, we're very purposeful in what we're asking the FFLs to do and have drafted as such. And so we want to ask for a no vote on this amendment.
Rep. Richardson.
I would ask the sponsor to explain how a firearms dealer is supposed to know whether somebody can legally possess a firearm or not when asked to transfer a barrel or sell a barrel to a member of the public.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The bill clearly states that you have to be 18 years old. That's the primary responsibility of the FFL. Most of barrels are purchased in conjunction with a full-on firearm, which would necessitate a background check. Those folks would be able to, in that case, the FFL would be able to do whatever they need to do. And if they aren't purchasing another firearm and are not doing the background check, then the FFL is not responsible for not determining that portion of the bill. So they just have to determine that they're 18 years old if they're only buying a barrel.
Rep Luck.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's a very interesting thing. I didn't realize that that was in this bill. I wonder if the bill sponsor could come and point out where that is, because what I see here is it says a person may purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm barrel from a federally licensed firearm dealer only if they're at least 18 years old and they are not prohibited, blah, blah, blah. I don't see where it limits it such that when they purchase, that they only have to determine that second part in the event that they're purchasing some other serialized product.
Rev. Berlick.
That is what we have been advised is the legal standard for intent.
Thank you.
as far as I know.
Replik.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That, I believe, needs to be clarified in this language because the plain reading does not in any way point to that. And in fact, because I just ran an amendment to that point that was struck down, I think even the legislative record will not support that claim. If that is indeed the bill sponsor's intent, then I would ask that we go over quickly and get a bill amendment drafted. Thank you.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L44. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The amendment fails. To the bill, Rep. Johnson. Aye. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move L019 to Senate Bill 43 and ask that it be properly displayed.
That is properly displayed to the amendment.
Rep. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is plain and simple. It says a dealer is not required to maintain a record of sale of a firearm barrel to a person who voluntarily completes a federal and state firearm background check. When you go to page 5, line 10, This could be following the transaction of a firearm itself, and I would urge a yes vote.
Members, there are about 15 minutes left for debate. Rapp Richardson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a good amendment and actually consistent with the discussion I just had with the sponsor and was stated up here that more often than not, the sale and transfer of a barrel occurs at the same time somebody is purchasing the firearm, and sometimes they don't. But I think it would be a good alternative if that person who wanted to purchase a barrel wanted complete clarity, they could volunteer to have a background check done. That would cover the requirement that the dealer knew that they could legally possess a firearm, and certainly the age would be taken care of. It's just another method to legally transfer something that we should be able to legally transfer anyway.
Rep Brown.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. it is my understanding that there is that well first of all our bill does not require a background check and it is not our intent that a person purchasing a firearm barrel would necessarily have to go through a background check. I know that in the bill we talk about a person who is not allowed to purchase a firearm, and it is my understanding that that information is knowable without doing a full background check. And so for that reason, we would ask for a no vote on this amendment.
Seeing no further discussion, Rep. Richardson?
I appreciate your newfound desire not to force people to do things, but this is a voluntary background check. If somebody would like to have it completed, I don see why it would be an issue and it would certainly ensure that the transaction was one that would meet your approval So I would urge you yes Seeing no further discussion the motion before us is the adoption of L
All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The amendment fails to the bill. Rep Luck.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L-43.
Repelock, could you restate your motion?
Sorry. I withdraw that motion and move instead amendment L48. My apologies.
L48 is displayed to the amendment, Repelock.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, so we're continuing in this conversation, just wanting to make sure that these FFLs can actually follow the terms under this law. Now, it's interesting the conversation we're hearing from the bill sponsor because it sounds as if the bill sponsors do not intend to put the burden on the FFL to verify that the person is 18 and not prohibited from owning a fire alarm and that the violation will be towards the individual who unlawfully purchases it and not the FFL. but just in case the FFL should still have the ability to verify this unless that is specifically enumerated in statute because otherwise this bill currently reads that a federally licensed firearm dealer can only sell in the event that the purchaser is at least 18 and not prohibited from possessing so unless it is clearly stated that the FFL is not the party that has to do the due diligence and certify that those two elements are met, we need to make sure that the FFLs can actually do what we're asking them to do. Hence this amendment. This amendment just simply says that the CBI is authorized to transmit into the NICS system a request related to barrel purchases for background checks. We don't want to create a system wherein we demand of the citizenry something that they cannot do, especially when what they cannot do is because of a gate that we have closed on them. We can't on one hand say, hey, you need to clean your room and then lock the door. It doesn't really work. And so this just makes sure that the door is unlocked such that FFLs can indeed confirm that the individual they are selling to is not prohibited from possessing, owning, or otherwise purchasing a firearm under federal or state law. I ask for an aye vote.
Any further discussion? Seeing now the motion before us is the adoption of L48. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The amendment fails. To the bill. Rep. Kelty.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L052 to Senate Bill 43, and may it be properly displayed.
That is properly displayed to the amendment.
Thank you very much everyone I found an issue within the bill and I talked to the bill sponsor and he as stumped as I am on how to go forward with this. We do see that it is an issue. This amendment is basically for the arts community, and it's to exempt the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel intended to be used in a piece of art or an art exhibition. I brought this up because it dawned on me. I have an uncle who would make art, metal art, out of just about any kind of metal he could find, which often included old appliance metal or metal from car parts. but he would also use old or used maybe even sometimes new barrels, gun parts, barrels included. By not exempting this out of the bill for them to actually create their art with these barrels, it actually could impose or encroach upon their First Amendment right of expression. now as we know there's a lot of things that fall under that some good some bad but it still comes down to a first amendment issue and I know that we don't intend on encroaching or taking away someone's first amendment right or even their ability to of their profession in the art field being able to create their art but this is a huge concern and I know that the bill sponsors will into it but I really believe that we could actually go ahead and accept this amendment now and then if you want later on third strip it out but I do want people to understand that this is a true and real concern in the art field we don't want to criminalize a an entire community for them being able to express and do their art. So I'm asking for a yes vote on this amendment because the last thing we want to do is a take away someone's version and self-expression. Again their First Amendment right. We don't want to do that and I'm asking for a yes vote. Brett Brown. Thank you Mr. Chair and I really appreciate this conversation with my good colleague from El Paso County. I will say that I think the way that this amendment is written is potentially overly broad and that someone could potentially transfer or sell a barrel and just claim that it was for art and then use it however else. And I don't think that really would undermine the intent of the bill. Now, I appreciate the intent of the amendment and I certainly, you know, support the arts community and I appreciate the interest here in potentially using gun barrels as part of art. We also know that no right is absolute, even the First Amendment. So happy to continue to think about what this looks like, but I think at this point, while I appreciate the intent, I ask for a no vote.
Seeing no further discussion, The motion before us is the adoption of L All those in favor say aye All those opposed say no The amendment fails to the bill Rep Luck Members we have about five minutes left
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L53 and ask that it be displayed.
Thank you. That is properly displayed to the amendment. Rep. Locke.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in the course of this conversation and in talking with the bill drafter and what have you, it seems that there is some understanding that the FFL is not the one responsible for determining these questions of eligibility of purchase, that that requirement falls on the individual, him or herself, such that he or she would be the one punishable by purchasing when not eligible to purchase. And so if that is, in fact, part of what is intended in this, then I ask that we clarify that by adding this section in, saying that it is not the FFL's responsibility to determine eligibility. I ask for an aye vote.
Seeing no further discussion of the motion before us, is the adoption of L-53. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The amendment fails. To the bill. Rep. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're back to the bill,
colleagues. Back to the bill. Yeah, this bill is, honestly, a lot of my colleagues didn't know where to start with this bill. it's useless, it's unenforceable, you can't really do anything with this bill. It's just, I don't know, I hate to say words up here that I know I'm probably going to not be allowed to do so, but I've stated before, many of my colleagues have stated before as well, barrels are not guns, it's a gun part. You cannot do anything with a barrel without the rest of the components. It's very, very unenforceable. I have extra barrels, uppers, they're called uppers, for certain type of hunting that I do for my AR-15. I have tack stamps for them, for the shorter barrels. I have a tack stamp. Longer barrels for longer range. some barrels are internally suppressed so I have some suppressors also with tax stamps going the legal way, the legal gun owner right here and every time I travel with them to go hunting either down in Texas or another parts in Colorado I carry those tax stamps with me because I must provide them if I am asked to now if i let's say i just leave hunting i'm four hours away from my home on my way to texas to go hog hunting and i forget my lower i just have my uppers which is the barrel guess what i have to turn back around for four hours to get my lower because i cannot do anything with that upper which is the barrel without the lower component so now do you understand what what it means that this barrel bill is really not going to do anything. Because you can't do anything with the barrel alone. You need the other components, especially the lower. And the lower is serialized The lower, you must go through a background check to get it. But without that lower, that barrel, that upper, is useless. Completely useless. So please, use common sense in this bill. It is useless, it does nothing, it just puts more red tape to small businesses and legal gun owners. I urge a no vote.
Red Brooks.
Chair, thank you. I heard this bill, I mentioned it earlier in committee, and it is as, I think, a little vague, confusing now as it was then. I feel like, I mentioned this in committee, that we're trying to legislate in the dark a bit here. I say, oh, you know what, there's this idea to which we need to legislate, but still there are all the different issues around this that have not yet been resolved, the ones that won't be resolved, whether it's from a strictly constitutional standpoint, where you cannot point to any sort of founding era analog that forces ordinary barrel transfers through a licensed dealer, generates state records, and criminalizes direct private exchange of lawful component parts, which also then gets into an interstate commerce issue. That's not yet resolved. There's no measured evidence that shows a barrel-only transfers are a major driver of violent crime in Colorado. I will push back against the ghost gun-specific discussion because ghost guns also, in those statistics, include guns that have been confiscated, have been used in crimes where they've had the serial number erased. Those aren't the same as the 3D-printed barrels, 3D-printed guns. And so we're lumping all of that into the same category of a 3D printed gun, or I'm sorry, of a ghost gun. And then I have concerns about what the end point is here. What is the end point of the bill?
The time for debate has expired. Members, the motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 43. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. No. The bill passes. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move the committee rise and report.
Members, you've heard the motion. Seeing no objection, the committee will rise and report. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. The House will come back to order.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole. Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs leave to report as under consideration, the following attached bills being the second reading thereof and making the following recommendations thereon. House Bill 1126 is amended, passed on second reading, ordered and gross in place on the calendar for third reading and final passage. Senate Bill 4 and 43 is amended, passed on second reading, ordered, revised and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage.
Representative Mabry. Members, you have heard the motion. There are amendments at the desk.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the Bottoms Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report, House Bill 1126.
Representative Bottoms move to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee and not adopting the following Richardson Amendment, L-37 to House Bill 1126. To show that the Senate passed, that House Bill 1126 is amended passed. Representative Richardson Thank you Madam Speaker I move the Bottoms Amendment To the Committee of the Whole Report and To the Committee of the Whole Report And it is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, it's been a lengthy day. So, this amendment was discussed at length. We know that those in the room did not approve of it, but we wanted to provide an opportunity for the full chamber to once again consider that if we present a bill that turns out, after court rulings, to have violations of the Constitution, that the entire bill be rescinded, not just in part. These are actually relatively short bills, so anything that would be left would probably be of little matter anyway. So I would recommend a yes vote.
Representative Sirota.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask for a no vote. We think that severability is actually a preferable method of legislating. And also, just a reminder, this is simply a cleanup bill. It doesn't eliminate the entirety of the Firearms Dealer Division, and these are improvements to statute, several of which industry has asked for.
Seeing no further discussion. Yes? Representative Mabry, you made the motion to adopt the report of the Committee of the Whole, correct? Thank you. That's okay.
Chief Clerk, long day.
We're good. Members. Members. The motion before us is the adoption of the Bottoms Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.
Representative Bottoms, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Bottoms votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Phillips votes no. Representative Routnell, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Routnell votes no.
Representative Camacho, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Camacho votes no.
Please close the machine. With 25 I, 38 no and 2 excused, the amendment is lost.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the Brooks Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, House Bill 1126.
Representative Brooks moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the committee and not adopting the following Flannell Amendment, L5 to House Bill 1126. To show that said amendment passed, that House Bill 1126 is amended passed. Representative Brooks.
Madam Speaker, thank you. I move the Brooks Amendment to the committee. The whole report has to be properly displayed. Thank you.
It is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to just refer you to bill language on page 5 and remind everybody the type of fine that we're talking about on a second offense that advances already to $100,000. on a second offense I told the story during second reading of a buddy of mine that works full time but for the last oh gosh I don know decade he also has maintained an FFL He maintains an FFL and he sells some firearms here and there that he makes no profit on whatsoever. He makes no profit on some tactical gear. But he runs this FFL out of his home. is a home-based FFL. He's a home-based small business. If he makes an error, just an easy error, on the second time we're talking, this would be devastating. $100,000 on an FFL, a family, small, out of your home, living out in the sticks, FFL. He's losing his house. Kids aren't going to end up going to school. We've got little kids. This is just one example. There are many of these spread across the state, and I believe that this fine structure is too aggressive off the bat, what this allows for. And the reason why I brought it as a Cal amendment, not because I wanted to just bring something to the Committee of the Whole report, that's not the point. The point is this is a good amendment that I believe deserves some consideration, and I would ask for consideration, that we give a right to cure. That we give a 30-day right to cure to some of these small businesses, to some of these small FFLs, family businesses, heart beat a Colorado, before we smash them with $100,000, and I know up to, but still. Why write it that way unless you plan to exert that muscle? A 30-day right to cure doesn't change the fine structure, is not going to penalize anybody who's a bad actor or not going to give somebody a break that's a bad actor. It does give a little bit of time, a right to cure for honest brokers and for honest folks that are just trying to earn a living. Please vote yes.
Representative Woodrow Thank you Madam Speaker Thank you to Representative Brooks We actually took an amendment that reduced the fines from a maximum of $100,000 to $75,000 That was part of a compromise and again it is only up to that amount and that would only be imposed not on mom and pops but to much smaller outfits The idea is that under current law there is no fine structure, which means that you get your warning, and then if you don't comply, you have suspension or revocation. This actually builds in a medium step, and there will be rulemaking to decide the actual fine structure, and we would ask for a no vote. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Brooks Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine, and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Bottoms votes yes. Representative Camacho, how do you vote? No. Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Rutanel, how do you vote? No. Representative Rutanel votes no. Representative Phillips, how do you vote? Representative Phillips, how do you vote? No. Representative Phillips votes no Please close the machine With 27 I 36 no and 2 excused The amendment is lost Mr Schiebel please read the Hartzell Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report House Bill 1126 Representative Hartzell moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee not adopting the following flannel amendment, L7 to House Bill 1126. To show that said amendment passed, that House Bill 1126 is amended passed. Representative Hartzell. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the Hartzell Amendment to the Report of the Committee of the Whole and request to be properly displayed. Thank you. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So we had a great discussion on this. You just heard a little bit about, we understand it's been dropped to 75 grand, but this is trying to lump them together and saying, hey, maybe do like penalties together and then give them a chance to pay that off as one instead of tacking on 75,000 here, 75,000 there. And next thing you know, you'll be looking at half a million fines. So we request an aye vote. Thank you. Representative Sirota. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask for a no vote. This provision would significantly undermine the integrity of our regulatory framework and jeopardizes public safety. Every instance of noncompliance, regardless of its root cause, represents a distinct failure to adhere to regulatory requirements. And if you group numerous widespread errors as a single violation, then you are diminishing the severity of the noncompliance, and it does create a dangerous precedent. And this measure would effectively weaken the deterrent effect of enforcement by minimizing the penalty for systemic operational failures. I ask for your no vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the Hartsook Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Bottoms votes yes. Representative Camacho, how do you vote? No. Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Routenel, how do you vote? No. Representative Routenel votes no. Representative Phillips, how do you vote? No. Representative Phillips votes no. Please close the machine. With 24-I, 39-no and 2 excused, the amendment is lost. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Kelty Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report, House Bill 1126. Representative Kelty moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee and not adopting the following Kelty Amendment, L53 to House Bill 1126. To show that said amendment passed, that House Bill 1126 is amended passed. Representative Kelty. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the Kelty Report to the Committee of the Whole and ask for it to be properly displayed. The Kelty Amendment. Oh, I'm sorry, Amendment. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you. I brought this amendment earlier, and I thought I would give everyone another chance to consider what it is that I was trying to convey. We are doing these reports on our FFLs and our state permit holders, and right now there is no timeline. So this is a new department that was set up. And for us to set up something like that and not give them actually guidance that we feel is professional and respective to our small businesses here in Colorado, I put this to where once the report is complete, they have no longer, no later than 14 days after conducting the inspection to actually give them that report. And I made sure, though, because I know sometimes things happen, and so I spoke to the bill sponsors, and they had expressed a concern if, you know, if something happens, you know, which things do, things come up, emergencies, unexpected happenings. And so I listened to that, and I respected that, and I agreed. So I went ahead and in this amendment, I made sure that I put in there that if there were extenuating circumstances outside of the department's control, and it prevents them from doing it within the 14 days, they have an additional 14 days, another two weeks, to actually get the report back to the FFL or the state permit holders. So that way they can know in a timely manner of what they need to do and be able to rectify whatever situation may arise. And I ask for a yes vote. Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, Representative Kelty. Like we said during the debate on seconds, the department actually notifies most FFLs if they pass or have any issues that same day, unless there's some type of nuanced issue that the investigator needs more time to talk to management about. Warning letters do take a little bit of extra time. Again, the inspections only started in July of 2025, so we haven't even had a year yet. It's still a new division, and they are developing timelines and best practices. So far, it has depended on the complexity of the violations. So while I understand where this amendment is coming from, we ask for a no vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Kelty Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Bottoms votes yes. Representative Camacho, how do you vote? No. Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Rutenell, how do you vote? No. Representative Rutenell votes no. Representative Phillips, how do you vote? No. Representative Phillips votes no. Okay. Please close the machine. With 26 aye, 37 no, and 2 excused, the amendment is lost. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, House Bill 1126. Representative Luck moved to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee not adopting the following Luck Amendment, L-21 to House Bill 1126. To show that sentiment passed, that House Bill 1126 is amended passed. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the first Luck Amendment to the committee of the whole report. Thank you. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the amendment that you all found bright and shiny on your desk this morning. It is seven pages, and it allows us to make the rules. As I stated during the main debate, giving our authority over to the executive branch to determine what penalty should exist under what instances is, in my view, a violation of the separation of powers, especially when we have it well within our time and ability to make such determinations. to pass this off to the executive branch to make rules related to who gets punished when and how and to what extent basically means we passing a bill we aren really sure what in it Rules are a risky business And anyone who is following the federal government executive right now which I know many in this body are because bills are coming up, to respond to the rulemaking authority that is now being used by an executive that is using it contrary to what many in this body want. and so there are roles being made here, laws being made here to respond to that. Imagine what happens in Colorado with the myriad of laws that have been passed granting the executive branch with rulemaking authority when such time comes that someone different than your own persuasion holds that power. That one executive and their agents now have the ability to basically determine whole swaths of law because we have said as a legislature, we don't want to do our job. You do it for us. You figure it out. And so this particular amendment says we're taking back some of that authority and we are going to lay out the requirements as relates to how violations are punished. You will note that there are categories. There are minor administrative violations, moderate violations, and serious violations. and each class of violation comes with not only a point value that they get off of their or that can be tallied up to result in additional levels of penalty, but each type of violation also has its own penalty. There is a process by which folks can have their rights adjudicated in solid due process, and so we would ask for an aye vote on this amendment. Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, Representative Luck. As discussed during the debate, this would actually sort of strip out of the bill, the rulemaking. The rulemaking is part of the stakeholder process. We heard feedback from industry that they would actually like to have more participation. This would give them that opportunity. We have not had the ability to have a robust stakeholder process on the seven pages set forth of the amendment. That is not to say that some of the things in that amendment could end up ultimately in the final rulemaking. That's what rulemaking is for. It is an open process with public feedback, notice, time for people to weigh in. We ask for a no vote. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Speaker. What was just outlined in terms of rulemaking also applies here as the legislature. This is a House bill. It will have to go to the Senate. there will be more than enough time for the public to weigh in during the committee process. We did work with some FFLs in creating this particular paradigm, and so we continue to ask for an aye vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the first luck amendment to the committee of the whole report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Bottoms votes yes. Representative Camacho, how do you vote? No. Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Phillips, how do you vote? No. Representative Phillips votes no. Representative Routenel, how do you vote? No. Representative Routenel votes no. Please close the machine. With 23 aye, 40 no, and 2 excuse, the amendment is lost. Mr Schiebel please read the second Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report House Bill 1126 Representative Luck moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to verse the action taken by the Committee and not adopting the following Luck Amendment L48 to House Bill 1126 to show that said amendment passed that House Bill 1126 is amended passed. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the second Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I only need 10 more votes to get this one passed. right so I'm banking on you to like get me closer I have three amendments I'm hoping for one this particular I said banking did I say bacon oh banking hey I'm looking at you yeah all right so this particular amendment allows for a little bit more flexibility and a little less cost to our FFLs as relates to high-capacity magazines under the current draft of the legislation the FFL has to keep these high-capacity magazines behind the counter, under glass, or in a locked room. This simply says that they also can use security locks or tags in order to secure them such that people can't steal them. You all are familiar, I'm sure, with this. You see it at department stores related to different products. You can't actually take it off of the little hanger without getting a sales associate to unlock it for you. Same kind of idea. Many FFLs already use these, and so it helps to reduce their costs, and so I ask on their behalf for an aye vote. Representative Sirota. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask for a no vote. Our intent in the bill is that these LCMs are actually kept behind the counter, under the glass, or in a room off the sales floor. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the second luck amendment to the committee of the whole report. Mr. Scheeble, please open the machine, and members proceed to vote. Representative bottoms, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative bottoms votes yes. Representative Camacho, how do you vote? No. Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Phillips, how do you vote? No. Representative Phillips votes no. Representative Rutanel, how do you vote? No. Representative Rutanel votes no. Barron Brown please close the machine with 24 I 39 no and two excused the amendment is lost Mr. Schiebel please read the third Luck amendment to the committee of the whole report House Bill 1126 Representative Luck moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to first the action taken by the Committee not adopting the following Luck Amendment, L-52 to House Bill 1126 to show that state amendment passed that House Bill 1126 is amended past. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So if you were watching the board, we did pick up one. And if we counted two of the members on my side that are not here right now in, because I'm pretty sure they would have voted yes, we got up to 26. So we're getting there, guys. We're getting there. All right. I move the third luck amendment to the committee of the whole. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Third time is a charm, and so I'm hoping for that magic number of 33 on this one. Basically, it just says that the act takes place on the representative from Denver's birthday on July 1st. I think that very kind to celebrate his birthday by honoring his bill in that way It also is actually very much important to FFLs that this doesn just come effective the very day the governor signs it There are requirements in this bill, training and shifting of merchandise and the like, that do take time. And so just in kindness to our FFLs, aligning the effectiveness date with the date that other bills in this space that are passing through the system right now also have as an effectiveness date is just kindness. And so I would ask that we give them that opportunity to actually comply with what we're asking by giving them a few more weeks to make any necessary changes. 24 minus 33. I need nine more of you. Nine more. Representative Sirota. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask for a no vote. There are a number of changes made in the bill that are security related and important that those, this is a matter of public safety and important that those are made upon signing of the bill. However, there are some sections of the bill, such as the rulemaking process and the security-related requirements, that will take time, and there is additional time built into the bill for those requirements. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the third Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Phillips, how do you vote? No. Representative Phillips votes no. Representative Camacho, how do you vote? No. Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Ruthnel, how do you vote? No. Representative Ruthnel votes no. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Bottoms votes yes. Representative Mabry, I would like for you to state in the well at the mic just what happened, please. Members, my no button doesn't work on my desk. My yes button does work. I am a no vote on this amendment. Representative Mabry's vote will be recorded as a no on the third luck amendment to the committee of the whole report. With 26 I and 37 no and 2 excused, the amendment is lost. Representative Mabry, we invite you not to push any more buttons. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Bradley Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, Senate Bill 4. Representative Bradley moved to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the committee and not adopting the floor. Following Bradley Amendment, L-51 to Senate Bill 4 to show that Senate Amendment passed, that Senate Bill 4 is amended past. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the Bradley Amendment to the Committee of the Whole and ask for it to be displayed. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you. For all of you that had missed this, I just wanted to talk a little bit about making sure that people that have conviction of stalking or other criminal offenses, including domestic violence, are prohibited from filing a petition for a temporary extreme risk protection order. And so why did I run that? Because we don't want women like me unable to defend themselves against stalkers or domestic violence criminals. From 2014 to 2018, according to the 2022 National Crime Victimization Survey, we found that 166,000 occurrences of self-protective behavior involving a firearm during violent crime events, 180,000 occurrences of self-protective behavior involving a firearm during property crime events, 350,000 total defensive uses in the U.S., or 70,000 per year on average. For comparison, there were 49,000 total firearm homicides over a similar period. And I want to just have a discussion about the fact that women don't have guns always turned on them. We're not some defenseless, helpless women. There are two women in this Capitol right now that can tell you that we wouldn't let that happen. Two in question. Violence against women is real and serious, especially domestic violence. That's not in dispute. the real question is what actually makes women safer. Most gun violence against women is committed by someone they know, often in domestic violence situations, not random legal gun owners or women themselves. Disarming law-abiding women doesn't stop violent offenders. It can leave victims more vulnerable. Self-defense matters, especially for women. Women are generally at a physical disadvantage in violent encounters. A firearm is often called a force equalizer. I state that all the time. It allows a woman to defend herself against a stronger attacker. Taking away a woman's ability to defend herself doesn't protect her. It limits her options. Women are not helpless. Women deserve right to protect themselves. Safety shouldn't depend on physical strength alone. We are not victims. I am not a victim. Women are the strongest people I have known in my life. We have babies. We have protective instincts. Have you heard the term mama bear? That's why. Social conditioning. We have historically had to navigate environments where they held less power or safety. That holds resilience, assertiveness, and emotional strength, and we are often underestimated. Guns dramatically increase lethality and abusive relations. It is Colorado statistics that men are twice as likely to own a gun. When an abuser has access to a firearm, a woman is about five times more likely to be killed. This is why we need this, because we are already more likely to be killed. We should be allowed to defend ourselves. You have two women in this assembly that have talked to you about the importance of being able to defend ourselves, of being able to defend my children against a man who had a map to my home. So this is an important amendment for all the women whose attackers might file a false ERPO against them please don stand thank you but please don stand against them to not have their guns taken away We've already passed 30 anti-gun bills in this assembly since 2013. Let's not create more victims. We are law-abiding gun owners. We are trained to use a gun. And I can assure you, if you come after me, please don't think that you will use the gun on me. You'll be very mistaken. I urge a yes vote on this amendment. Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I want to appreciate my colleague from Douglas County for bringing this amendment. This is a good amendment, folks. and again I cannot stress the importance of people who are domestic violence victims or victims of stalking one too many times and too often we hear people who were stripped of their ability to defend themselves when we have laws that while we prioritize the criminal over the victim we should be prioritizing the victim over the criminal and I think this is a good way for us especially we're going to push this policy to make sure that we protect victims in need in times of crisis because at the end of the day you know we can depend on our law enforcement but law enforcement takes minutes if not maybe up to an hour to get there at the scene of a crime and damage is already done folks and i think you know we should make sure that our women and people would need of defense are able to have it and i think that our laws right now are not stringent enough to make sure we protect our criminals or to protect our victims our criminals and i think this is something that's much needed so i urge i really very much urge and i vote i appreciate my colleague too for getting clarity and getting an amendment because what the sponsor said was that there was conflicting wording in the amendment. So we were bringing an amendment that I think clarifies that, mitigates that, and we need to stand with our victims and people who are victims of domestic violence and of stalking. So I urge an aye vote on this amendment. Representative Froelich. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Folks, let's be clear what this amendment does. This is about a stalker, an abuser, filing a revenge ERPO to get at their victim. And in the course of the time since we've had this law, 2020, there have been less than one a year of false filings of ERPO. There have been four, and none of them went through. So this is, as much as we want to be supportive of victims and they have every right to arm themselves in self-defense, this isn't about that. So this is an interesting application, but it is not getting at this overarching concept of self-defense in situations of stalking and domestic violence. So we ask for a no vote. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry. I hear in this building all the time that one is too many. And so now we're going to tell that one person that it was okay. Because I hear you guys all the time talk about one being too many. All the time. One's too many. We run bills. I just heard a temperature bill yesterday that the sponsor's on. One's too many.
So now one is not too many. The hypocrisy has to stop. This is a good protection for that one or the many. We have carved in providers to file ERPOs. 60 of them treat high patients and 1 of them file ERPOs but we still keep them in That one patient was enough That one person needs to be enough, especially if they're a domestic violence victim or a stalking victim.
Representative Froelich, this is your second time to speak.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I must have misspoken. I don't know where the one came from. There have been no ERPOs filed erroneously that have gone through. And if you do that, a person who files a malicious or false petition is subject to criminal prosecution. So, again, you're not going to get two people who stand more with survivors than the folks who are sponsoring this bill, and we ask for a no vote.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Bradley Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.
Representative Bottoms, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Bottoms votes yes. Representative Camacho, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Phillips votes no. Representative Routenel, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Routenel votes no.
Please close the machine.
With 31 a. 32 no and 2 excused, the amendment is lost.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the Caldwell amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, Senate Bill 4. Representative Caldwell moved to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the committee and not adopting the following Caldwell amendment, L52 to Senate Bill 4, to show that Senate Bill 4 as amended passed.
Mr. Minority Leader.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the Caldwell Amendment to the report of the Committee of the Whole and ask that it be properly displayed.
It is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, we heard time and time again. I didn't sit on these committees, but I heard time and time again from the veteran community that what we're doing with this bill and expanding it to health care facilities, they are terrified. Many of them suffer with PTSD. As you all know, everybody I knew in the military had served at least one deployment, many of them multiple deployments, over the last 20-plus years. And on page three of this, what we're doing is we're expanding this law to include a hospital or health care facility and also a behavioral health or substance use disorder treatment facility. And I mean, we literally saw veterans just overcome with emotion in committee and were essentially removed. And they were screaming, I need help. And I'm scared to go get help if you pass this law. Because as we know, most of our veterans are gun owners. And the ones who need treatment go to these behavioral health care facilities to get that help. And I just the chilling effect is what I scared of that we are pushing them away from going and getting that help they need because they are gun owners and they afraid that this ERPO they be affected by it if they go there and speak with counselors and share their issues And so I seriously, seriously strongly ask you to take that into account, take into account the emails that I know I got a lot of them. The veteran community is asking us to exclude them from this particular section of the bill, so I would ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Representative Slough.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand in support of this amendment. I know too many veterans who fall into the category that was just spoken of by the minority leader. They would be concerned that a professional might feel inclined to consider them a high risk or a threatening individual. Bless you. I'm also frustrated that we heard from this well misinformation about a former colleague who was a veteran who we were told had his army buddies come and take his firearms away from him. That was not true. It frustrates me that veterans oftentimes find themselves attacked because people know that they overwhelmingly support the Second Amendment and have sworn oaths to protect that. I urge an aye vote.
Representative Wilford.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. members we are going to ask for a no vote on this amendment i i recognize that there is a lot of emotion um that is involved in in this amendment in particular and i i respect that i really do and i'm coming from a place and asking you to vote no on this being the daughter of two veterans and being the cousin of a veteran who came home and was faced with his PTSD in a way that he couldn't handle anymore and ended his life with a firearm. The struggles that our veteran community faces are so incredibly real. They're real. And we need to ensure that our service members can get the help that they need. But this amendment, members, is not the answer. Mental health professionals are already involved in ERPOs. What this bill does is says that the institutions are able to file the ERPOs and not the individuals having to take the burden anymore. I would ask for a no vote.
Representative Kelty.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I spoke on this amendment earlier when it was first brought up and I felt the need to come back down and explain it again for those who are not veterans as myself and the sponsor of this amendment We are veterans. We are both veterans. And I can tell you this right now. Laws like this, though I understand the intent when it comes to veterans, what the sponsor just said, but you have to understand, this will prevent our veterans from actually getting the help that they need. the PTSD, the 22 a day, the suicides that are happening, majority of those are those who are not seeking help because they're afraid of losing their constitutional rights. They're afraid of what will happen to them if they do report themselves into a situation like that. If you truly want to see an end to all the senseless, sad suicides that our veterans are committing every day, 22 a day. This is not the way to do it. This amendment will help. This bill will not help, but this amendment will. So as a veteran, I'm asking to support my brothers and sisters. Give them the ability to feel safe, to seek the help that they need. This will prevent it. I've seen it. I've talked to so many of my friends, my family. At some point, we have to understand they are not your usual suspects. They are a breed, and we need to understand that. I'm asking for a yes vote on this one amendment. Thank you.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the Caldwell Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.
Representative Camacho, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Rutanel, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Rutanel votes no. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Phillips votes no. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Bottoms votes yes.
Please close the machine.
With 27 I, 36 no, and 2 excused, the amendment is lost.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report, Senate Bill 4. Representative Luck moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the committee in not adopting the following Luck Amendment, L48 to Senate Bill 4, to show that Senate Amendment passed, that Senate Bill 4 is amended passed.
Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report.
It is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So this amendment was the last amendment we were discussing when this bill's time ran out. What we were discussing was the fact that in this space, we really have a lack of understanding and knowledge related to all of the details around who is filing for these petitions, why they're filing, who the respondents are the situation when they are approved etc etc And so this just asks for the court to collect data not personally identifiable information just aggregate information that then is reported back to the legislature so we can look and see if there are any trends in terms of the particular type of person who is the petitioner or the respondent, if there are any issues that could be handled or looked at, and also the efficacy of this particular program. Right now there is a lot of confusion with respect to the data that is available, and so hopefully this amendment that doesn't go to the substance of what the bill does but simply looks to collect data related to whether or not this is working. So I ask for an aye vote. Oh, and also thanks. Thanks the board was higher last time. Really appreciate that.
Representative Wilford.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we ask for a no vote.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.
Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? Representative Phillips, how do you vote? I'm sorry. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Phillips votes no. Representative Camacho, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Routnell, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Routnell votes no. Representative Bottoms is excused.
Please close the machine.
With 22 I, 40 no, and 3 excused, the amendment is lost.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the Kelty Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, Senate Bill 43 Representative Kelty, move to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the committee and not adopting the following Kelty Amendment, L52 to Senate Bill 43, to show that said amendment passed, that Senate Bill 43 is amended passed
Representative Kelty Thank you, Madam Speaker I move the Kelsey, I'm sorry, the Kelsey Amendment to the Committee of the Whole and ask for it to be properly displayed.
It is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wanted to bring this back up, this amendment. Actually, I had a discussion with the bill sponsor. He actually asked me to go ahead and cow the amendment so we could get more clarification on this. For me, this may be the most important amendment to the bill. as there's a lot of implications of things that it could cause. Basically, the amendment is to exclude the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel intended to be used in a piece of art or art exhibition. And as we know, the art is a form of expression, which is highly protected under the First Amendment. It states that metal art that incorporates gun barrels, which many times it could be any type of metal art. My uncle Willie actually creates different types of creative metal art, and he uses car parts. He uses appliance parts, anything that's metal, and he also uses used gun parts, which include barrels. he actually has made gun barrel wind chimes to statues to I mean you name it he makes it he artistic I not but it phenomenal art and it is protected Metal art that incorporates gun barrels is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because it is a form of expressive conduct and creative expression. The Constitution does not limit protection based on the materials an artist chooses. whether paint, steel, or repurpose objects like firearm components. The courts have long recognized that art can convey ideas, commentary, and symbolism even when it uses controversial or provocative elements. A sculpture made from gun barrels may express viewpoints on history, self-defense, or public policy, all of which are core political and solid speech and social speech. Restricting such artwork based solely on its materials would amount to content-based censorship undermining the fundamental principle that the government cannot suppress expression simply because it is unpopular or misunderstood. Not only is it against the U.S. Constitution, it is also against the Colorado Constitution, Article 2, Section 10, which states, no law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech, and that people are free to speak, write, or publish whatever they will. courts in Colorado treat art as protected expression just like speech or writing the government cannot ban art based on the contents or materials a law that says you cannot make art out of gun barrels would be considered content based or material based censorship which is highly unconstitutional My amendment is made, and it was brought up that it was made broad. Well, it has to be broad. It's the First Amendment, and it is protected. So it must be broad, otherwise it would be unconstitutional. Not just for the United States Constitution, but for the Colorado Constitution. So this amendment is actually imperative to your bill, because without it, it is unconstitutional. Plain and simple. I'm asking for a yes vote. Thank you.
Representative Brown.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank my colleague from El Paso County again. And there's nothing in our bill that prevents the expression or the creation of art from barrels. All the bill does is require that barrels come from a licensed source. And I will say that I certainly appreciate her commitment to the First Amendment. But again, I ask for a no vote on this amendment.
Representative Kelty.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will quote from the bill to show where it is in the bill and how it makes it unconstitutional. It says, this section does not apply to the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel to a federal state or local law enforcement but it does not list anything to do with art or the Constitution and thereof A firearm barrel means the tube through which a projectile is shot or discharged or fired It's just a barrel that can be used as art, as it is in many, many places by many, many people. We'll be creating criminals out of artists who are only expressing their First Amendment right. Here it says, a person who violates this subsection commits unlawful sale of a firearm barrel. It is unlawful for a person who is not federally licensed firearm dealer to possess a firearm barrel with the intent to sell or transfer, or with the intent to offer to sell or transfer the firearm barrel in violation of this section. that right there means that if someone creates art, my Uncle Willie's wind chime, with the intention of selling it, and it's made out of gun barrels, he is now in violation of this law. So to say that this law is not unconstitutional is wrong. You can read it for yourself. It's written in black and white. I'm trying to protect the community I'm trying to protect the state this law will be considered completely unconstitutional violating the first amendment right of every artist out there who is in the metal work who wants to use these materials to express their first amendment so please do not misunderstand what I'm saying it is unconstitutional unless you pass this amendment This amendment is the only thing that will allow it to go through without the courts getting involved. Thank you.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Kelty Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.
Representative Phillips, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Phillips votes no. Representative Camacho, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Rutnell, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Rutnell votes no. Please close the machine with 22 aye, 40 no, and 3 excuse. The amendment is lost.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the first Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, Senate Bill 43. Representative Luck moved to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to first action taken by the committee and adopting the following Luck Amendment, L48 to Senate Bill 43, to show that said amendment passed, that Senate Bill 43 is amended passed.
Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Speaker. While I would love to move the third Luck Amendment, I will move the first Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report.
It is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the bill, there is a requirement that no one may purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm barrel from an FFL unless they are at least 18 years of age and they are not otherwise prohibited from possessing, owning, or purchasing a firearm under state or federal law. as we talked about for an FFL to determine that latter category they would have to do something like run a background check how else are they going to know they're going to take it on someone's word and then if the person lied to them be somewhat responsible. And so we ran a series of amendments to try to address this problem. This is one of those amendments and basically it allows for the FFL to, through CBI, access a background check system, whether NICS or some other database, so that the FFLs do not find themselves in a bind, they can actually satisfy the terms under this particular bill and indeed confirm that the person asking to purchase a barrel is empowered under the bill. To do so, I ask for an aye vote.
Representative Brown.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank my colleague from Penrose again for the robust debate on this. We ask for a no vote on this amendment. We do not believe that it's necessary.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the first luck amendment to the committee of the whole report, Senate Bill 43.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.
Representative Phillips, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Phillips votes no. Representative Camacho, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Routenel, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Routenel votes no.
Please close the machine.
With 23 aye, 38 no, and for excuse, the amendment is lost.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the second Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, Senate Bill 43. Representative Luck moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole. So verse the action taken by the Committee, not adopting the following Luck Amendment, L53 to Senate Bill 43, to show that Senate Bill 43 has amended passed.
Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the second Luck Amendment to the committee of the whole report.
It is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, that's unfortunate. We're going in the wrong direction. I know we're losing members on our side, so that contributes to the numbers. That means there's more need for others on this side to make up the difference, right? Okay, so here we go. We got this one. I feel good about it. So basically what this amendment does is it removes the responsibility for the question that we just were talking about from the FFLs and places it on the purchaser. If this body cannot find a way to ensure that FFLs have the ability to actually confirm and verify that the person who is asking to buy a barrel is legally allowed to purchase one, then they should not be held responsible. And so the responsibility should then shift to the person who purchased it. This would do such a thing. It's a fairness question. It's a legitimacy question. And I will just reiterate again what we were talking about on seconds and what came out in committee. If the FFLs cannot find a mechanism or way in order to confirm that the purchasers that come in asking to buy are actually legally allowed to do so, they will not sell barrels. They will not assume the risk to sell barrels. And if the only way you get a barrel in Colorado is if you buy it from an FFL, it stands to reason no one will be able to buy barrels. So prove me wrong that your desire is not to eliminate firearms from Colorado by voting yes on this so that we can ensure that barrels continue to be made available because people need them especially those who are committed shooters like our professional shooting folks and enable them to continue to keep well-maintained weaponry. I'll also note, this is a safety issue because if someone cannot replace their barrel, the accuracy diminishes. That means there is a greater potential for harm secondly if people cannot replace their barrel and they go and they try to find other mechanisms like pipes in order to configure and modify to make a barrel because they are not designed with the proper alloys and and such the pressure will not the pressure system will not work properly and you will have potential harm caused on the shooter let's just make sure that our FFLs still have the ability to actually sell the barrels. And this amendment, the first amendment would have done it better, but this amendment will also do it. So I ask for an aye vote.
Representative Brown.
We ask for a no vote on this amendment. Again, I thank my colleague from Penrose for this. We have had a robust debate about this, but this would essentially gut the bill and no longer require that there be any sort of requirements on the licensed dealers. So we ask for a no vote.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the second
luck amendment to the committee of the whole report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine
and members proceed to vote. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Phillips votes no. Representative Camacho, how do you vote? No.
Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Routnell, how do you vote?
No. Representative Routenel votes no.
Representative Richardson.
Please close the machine.
With 24 I, 37 no, and 4 excuse, the amendment is lost.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the third luck amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report, Senate Bill 43. Representative Luck moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to oversee action taken by the Committee and adopting the following Luck Amendment, L-46 to Senate Bill 43 to show that Senate Bill 43 is amended past.
Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the third and final, really seventh, amendment to the Committee of the Whole.
It is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, this is Lucky Number 7. I just know this is the one that's going to pass. this amendment would say that if someone comes in bringing a barrel they can exchange that barrel that old used barrel for a new barrel without going through this whole rigmarole why well because the bill sponsors have said that their intention is to solve two problems one the ghost gun problem that they have said there is a loophole that is necessary to close, whereby if folks can get a barrel easily, they can create a ghost gun. Well, if they already have a barrel, then presumably there is no need for that loophole to close in that instance because they already have one, and if they had to, I guess they could use it. Similarly, the other argument is that this is going to help prevent suicides. But if they already have a barrel, even if it is a worn barrel, more than likely it can fire around and so it not going to deter suicides if someone brings in the barrel So the stated reasons for this bill are not in any way touched by the idea that if someone comes in with a used barrel that they exchange for the new barrel without having to fill out all the paperwork and have the potential for folks getting into their business when they otherwise would really crave privacy, then this works. So I ask for an aye vote.
Representative Brown.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. We ask for a no vote. This would allow anyone with a broken barrel to procure barrels for 3D printed guns, and that would undermine the entire intent of the bill. So thank you.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the third Luck Amendment,
the Committee of the Whole report, Senate Bill 43.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Phillips votes no. Representative Camacho, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Routnell, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Routnell votes no.
Please close the machine.
With 22 I 39 no and for excuse the amendment is lost.
Mr. Schiebel please read the Slaw amendment to the committee of the whole report Senate Bill 43. Representative Slaw moved to amend the part of the committee of the whole to reverse the action taken by the committee and not adopting the following Slaw amendment L 49 and Senate Bill 43 to show that Senate Bill 43 is amended past.
Representative Slaw.
Thank you Madam Speaker. I move the Slaw amendment to the committee of the whole and ask that it be properly displayed.
Thank you very much. It is properly displayed.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't know how much an individual barrel costs, but so far, 23 years of my life, apparently, and a lot of lives, a lot of years, a lot of lives, a lot of blood, a lot of sweat, a lot of training, a lot of stress, a lot of all of those things is what it might cost if we don't pass this amendment. active members, reserve members, National Guard members, retired service members, former service members that weren't dishonorably discharged of the United States Armed Forces, there's no reason they have proven through the oaths that they kept that they do not need to be overly regulated. I ask for an aye vote.
Representative Brown.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask for a no vote. I appreciate my colleagues' commitment to his service member colleagues, and I thank him for his service. I believe that the military members of our community deserve the same protections as everyone else, and so we ask for a no vote.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the SLA amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, Senate Bill 43.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.
Representative Phillips, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Phillips votes no. Representative Camacho, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Camacho votes no. Representative Routnell, how do you vote?
No.
Representative Routnell votes no.
Please close the machine.
With 27 I 34 no and for excuse the amendment is lost The motion before us is the adoption of the COW report Committee of the Whole Report Mr Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote Representative Routenel, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Routenel votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Phillips votes yes. Representative Camacho, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Camacho votes yes.
Please close the machine.
With 39 I, 22 no, and 4 excused, the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. Announcements and introductions. Representative Woodrow.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Colleagues, I'll see you at 8 p.m. in room 112 for the Finance Committee to hear, 1251, 1274, and 1233. Just a note, witness testimony will be limited to two minutes, six-minute panels, two minutes max on closing comments. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative Woodrow. Madam Majority Leader, I do have some business to take care of. Do you have any announcements?
I do.
Okay. Madam Majority Leader.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Friday, May 20, 2026. And also, members, because it is so warm in here today, tomorrow's dress code is relaxed.
Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar Madam Majority Leader, would you restate the motion? Okay, let's try this again.
Madam Speaker, I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Friday, March 20, 2026.
Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until tomorrow, March 20. Mr. Schiebel.
Members, we do have business. Yes, you're welcome to leave, but I would ask you to keep your voices down.
Mr. Schiebel, reports of committees of reference.
Committee on Education after consideration of the merits of the committee recommends the following. House Bill 1282 be amended as follows, be referred to the committee on appropriations with favorable recommendation. House Bill 1321 be amended as follows, be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation. Committee on Health and Human Services after consideration of the merits of the committee recommends the following. House Bill 1241 as amended and Senate Bill 110, be referred to the committee of the whole. House Bill 1272 as amended and 1307 as amended. stag. recommendation. Committee on Transportation Housing and Local Government after consideration of the emergency committee recommends the following. House Bill 1204 is amended. 1286 is amended. 1287 is amended. Be referred to the committee on appropriations. House Bill 1269 be amended as followed. House Bill 1269 be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation. House Bill 1284 be postponed indefinitely.
Do you by chance have a printing report, Mr. Schiebel?
Did you give me a printing report today? Just checking.
Message from the Senate?
No. Delivery of bills to the governor. Sorry. The chief clerk of the House of Representatives. Delivery of bills to the governor will be printed in the journal. Message from the Senate. Madam Speaker, the Senate has adopted. Message from the Senate will be printed in the journal.
Introduction of bills.
House Bill 1338 by Senators McCormick and Winter, also Senators Roberts and Simpson, concerning the Colorado Water Conservation Board operations and in connection therewith, funding projects and making an appropriation.
House Bill 1338 will be assigned to the Committee on Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources.
Senate Bill 35 by Senator Roberts, also Representative Clifford, concerning an increase of traffic violation penalties and in connection therewith, making an appropriation.
Senate Bill 35 will be assigned to the Committee on Transportation, Housing and Local Government.
Senate Bill 60 by Senators Pelton R. and Dougherty, also Representatives Winter and Hamrick, concerning information about youth athlete mental health training and in connection therewith, requiring mental health training for youth sports coaches and requiring the coaches to notify parents of possible mental health risks associated with concussions.
Senate Bill 60 will be assigned to the Committee on Health and Human Services.
Senate Bill 62 by Senators Cutter and Kipp, also Representative Velasco, concerning designating second generation anticoagulant rodenticides as restricted use pesticides for the purpose of retail sales in the state.
Senate Bill 62 will be assigned to the Committee on Agriculture, Water, and Natural Resources.
Senate Bill 98 by Senators Liston and Ball also Representatives Brooks and Lindsay concerning the applicability of certain noise abatement provisions and in connection therewith reestablishing local authority with respect to noise abatement
Senate Bill 98 will be assigned to the Committee on Transportation, Housing, and Local Government.
Senate Bill 105 by Senator Hendrickson, also Representatives Martinez and Morrow, concerning county coroners and in connection therewith, requiring coroners to disclose their financial interest in regulated businesses.
Senate Bill 105 will be assigned to the Committee on Transportation, Housing, and Local Government.
Senate Bill 126 by Senators Marchman and Rich, also Representative Johnson, concerning teacher licensure for out-of-state applicants.
Senate Bill 126 will be assigned to the Committee on Education. The House will stand in a brief recess. Thank you The House will come back to order Members, I have several announcements. Pursuant to my authority as speaker under House Rule 27A, subsection E, and at the sponsor's request, I direct the chief clerk to remove Representative Hartsook's name as co-prime sponsor on House Bill 26-1330. Representative Soper will serve in substitution as co-prime sponsor of House Bill 26-1330. In addition, I direct the Chief Clerk to print the final report of the House Committee on Ethics dated today, March 19, 2026, in the journal. Madam Majority Leader.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House stand in adjournment until Friday March 20 at 9 a The House is adjourned until tomorrow March 20th at 9 a
Thank you. .