Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 090

Amabile, Baisley, Ball, Ball, Excuse, Benavidez, Bridges, Bright, Carson, Carson, Carson. Catlin. Cutter. Danielson. Doherty. Exum. Frizzell. Gonzalez. Hendrickson. Judah. Judah, excuse, Kip, Kirkmeyer, Colker, Lindstedt, Liston, Marchman, Mullica, Pelton B, Beltanar, Ridge, Roberts, Rodriguez, Simpson, Snyder, Sullivan, Wallace, Weissman, Zamora Wilson.

Yes, members, 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.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate Journal of Friday, April 10, 2026 be approved and corrected by the Secretary, as corrected by the Secretary.

Correctly printed, Senate Bill 160. Correctly engrossed, Senate Bill 20, 80, 137, 141, and 143. Correctly re-engrossed, Senate Bill 72. Correctly revised, House Bill 1331, 1332, and 1333. correctly re-revise House Bill 1268.

Mr. President, the House is passed on third reading and transmitted to the Revisor of Statutes. House Bill 1348, House Bill 1349, House Bill 1350, House Bill 1351, House Bill 1352, House Bill 1353, House Bill 1354, House Bill 1355, House Bill 1356, House Bill 1358 House Bill 1359 House Bill 1360 House Bill 1361 House Bill 1362 House Bill 1363 House Bill 1366 House Bill 1367 House Bill 1368 House Bill 1369 House Bill 1370, House Bill 1372, House Bill 1373, House Bill 1375, House Bill 1376, House Bill 1377, House Bill 1379, House Bill 1381, House Bill 1382, House Bill 1383, House Bill 1384, House 1385, House Bill 1386, House Bill 1388, House Bill 1390, House Bill 1392, House Bill 1393, House Bill 1394, House Bill 1395, House Bill 1396, House Bill 1398, House Bill 1400, House Bill 1401, House Bill 1403, House Bill 1404, House Bill 1407, House Bill 1408, House Bill 1409, and House Bill 1413. House is passed on third reading and transmitted to the revised statutes. House Bill 1357, House Bill 1364, House Bill 1371, House Bill 1378, House Bill 1380, Houseбы 1387, house bill 1389 house bill 1391 how to 1397 how's bill 1399 house bill 1405 and house Article 14 prov 1312 amended as printed in house journal night april 9 2026 House is passed on third reading and transmitted to the reviser of statutes House bill 1410 amended as printed in the House journalraham 10 2026. House function passed on third reading and transmitted to the revised status House bill 1406 amended on third reading and its printed in the house journal april 11, 2026 House passed on third reading transmitted to the reviser or statutes. House bill 1374 House House Bill 1402 and House Bill 1411, amended as printed in House Journal April 9, 2026, and amended on third reading as printed in House Journal April 11, 2026.

We hear with transmit without comment, House Bill 1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1367, 16, 1663, 1663 13 66 next 95 13, 13 93 13 Captain 13 one 13 1374, 1378, 1380, 1387, 1389, 1391, 1397, 1399, 1402, 1405, 1410, 1411, and 1412. Without comment as amended, House Bill 1406.

Senate Joint Resolution 22 by Senator Cutter and Representative Joseph concerning designating July 12-18, 2026 as Plastic Pollution Awareness Week.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Senate Joint Resolution 22 lay over until Wednesday, April 22, 2026.

Aye.

Senate Joint Resolution 23 by Senators Mullica and Coleman and Representatives Bacon and Hartzell, concerning recognition of the contributions of Young Americans Bank and Young American Center for Financial Education to Financial Literacy Education for Students in Colorado.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate Joint Resolution 23 layover until Tuesday, April 14, 2026.

Aye.

SJR 23 will label until Tuesday April 14 2026 Mr Schauffler please do the title of SR006 SR Senate Resolution 006 by Senator Colker concerning the recognition of April 2026 as National Donate Life Month

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Senate Resolution 006 lay over until Tuesday, April 21st, 2026.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate proceed out of order for moments of personal privilege.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. I ask for a moment of personal privilege.

Thank you again, Mr. President. Colleagues, when you serve in the military, it is one of the few occupations where it is not just the service member who sacrifices for the country. The entire family serves as well. It is a different lifestyle. It involves uprooting your family with great frequency. It involves extraordinary long periods of time away from your loved ones. It involves significant hardship that the median American just isn't accustomed to. And it is a privilege today to be able to welcome the kids from Purple Update. They're to my right, your left, at the side of the chamber here. These are kids who have parents who are serving in our armed forces right now who are here today. I want to thank you for being here. After the completion of the Constitutional Convention, it was Benjamin Franklin who was asked, so what have we? And he responded with, a republic, if you can keep it. and everything in our Constitution has sought to strengthen the Republican form of government. That thing that your father or your mother or both are so willing to sacrifice for and that you, by extension, are sacrificing for is to preserve this very form of government that you're witnessing today, and we're grateful for you to be here to witness that government in action. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I guess I would be speaking on behalf of my daughter. I served 25 years in the Air Force, and I know what my daughter, the sacrifice that my daughter has gone through. when I was deployed and having to leave her, especially on Mother's Day, the pain. My apologies, Mr. President, may I ask for a moment of personal privilege?

Thank you, Mr. President. My apologies. So I know, looking into my daughter's eyes and saying goodbye, the pain and the sacrifice and especially we moved every three years and especially when I moved her we got a new assignment during high school critical stage in for her and so I appreciate all the children where their parents are in the military they truly do sacrifice a lot and I appreciate all all the children and what you what you go through so thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I request a moment of personal privilege.

Thank you. Colleagues, I'm proud to stand up here with the good senator from Montrose to help us recognize Public Safety Telecommunicators Week. These are our 911 operators and professionals who respond at every moment of the day, and we are so grateful for them. The governor signed a proclamation. It's a short one. I'm going to read it. And we do have some of our 911 professionals here in the chamber with us on this side and want to thank them for being here. So the proclamation states, whereas public safety telecommunicators serve as the vital link between the public and emergency response agencies, providing calm, professional, and compassionate assistance during some of life's most critical moments. And whereas these highly trained professionals answer emergency and non-emergency calls, coordinate police, fire, and emergency medical response, and deliver life-saving instructions while managing complex communication, systems in fast-moving high-pressure environments, and whereas public safety telecommunicators demonstrate exceptional skill, dedication, and resilience while supporting first responders and safeguarding the lives and well-being of the communities they serve, and whereas National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week is observed each year to recognize and honor their professionalism, commitment, and invaluable service to public safety. Therefore, I, Jared Polis, Governor of the State of Colorado, do hereby proclaim the period of time between April 12 and April 18, 2026, as Public Safety Telecommunicators Week in the state of Colorado. So we're grateful for our governor for signing this and very grateful for all the work you do in every community across the state, rural, urban, suburban, and everywhere in between to respond to folks in their most desperate times. Thank you so much for being here and all that you

Thank you. Thank you and welcome to the Senate. Further moments? Seeing none. Third reading of the bills, consent calendar, Mr. Schaffler, please read the titles of all the bills on the consent calendar.

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the passage of all the bills on third reading of bills final passage consent calendar, which are Senate Bill 20 and Senate Bill 137.

Thank you Mr. President, I wish to be a no vote on Senate Bill 20.

Thank you Mr. President, I ask to be recorded as a no vote on Senate Bill 26-020

Thank you Mr. President, I wish to be recorded as a no vote on Senate Bill 20.

Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, wish to be recorded as a no vote on Senate Bill 26-020.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move to lay over Senate Bill 90 until Tuesday, April 14th.

Senate Bill 140 by Senators Frizzell and Marchman and Representatives Gilchrist and Johnson concerning exempting certain drugs from the scope of affordability reviews conducted by the Colorado Prescription Drug Affordability Review Board.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move Senate Bill 140 on third reading and final passage.

House Bill 1332 by Representatives McCluskey and Duran and Senators Rodriguez and Simpson concerning the Legislative Department cash fund.

Further discussion? Seeing a further discussion in the motion is the passage of House Bill 1332. Are there any no votes? with a vote of 35 eyes, zero no, zero absence, zero excuse. House Bill 1332 is passed. Co-sponsors. Please add Senator Liston, one brave soul. Mailer. I would love a mail piece. Please add the president. There you go. Thanks for your welcome. You're welcome. Mr. Schaffler, please your title of House Bill 1333.

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the passage of House Bill 1333 and ask for an aye vote.

Senate Bill 141 by Senators Roberts and Simpson and representatives McCluskey and Taggart concerning optional fees during motor vehicle registration that primarily support wildlife projects and in connection therewith using the proceeds of a newly created optional fee to construct wildlife crossings and other transportation improvements and making an appropriation.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is a passage of SB 26 143. Are there any no votes? 141 You right Sorry 143 is the next one 141 are there any no votes Okay Senators Pelton Amabile Kirkmeyer Pelton R Samora Wilson Baisley Rich Oh, okay. Senator Amabile will be recorded as a no vote. No. I mean as a yes vote. Is that acceptable? Okay. Any other no votes? Ah, Senator Bright. Okay. Okay. With a vote of 28I, 7 no, 0 absent, and 0 excused, SB 141 is passed. Co-sponsors. Wallace. Senator Marchman. Senator Wiseman. Senator Judah. Senator Ball. Senator Snyder. Senator Benavidez. Senator Danielson. Senator Linstead. Senator Amabile. Senator Cutter. Senator Exum. Senator Mullica. Senator Doherty. Senator Coleman. Senator Henriksen. Please add the president. One more. Oh, and Senator Colker. Any others? It's going once, going twice. Okay. Okay, Mr. Schoffler, can you please read the title of SB 26 143?

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Madam President. I move Senate Bill 143 on third reading and final passage.

House Bill 1331 by Representatives McCluskey and Caldwell and Senators Coleman and Simpson concerning modifications to legislative interim activities and in connection therewith reducing and appropriate

Thank you, Madam President. I move House Bill 1331 and request permission for a third reading amendment.

Should have made the little guy do it. Thank you, Madam President. This was an amendment that identified reduction in some per diems that helped the fiscal challenges. I should have run this amendment in appropriations instead of on the floor, so this is to fix the appropriations.

Amendment J002. Amend revised bill page 11 line 7 strike 126,971 and substitute 183,699.

That is a proper motion. And would you like to tell us any further about your amendment? Yes, Madam President. Thank you. So this, again, changes the appropriation.

Great. Any further discussion on J002? Seeing none, question before, it says the adoption of J002 to HB 1331. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Oh, I'm sorry, this is a recorded vote. My bad. So are there any no votes to J002? Seeing no no votes, the ayes with a vote of 35 ayes, zero no, zero absent, zero excused. J-002 is adopted.

You have heard the motion. Is there any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, are there any no votes? Senator Amabile. Senator Henriksen. Okay, with a vote of 33 ayes, 2 no, 0 absent, 0 excused, 13 31 is passed. And looks like we have our, oh, sorry, co-sponsors. Senator Rodriguez. Senator Kirkmeyer. For the co-sponsors. Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Schaffler, can you please read the title of SB 26-080?

Senator Coleman. Thank you, Madam President. Move Senate Bill 80 on third meeting the final passage. Ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. There has been a request to remove House Bill 1305 from the consent calendar and be placed at the bottom of the general order's second reading of bills.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate resolve itself to the Committee of the Whole for consideration of general order, second reading of bill's consent. You will have a motion. All those in favor, say aye.

Committee will come to order, and the coat rule is relaxed for everyone in the chamber. Mr. Schoffler, will you please read the titles to all the bills on the general order second reading of bills consent calendar?

Madam Chair. I move the passage of all the bills on General Order's second reading of bills consent calendar, which is House Bill 1228, House Bill 1116, and House Bill 1213, and there are no committee

Opposed no The ayes have it and those bills are adopted Mr Majority Leader Thank you Madam Chair I move the committee rise and report Motion is to rise and report All those in favor say aye Opposed no The ayes have it and we will rise and report

Thank you, Mr. President. The committee met and considered several bills. Mr. Schauffler, will you please read the report?

passage. Senator Gonzales. Thank you. I move the report. The motion is adopted to be the whole

Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate resolve itself into the committee of the for the general order second reading of bills.

All right y'all. Committee will come to order and the coat roll is relaxed. Mr. Schaffler, Mr. Majority Leader.

You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The ayes have it. And 1071 will lay over until Friday the 17th of April.

You've heard that motion as well. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. And 134 will lay over until Friday, April the 17th.

Thank you. Mr. Majority Leader.

you've heard that motion all those in favor say aye opposed no the ayes have it and House bill 1084 will layover till Thursday April the 16th mr. Schaffler will you please read the title to House bill 1126 House bill 1126 by

I move HB 26 1126 on second reading.

This bill grows directly out of the work of the Firearms Dealer Division, the division the legislature created through HB 24 1353, which has now been in the field doing the job we asked it to do. And what the division found is that the existing statute has gaps, and HB 26 1126 is here to close them. I want to give you a concrete example of why this matters during field inspections the division documented a string of four after burglaries at four separate firearms dealers three of those four dealers had secured their firearms off the sales floor They had zero stolen firearms The fourth dealer had not secured their inventory 19 firearms were stolen from that one location. 19 firearms are now out in the world with no accountability for where they go or what they're used for. This bill responds directly to what the division has observed as originally drafted, the bill included several physical security requirements. Upon thoughtful stakeholder work, the bill was amended to include mandatory department rulemaking and for dealers to submit comprehensive security plans because we know a one-size-fits-all approach may not work. The bill also requires any stolen or lost firearms to be reported to the state within 48 hours. Beyond physical security, the bill addresses several additional practical gaps. The current record-keeping requirement only covers pistols and revolvers, not long guns. This bill extends it to all firearms transactions. The bill clarifies that the definition of employee includes independent contractors and volunteers, ensuring that everyone working in a dealer's operations and has direct access to the firearms is subject to the same background check and oversight requirements, not just those on a formal payroll. Some dealers have been arguing that certain transfers are not technically sales and therefore don't require a state permit. This bill also closes that loophole. The bill also ensures that individuals with firearms-related criminal convictions can't simply incorporate a business and obtain a dealer permit that way it shifts accountability to the responsible persons running the operation not just the entity and finally the bill gives a Department of Revenue an important new enforcement tool the authority to a fine dealers up to seventy five thousand dollars for repeat violations right now the divisions only options are to issue a warning or revoke a permit entirely This creates a necessary middle ground that allows for proportionate education-forward enforcement without going straight to the most severe consequence. None of this is radical. It is the kind of targeted, practical, regulatory update that happens when you actually stand up at a vision, send people into the field, and listen to what they find. We created this framework to work, and this bill will help it work better. I'm happy to ask for a yes vote on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I heard this bill in committee, another bill that's hurting small businesses, small businesses in my district. I've had at least one gun store, and I'm sure more than that, have already left the state, moved across the border into Kansas to a state that is friendly, that wants business, no matter what it is. here's another bill that is just chasing more business out of the state and with that Madam Chair

Senator Paltanar.

To the amendment.

Further discussion? Senator Bright.

Further discussion? Seeing none, seeing none of the motion before the body, well, sorry, Senator Kipp.

Seeing no further discussion, a division has been requested. We'll stand in a senatorial five. . . The motion before the body is the adoption of L-58. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, I'm going to invite you to sit down. All those in favor of L58 to 1126, please stand. Opposed? Thanks, please be seated. Opposed? Chair's not in doubt. L-58 fails. To the bill. Seeing no further discussion.

Senator Bright. Thank you, Madam Chair.

There's an amendment at the desk.

Senator Bright. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to offer a narrow but important amendment in L-59.

Can I move Amendment L-59 to Senate Bill 1126? Thank you. To the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise off of this narrow but important amendment in L-59. This amendment strengthens the rulemaking process that will determine how those goals are implemented. The security mandates in this bill will fall most heavily on small, independent firearm dealers, many of whom operate in rural communities across the state. Before the Department of Revenue sets rules that will govern their businesses, those dealers deserve a seat at the table to talk about how it's implemented. This amendment simply requires the Department to hold one public stakeholder meeting with adequate notice before finalizing security rules and to make a summary of that input publicly available. That's reasonable, good government standard that any agency doing its job well should welcome. I would urge a yes vote on L-59.

I rise in support of L-59. This amendment ensures transparency and stakeholder input in the bill's rulemaking process. The bill grants the department broad authority to establish new security requirements that could significantly impact how firearm dealers operate Without input from the affected businesses these rules may be impractical or overly burdensome That something we don want to do is completely burdensome these businesses By requiring a stakeholder meeting, this amendment ensures that dealers and the public have a voice in shaping the regulations that directly affect them. So we want to make sure that we're not running these businesses out of the state of Colorado. like the good senator from Cheyennewell says many he has had one move to Kansas I've had one move to Kansas just right across the border of over there or I'm sorry Nebraska right from Ray and that sort of thing they just move right across the border there and then we just want to make sure that our businesses are still in good standing and still doing things that they're supposed to be doing And so we're just asking for a little bit of transparency in this aspect of it and having businesses cooperate and be part of this process. So I ask for an aye vote on L-59.

Thank you. The Department of Revenue would like you to know that rulemaking is already open to the public and that they encourage folks to participate. So we ask for a no vote because we're already doing this.

Senator Samora Wilson Thank you Madam Chair So colleagues this bill is constructing a state firearms surveillance system administered by the Department of Revenue. and this goes far beyond any legitimate regulatory purpose. It constructs by bureaucratic stealth the very thing that both federal law and Colorado law explicitly prohibit and it imposes unconstitutional burdens on the exercise of a fundamental right that the Supreme Court has affirmed not once but twice in the modern era and it will cause real concrete financial harm to small businesses and the owners across the state who have done nothing wrong. Looking at the constitutional foundation, in 2008, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, self-defense. That holding settled once and for all that the Second Amendment is an individual right belonging to you and me and every law-abiding citizen in this country. In 2010, McDonald v. City of Chicago extended that holding to the states. The Second Amendment applies to Colorado just as fully as it applies to the federal government. This is not debatable. It is settled constitutional law. And then in 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin. and it transformed the constitutional landscape in a fundamental way. The court held that when a government regulation burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, that regulation must be consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in America. This is not a balancing test. It is not an interest-weighing exercise. The government does not get to say, we have a really important reason, so the burden on the right is acceptable. This is where historical tradition of American firearms regulations, where do we find a state taxing authority conducting routine warrantless inspections of a comprehensive electronic database covering every gun sale in the state. There is none. There's no such tradition, and this bill cannot survive the Bruins' scrutiny. And let me turn to the most constitutionally alarming provision in this bill, the electronic record-keeping mandate. Under current Colorado law firearm dealers are required to maintain records of sales rentals and exchanges of pistols and revolvers That is a targeted focused requirement Handguns, the category most associated with urban crime, and it applies to retail transactions. This bill expands this requirement to cover every retail firearm transaction involving any firearm other than a destructive device. Rifles, shotguns, handguns, every transfer recorded, and not just recorded, the bill explicitly authorizes electronic storage of these records. It then requires that these electronic records be made available. at all times for inspection by peace officers and by state inspectors enforcing the dealer permit program. At all times. That's the bill's language. Not pursuant to a warrant, not pursuant to a specific criminal investigation, not pursuant to any individualized suspicion whatsoever. at all times, on demand, by any peace officer or state inspector who shows up at the dealer's door. Both federal law and Colorado law prohibit the creation of a firearms registry. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 explicitly forbids the federal government from establishing any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions. Colorado statute echoes this prohibition. It's strange that the word registry appears nowhere in this bill, and I believe that's for a reason. The registry is not defined by what you call it. It's defined by what it does. the functional test is simple. If the government has routine, warrantless access to comprehensive records of who purchased what firearm, when, from whom, the identifying characteristics of that firearm, that is a registry, regardless of the label. And this bill creates exactly that system. Every firearm sold in Colorado recorded. Every record kept electronically. Every record accessible to state agents on demand. No limit in the bill on how long records must be retained. No limit on how they may be aggregated across multiple dealers. No limit on how the data may be analyzed or shared. And compare this to the existing Federal Form 4473 process. A 4473 is a dealer-held document. The ATF may examine it only during narrowly prescribed compliance inspections or in the course of a specific criminal investigation with proper legal basis. Federal law explicitly forbids the ATF from creating a searchable database of 4473. Congress made that choice deliberately, and this bill would do. At the state level, what Congress has expressively forbidden the federal government to do.

Just to clarify, are you speaking to 1126 or to 1265? 1126.

So in regards to electronic records, electronic records are not simply a more convenient version of paper records. They are qualitatively different. They are searchable, sortable, exportable, and can be cross-referenced across time and across dealers with a single database. with a single database query. And consider what a state agent with access to this database could determine. Every firearm purchased by a specific individual in the past five years. Every person who purchased a specific type of firearm in a specific county in the past six months. Every dealer who sold more than a certain number of firearms in a given period. And every buyer who appears in multiple transaction records across multiple dealers. None of these people have done anything wrong. None of them are under investigation. They simply exercised a constitutional right. And this is permanently recorded in a government-accessible database. I urge a no vote on HB 26-11-26.

I'm sorry I was wavering between my desk and the floor. I also stand in opposition of House Bill 1126. And I have a lot of thoughts about this. I have some, I've had some exposure to the Department of Revenue's enforcement capabilities just in their work with the Marijuana Enforcement Division, MED, and how they do that. And this is kind of set up, I think, similar, maybe not as mature as that enforcement division has become. but I think it's really interesting that the Marijuana Enforcement Division has a tiered system of penalties and violations and how they treat things. This $75,000 fine that is considered in this particular legislation is quite a bit more than many of the penalties imposed by the marijuana enforcement division for a variety of violations Probably the one exception to that would be if there was deliberate and willful actions such as selling to a minor, selling marijuana to a minor. But even then, my work with the Legislative Audit Committee, the Marijuana Enforcement Division is not always adhering to that particular, to the highest penalty. And that's something that I think I'm concerned about because I think that this is probably a broad brush approach to penalties and violations that are set forth in this bill. So that worries me quite a bit. There's a lot about this bill that worries me quite a bit. And with that, I would like to propose an amendment.

Mr. Schaffler, will you please read Amendment L-61 to 1126? Amendment L-61, amendoring gross bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-061 to House Bill 1126. Proper motion to the amendment.

So this bill is just significantly expanding regulatory requirements, and it introduces steep penalties, large fines, and permit revocation. And there is no opportunity for businesses, and these are small businesses, who they are in the business. And, you know, here's the thing about business owners, whether they are selling firearms or making widgets or cutting hair or whatever their business is, that's what they know. They know that business. And I don't know if you all have seen the Apartment Association's legal guide that they publish every year, but it's about, oh, an inch and a half to two inches thick, filled with all the regulations we've imposed on apartment operators and owners. I mean, they literally need a guidebook to navigate all the regulation we have created. And I think that we're kind of headed there with firearms dealers because just since 2020, in this building, we've passed 34 gun-related bills. 34. And it's really hard. If you're a business owner, you know your business. navigating all the rules and regulations, big and small, that we have created as a state entity, all the rules and regulations that we have stuck into law, they may not know every single nuanced piece. And you know what? They need to, right? That's part of doing business. But again, these are small business owners. They're worrying about if they can sign their paychecks for their employees. They're worried about increased insurance costs. They worried about paying property taxes They worried about I don know fill in the blank It hard to be a business owner in the state of Colorado and we not making it any easier year by year by year So I think that it's really important that we just give these small business owners the opportunity to correct minor or unintentional violations. because these business owners could really face severe consequences. Just for simple compliance errors, unintentional. By requiring a cure period, this amendment distinguishes between bad actors and good faith businesses. It makes sure that the enforcement is focused on serious violations rather than just punishing technical mistakes. This amendment ensures fairness and due process. And I ask for your aye vote.

I rise in support of L-61. One, this amendment would require the Department of Revenue to provide firearm dealers with a notice of 30 days and give them an opportunity to correct violations before imposing fines or revoking permits, except in the case involving fraud or immediate threats to public safety. This is a good amendment. The state of Colorado passed, which I don't totally agree with, but it did pass, 6% tax on ammo. And where do you get the ammunition from? Firearms dealers, these folks. That's right where you get it from. And we don't want to hurt these people who are sending firearms to get that extra tax money. This amendment ensures fairness and due process for firearms dealers. The bill significantly expands regulatory requirements and introduces steep penalties, including large fines and permit revocations, without an opportunity to correct minor or unintentional violations. Dealers could face severe consequences for simple compliance errors. i was i stopped by my local firearms dealer just um last weekend and he was talking about this very bill about what if there was an unintended consequence to somebody accidentally putting something down where he wasn't supposed to he would get fined he was very concerned about that he was so concerned he was he was pretty much um giving me the riot act while i was standing in there and I told him that I completely understand where he was coming from because he put his life savings into this business. By requiring a cure period, this amendment distinguishes between bad actors and good faith businesses, ensuring that enforcement is focused on serious violations rather than punishing technical mistakes. And I think that we should give them an opportunity to correct those mistakes at least 30 days. That's reasonable. I mean, I think that you can do that on your taxes. You can correct mistakes on your taxes. Why shouldn't you be able to do it here?

I mean, we're talking about 30 days here to separate the good guys from the not-so-good guys. And I think it's appropriate to give them that amount of time to make sure that there aren't administrative mistakes here. I want to speak directly to those of us who care about due process. This bill gives the Department of Revenue the authority to fine dealers up to $75,000 and revoke their state permit. It requires rulemaking on categories of violations, mitigating factors, but it contains no requirement that a dealer be given a notice of violation and an opportunity to correct it before that enforcement hammer falls. notice and cure provisions are not a novel idea their standard practice in professional licensing environmental compliance food safety regulation and health care precisely because we recognize that most violations by otherwise law-abiding businesses are the result of a misunderstanding miscommunication or administrative error rather than a willful disregard for the law a 30-day opportunity to correct with carve-outs for fraud and immediate public safety threats, cost this bill nothing in terms of its enforcement capacity against bad actors. Because bad actors are exactly who the carve-outs are designed to address. What it does is protect the compliant good-faith dealer who made a paperwork mistake from losing their livelihood before they even knew they had a problem. That's not a weakening of a bill. That's how fair regulatory systems work. And I would urge a yes vote on L-61.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for offering this amendment. And first, I would like to say I am asking for a no vote, but the reason I'm asking for a no vote is because it already says in the bill that somebody gets a warning first, right? This legislation is modeled after other divisions, for example, the Liquor Enforcement Division. This section of the bill actually provides a lot of flexibility for dealers. Rather than moving straight to revocation, they talk to dealers. They do education. Nobody wants to charge fines, okay? And then when, if these are only for repeated violations that are happening over and over again, and at that point, yeah, they do start to offer fines. But without any fines whatsoever, we would not be able to do any enforcement because people, frankly, are exploiting loopholes, which is why we are running this bill. So at any rate, I would ask for a no vote.

On that same theme, I'm going to run some amendments, one we just talked about. So I have an amendment.

Senator Compton B. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-062 to 1126.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment would treat multiple clerical or administrative errors stemming from the same misunderstanding as a single violation provided the issue is corrected within 30 days. This amendment prevents regulators from stacking penalties for the same underlying mistake. This bill's enforcement framework could allow multiple violations to be issued for what is effectively a single compliance misunderstanding, exposing dealers to compounding penalties for minor errors. This is a really good amendment to make sure that we're not over punishing businesses for mistakes that could be small mistakes. And I just ask for an aye vote on L-62.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of Amendment L-62. I know this body is surprised. This amendment addresses something that any member who's worked in compliance, small business, or the regulatory administration of any kind will recognize immediately. when a business misunderstands a requirement, a record keeping format, a reporting deadline, a documentation standard, that misunderstanding typically produces not one error but many errors until it caught Because the same mistake is repeated consistently until someone catches it as a matter of practice Under this bill is written each of those repeated errors is a separate violation A dealer who misunderstood the new record-keeping requirements for firearm transactions and applied the wrong format to 50 transactions over three months has technically committed 50 violations, each of which counts towards escalating fine exposure and permit revocation risk. Amendment 62 says that when multiple clerical or administrative errors stem from the same root misunderstanding and the dealer corrects the issue within 30 days of notice, those errors are treated as a single violation, which, in fact, they are. This is not a loophole. It's a recognition that the purpose of a fine is to change behavior, which is what we're after here, and that a dealer who corrects a systemic error within 30 days has already achieved the outcome that the enforcement system exists to produce. The punitive exposure for treating 50 identical errors as 50 separate violations does not make our gun shops safer. It makes our regulatory system arbitrary, and I would urge a yes vote on L-62.

I just looked at this amendment as something like I do right now. So if I go and wire your house and I get inspected, the inspector gives me a certain amount of time to be able to correct some of the issues that he comes and finds. So because he could just fail me right there. He doesn't fail me. He gives me a chance to correct some of the things that he may find in the house if it's not wired to his standard because we have to do it by the National Electric Code. However, he is the authority having jurisdiction, so he gets to choose that. So the problem is, is that we want to make sure that we're not overregulating or overfinding folks to drive them out of the state. We want to make sure that we give them ample time for them to correct this and not have it stacked on stacked on stacked on stacked. So to have an individual case and not a multiple would be a big help. So, again, I rise in support of the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, and thank you for bringing this amendment. And I will just repeat again, A, I asked for a no vote, and B, we are already doing this in the bill, not the 30-day thing specifically, but we educate people. There is a warning process. You are not allowed to revoke a license or levy any fines until there have been repeated violations of the same thing. Nobody wants to levy these fines. Nobody wants people going out of business. I totally respect our small businesses. However, we already give warnings. That is in the law. So I don't know what else to tell you. Please vote no on this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, members, we're having a lively discussion on House Bill 1126. As we were just talking about, or at least I was, you know, all of the paperwork that's required, and I'll take you through it again, which is just a parcel list, that the record on the transaction has got to be made either in book form or electronic form. It's got to be the name of the person that received the firearm, the recipient's age and their address. It's got to be the make, the caliber, and the finish of the firearm, which, you know, there again, that takes a lot of time to go through it. the date of the sale and the amount of the transaction, the sales tax. Like I say, the name of the employee. It's going to take the name of the employee or other person that conducted the transaction. And the dealer, firearms dealer, that they have to make these records in this section that I just described, available at all times by a duly authorized peace officer So they got to keep all of these detailed records at hand because you never really know when a peace officer or the people that are doing the inspections And these inspections, I don't believe it says anywhere in the bill, the good senator from Fort Collins was saying that they want everybody to comply and they're not going to come down on them and so forth, which I kind of believe. But what we don't know is maybe that there is a dealer that's been, I don't want to say the word targeted because that's not quite the word, but they've been identified that, look, we inspected them once 30 days ago or two weeks ago, and so we're going to check on them again a month later, or we're going to check on them again quarterly. how many times that they're going to come back. So with that, Madam Chair, I do have an amendment. There's an amendment at the desk.

Amendment L66, amend re-engross bill page 3, line 24.

Proper motion to the amendment. Yes.

Further discussion? Senator Bright. No, Senator Kipp. Senator Bright.

Senator Kipp.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of L66 to 1126. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. No's have it. L66 is lost. To the bill, Senator Samora Wilson.

Further discussion?

And this is a familiar amendment on these types of bills, which is simply a petition clause.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-68. To the amendment. So I think this is another bill where it certainly wouldn't be harmful to just say, okay, if we want to put all these additional rules and regulations on this particular sector of our economy, let's see what the voters think. Let's see if they are a bit concerned about what's happening with our state in terms of job loss. And that was another thing I forgot to mention. Probably the most significant thing in that Chamber of Commerce study was that all of these businesses leaving or not coming here has resulted, they've calculated a net loss of 13,000 jobs that would have been created. 13,000 jobs, that's a significant number. And so I think there's a growing awareness in Colorado that we need to create, foster a more business-friendly environment, stop punishing businesses. And so I think this amendment would be a good way to ask the voters, do you want to do this to one more industry? Let's see what the voters think of the whole idea. So with that, I would ask for support for Amendment L-68, petition clause.

Senator Kipp. Thank you. I would ask for a no vote. You know, this original bill has been in place for a long time. The bill will go into rulemaking. We need the rulemaking to start as soon as possible so that we can make sure that the loopholes that people are exploiting in the original law are closed by having this law go into effect quickly. So I would ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Folks, any business that's required to be available for inspection ought to be able to count on some reasonableness in those inspections. And so I'd like to add an amendment that would address that, please. There's an amendment at the desk.

Amendment L67, amend your engrossed bill, page 6, strike lines 21 through 23, and substitute 3.

Further discussion, Senator Bright.

Further discussion?

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of L67 to 1126. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The no's have it. L67 is lost. To the bill. Say no further discussion? You were not in the well. Senator Liston, I will remind you all, be in the well if you're ready to speak on a bill. To that, Senator Liston, I'm recognizing you. To the bill. Very good.

I think we need a new fiscal note on this bill. Senatorial 5. Thank you. Thank you. Since there has been no amendment to require the senator's request for a new fiscal note, that request is denied. To the bill, seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1126. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. 1126 is adopted.

The motion before the body is the adoption, I'm sorry, is to lay over 1202 until tomorrow, April 14th. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it.

House Bill 1265 by Representatives Rootnell and Clifford and Senators Wallace and Linsday concerning the law enforcement agencies used to the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of National Electronic Tracing System

Thank you, Madam Chair I move House Bill 1265 I have on second reading.

Members, this bill will help Colorado's law enforcement agencies coordinate to end the epidemic of gun violence, not only here in our own state, but across the nation. E-Trace is a free internet-based firearm trace submission system operated by the ATF and used by state and local law enforcement agencies. Through this system, agencies can submit a gun tracing request to track a recovered firearms history from the manufacturer to the or importer to the first retail purchase. Because the system is federally managed, access is provided at no cost to our participating agencies. eTrace also offers a collective data sharing option, which allows agencies within the same state to securely share trace data and view one another's shared records while maintaining the ability to keep specific traces private when they're being used in investigations. E-Trace has helped law enforcement to identify the perpetrators of murders, of assaults, and other violent gun crimes. It assists in identifying gun traffickers and straw purchasers, and finally, it can monitor trends in violent crime, enabling investigators to solve cases faster without creating a public firearm registry. This bill would formally integrate E-Trace into Colorado's uniform crime reporting framework and standardize agency participation. Here in Colorado, about 70% of our jurisdictions already use E-Trace, but less than one-fifth of those agencies have opted into the collective data sharing, and the remaining 30% don't use either. This bill seeks to close that gap and require all state and local agencies to enroll in E-Trace and opt into the collective data sharing feature, as well as puts requirements on when they have to do that reporting so it happens in a timely matter. In doing so, we will ensure our law enforcement are utilizing critical tools to help reduce gun violence at no cost to them.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill just fills gaps in our law enforcement agencies so that we have the data and tools we need to arrest violent criminals and keep community safe. So vote for community safety. Support the bill. Thank you.

House Bill 1302 by Representatives Duran and Basnicker and Senators Kipp concerning the Colorado Bureau of Investigations Firearms Background Check Operating Hours.

Thank you. I move HB 26-1302 on second reading.

I'll just say really quick, this bill is really straightforward. What it does is it removes the statutory requirement that the Colorado Bureau of Investigations InstaCheck Unit, the unit that processes firearm background checks, operates 12 hours a day, seven days a week, 363 days a year. It replaces that rigid mandate with flexibility allowing CBI to set its own hours based on actual demand The 12 requirement made sense when it was written At the time the law required an immediate response to firearm purchase attempts so the unit needed to be fully staffed at all hours. That is no longer the case. When we passed HB 23-12-19 and established a minimum three-day waiting period between purchase and transfer, the rationale for mandatory 12-hour staffing went away. The law just hasn't caught up. That's what we're trying to do here. The data makes the case really clearly. In 2024-2025, Instacheck processed 343,616 background checks. Only about 31,000 of those, that's about 9%, were submitted between 6 and 9 p.m. Despite the low volume, the unit is still required by statute to maintain full staffing, supervisors, leads, and technicians during those late evening hours, including paying shift differentials, that's just really not a good use of limited resources. And resources are limited. Background check requests have declined an average of 5.6% a year over the last three years. CBI's revenue has fallen from $5.1 million in fiscal year 2021 to a projected $3.8 million in 2027. The agency has not backfilled six vacant positions since 2022, And this bill just gives them the operational flexibility they need to manage that responsibility. I also want to, yeah, I think this bill is really simply good housekeeping. It's aligning statute with operational reality, protecting a state agency's ability to manage its resources widely, and maintaining service quality for Coloradans. That's what I think we're trying to ask of all of our state agencies. So I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, colleagues, so on its face, HB 26-1302 seems to be purely administrative, a housekeeping measure to allow the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to set its own hours for possessing firearms background checks. I'm here to explain why the thought that this is just basic and reasonable is of great concern because the details of this bill reveal something important about where this legislature is taking Colorado's firearms regulatory system and about the way constitutional rights are being eroded. Not in dramatic moments, not in headline-grabbing bands, but in quiet administrative adjustments that seem too small to fight about. But when you add them up together, they change everything. So we must understand what InstaCheck is and what role it plays in Colorado's firearm system. InstaCheck is the Colorado Bureau of Investigations Firearm Background Check Unit. Under Colorado law, licensed firearms dealer cannot complete a firearms transfer until the CBI InstaCheck Unit processes a background check request and returns an approval This is mandatory It applies to every licensed dealer There is no alternative pathway There is no federal fallback There is no county workaround Instacheck is the sole gateway through which every single lawful firearms purchase in the state of Colorado must pass Not one of several options. Not the primary option with alternatives available. the only option. Every law-abiding Coloradan who walks into a licensed firearm dealer and wishes to purchase a firearm must, without exception, wait for the CBI InstaCheck unit to process their background check before that transaction can be completed. Now think about what that means. Instacheck is a single point through which lawful access to firearms in Colorado flows. That gives the Instacheck unit extraordinary power over the exercise of a constitutional right. And the question of when that unit is open and when it is closed is not a trivial administrative scheduling matter. It is a question with direct, concrete, constitutional implications. Current Colorado law requires the CBI InstaCheck unit to remain open 12 hours a day, every calendar day of the year, with only two exceptions, Christmas and Thanksgiving. The legislature sets that requirement. They set it deliberately. It reflects a considered judgment that Colorado's background check infrastructure must maintain sufficient availability to allow citizens to exercise their constitutional rights consistently and reliably. 12 hours a day 363 days a year that is the floor that is the minimum the legislature decided was necessary to ensure that insta-check does not become whether intentionally or through bureaucratic drift a mechanism for de facto denial of constitutional access and this bill would eliminate that floor Not lower it, eliminate it. Replace the statutory minimum with unlimited administrative discretion. The CBI would determine its own hours based on what it calls its business needs. No minimum hours specified, no minimum days specified, no legislative constraint of any kind. So the bill states explicitly that the reason for removing the statutory operating hour requirement is this, that Colorado's three-day waiting period enacted in 2023 has reduced CBI's need to provide immediate background check services. I'll say that again. The three-day waiting period. period. It has reduced the CBI's need to provide immediate background check services. So the three-day waiting period, which itself delayed every lawful firearms purchase by a minimum of three days, regardless of how quickly the background check cleared, has now reduced the urgency of immediate background check processing. So the argument goes we might as well give the CBI the authority to reduce InstaCheck availability further So let think about this First, the waiting period slows down lawful purchases. Second, because purchases are already slowed down, immediate background check availability is less critical. Third, therefore, we should give the executive branch unconstrained authority to slow things down further by reducing insta-check hours. Each restriction becomes the justification for the next. The ratchet only turns one way. And now consider the broader picture. If the three-day waiting period were to be struck down by a court, which is not an impossible outcome, but given the trajectory of the Second Amendment jurisprudence since Bruin, Coloradans would suddenly find themselves in a world where the waiting period is gone but Instacheck is operating on reduced hours with no statutory floor Without the waiting period's artificial delay the availability of Instacheck becomes critical again A citizen who drives to their local gun dealer on a Saturday afternoon to purchase a firearm lawfully would have no guarantee that InstaCheck is open, no guarantee of any particular processing window, no recourse except to come back when the CBI has decided its business needs require the system to be available. We would have removed one layer of protection for access while simultaneously removing the statutory guarantee of the infrastructure that enables access. The compound effect is worse than either restriction individually, and we are being asked to put that risk in place today without knowing whether the waiting period will survive legal challenge. So, to be specific about what it means to give CBI unconstrained authority to set insta-check hours, It means a state executive agency, not elected, not directly accountable to voters, answering to the governor, has sole authority to decide when citizens may begin the process of purchasing a constitutionally protected item. The CBI could decide that Instacheck operates weekdays only, 9 to 5. There's nothing in this bill that prevents this. The CBI could decide that InstaCheck operates reduced hours during budget-constrained periods. Nothing in this bill prevents that. The CBI could decide based purely on internal resource allocation decisions to minimize InstaCheck availability in ways that effectively function as additional delays on lawful purchases. And once you delegate that authority to an executive agency, taking it back requires another act of legislature. And bureaucratic inertia is real. Reclaiming delegated authority is difficult. There is a principle in administrative law called the non-delegation doctrine, and the idea that the legislature cannot hand off to the executive branch authority so broad and unconstrained that it effectively transfers legislative power. Colorado courts have applied versions of this principle in various contexts, and I would argue that delegating to an executive agency the unconstrained authority to determine when citizens may exercise a fundamental constitutional right raises serious questions under this doctrine. When does InstaCheck open? The CBI decides. How many hours? CBI decides. What counts as business needs that justifies reduced availability? CBI decides. What appeal process exists for citizens who cannot access InstaCheck? none specified the legislature has a constitutional responsibility to set the parameters within which executive agencies operate. Saying the CBI may determine its own hours based on business needs sets no parameters at all and it's an abdication, not a delegation So just two weeks ago, the CBI announced a seven-day trial of expanded submission access for licensed firearm dealers. And under this trial, dealers could submit background check requests 24 hours a day, around the clock, rather than only during the 9-to-9 window currently mandated by statute. The CBI's own press release accompanying this announcement noted that analysis of the previous fiscal year shows that only 9% of daily background check submissions occurred between 7 in the evening and the end of business hours. The overwhelming majority of submissions occurred during peak hours. The CBI is exploring ways to optimize its operations within the current statutory framework. So what does this tell us? First, CBI operating under the current statutory 12-hour mandate is already experimenting with expanded access. The direction of that experiment is toward more availability, not less. This is not an agency straining against an unreasonable statutory constraint. This is an agency finding ways to improve service within the law as written. Second, if the problem this bill is trying to solve is operational inefficiency, the CBI appears to have flexibility to address that problem without HB 26-1302. The statute already allows CBI to structure its hours within the 12-hour window as it sees fit. The trial suggests it is doing exactly that. Third, and most importantly, if the CBI's voluntary direction is toward expanded access, why do we need a bill that gives it the authority to go in the opposite direction? Who is asking for this? It's not law enforcement. The CBI is not lobbying to reduce its own availability to Colorado gun owners. So who benefits from removing the statutory floor Stepping back again, I just want to say the Second Amendment is a durable right. It cannot be eliminated by a single act of this legislature. It cannot be banned out of existence with one bill, but it can be degraded gradually through an accumulation of measures that each appear minor and reasonable, but together transform the practical exercise of the right beyond recognition. In 2023, this legislature imposed a three-day waiting period on every firearms purchase. The following year, it created a state dealer licensing program administered by the Department of Revenue and required state permits to sell firearms. And in 2025, it extended law enforcement authority to revenue agents enforcing that program. And in this session, it has proposed dramatically expanding dealer record-keeping, mandating electronic transition records accessible to state agents at all times without a warrant, requiring every law enforcement agency in the state to participate in a federal tracing database and now removing the statutory floor on InstaCheck availability. Each step has been defended as reasonable. Each step has been described as modest. None of them standing alone has been presented as the dramatic restriction it is a part of, but the cumulative picture is unmistakable, a system that has been progressively and deliberately restructured to make the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms more difficult, more bureaucratic, more surveilled, and more dependent on the administrative goodwill of executive branch agencies. Who actually bears the cost? of these cumulative restrictions. It is not the person in Denver who purchases a firearm once every few years and finds the process mildly inconvenient. It is the person in Alamosa who needs to drive 45 minutes to the nearest licensed dealer only to find that Instacheck closed two hours ago. It is the woman in rural Weld County who has decided after a threatening situation at home that she needs to purchase a firearm for her self-protection, and who faces a three-day wait, reduced InstaCheck hours, and a dealer operating under expensive compliance mandates that have raised prices. These are the people for whom access to a constitutional right is not theoretical. These are the people for whom every administrative barrier has real consequences. The burden of overregulation falls hardest on those with the least flexibility. The people who cannot easily work around bureaucratic obstacles, who cannot easily travel far, who cannot afford to wait. this legislature should be asking for every bill that touches firearms Does this make the exercise of a constitutional right easier or harder for the people with the least If the answer is harder, the burden of justification is very high, and this bill does not meet that. The Second Amendment has survived more than two centuries of American history because the people and their representatives have insisted that it means something very real that is not subject to erosion by bureaucratic attrition. That is a right which must be exercised, and we must protect it against regulation, surveillance, waiting periods, and minimizing to certain hours. We have the right to exercise our Second Amendment. I urge a no vote on HB 26-1302. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry. I don't mean to butt in line, but I do want to make sure that everyone understands exactly how InstaCheck works because there does seem to be some confusion here. InstaCheck does not need to be open when someone is attempting to purchase a firearm. You still go into the queue, and it's an electronic queue. Nobody's having to, like, drive across the state to get into a queue. So I just wanted to make sure that that is clear. Nobody has to be at CBI. It goes into the queue, and then when they get in, they do the work. So that's kind of how it works. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I heard this bill in committee. That's another bill that I'm against. It was suggested in June that my caucus makes decisions because of forces outside this building, and that is simply not the case. We are free thinkers. We make decisions based on our understanding. With that, Madam Chair. There's an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schaffler, will you please read L16 to 1302?

Senator Peltonar.

Senator Kipp.

Is there further discussion? Senator Pelton- Thank you, Madam Chair.

Further discussion, Senator Kipp.

Further discussion. Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of L16 to House Bill 1302. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. No. No's have it. L-16 is last. To the bill, Senator Rich. Thank you, Madam Chair. It was interesting listening to some of the commentary after the bill was introduced today. And I just believe that because of what I heard. I have it in a minute. Thank you. You are welcome. There's an amendment. Mr. Schauffler, will you please read L-17 to House Bill 1302?

Senator Rich. I'm sorry. Senator Rich. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-017 to House Bill 1302. Proper motion to the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm hoping that you will consider this a friendly amendment. it would require that any change to the Colorado Bureau of Investigating Business Hours be made publicly available within 24 hours of the change. Senator Rich? Oh, I move L017. I already did that. Thank you. For whatever reason you said, I think I misheard that you said L12. But now L17 has properly been moved. and please proceed. All right. Anyway, it would require that any change to the CBI's business hours be publicly available within 24 hours of its change. This amendment ensures transparency, and I think we all like transparency, but it also ensures predictability for business hours and for consumers. The bill grants the Bureau broad discretion, to set its own operating hours based on internal business needs, replacing the current fixed schedule. Without clear notice, requirements, firearm dealers and purchasers could be left unaware of sudden changes that directly impact their ability to complete lawful transactions. By requiring timely public notice, this amendment ensures that all stakeholders have clear and immediate access to updated operating hours, preventing confusion and unnecessary delays. It just seems to me that that's not asking a whole lot. If you're going to change the hours that you give the public notice, let's not forget that the government works for the people, and I ask for an aye vote on L017. Further discussion? Senator Kipp.

Further discussion? Senator Rich. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I certainly understand that, but you might be in an area where the portal is not always working, and there's very rural areas within the state of Colorado, and it seems to me that we should remind people what the hours are so that they're not traveling because the portal's not working. If they've changed their hours, that's an inconvenience to the taxpayers. So I urge a yes vote on L017. Further discussion. Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of L17 to 1302. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The no's have it. L17 is lost. To the bill. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1302. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The ayes have it. 1302 is adopted. Mr. Majority Leader.

Motion is to lay over Senate Bill 150 to the bottom, I'm sorry, to tomorrow, April the 14th.

Aye.

House Bill 1045 by Representative Clifford and Zakai and Senator Michelson-Janae concerning housing protections for individuals with disabilities.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, neither of us are Senator Michelson-Janae as much as we might look like her. However, I move HB 26, 1045 on second reading.

Basically, what this bill does is it makes sure that we put some definitions into our state law around disabilities and housing. because what has happened under the current administration, they withdrew notice on assistance animals and so now people are in danger of not having their assistance animals with them in their housing and we just want to make sure that disabled people have access to their assistance animals.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to add that without this clarification under the current law, it is becoming more and more apparent that people with disabilities are having to choose between their housing and their service animals. These aren't pets. These are required tools to get through their daily life in a dignified way, in an independent way. And so we urge an aye vote on this measure.

Aye.

1305.

House Bill 1305 by Representative Lukens and Senator Roberts concerning enhancing access to inpatient behavioral health by aligning state and federal statute.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1305. To the bill. I do have an amendment. Mr. Schoffler, will you please read L-001 to House Bill 1305.

Senator Roberts.

Is there further discussion on L-001? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of L-1. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. L1 is adopted. To the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill will make a technical change in statute that will close a loophole that we discovered due to a facility in my district in Eagle County that wasn't allowing mental health facilities that aren't physically connected to a hospital to be a part of that hospital system.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1305. All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it. That bill is adopted. Majority Leader Rodriguez.

Motion is to rise and report. All those in favor say aye.

Ayes have it. We will rise and report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee met and considered several bills. Mr. Schauffler, will you please read the report?

Senator Gonzales.

The motions of adoption can be the whole report. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 35 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, 0 excuse, can be the whole report is adopted. House Bill 1126, 1265, 1302, 1045, 1305 is amended, passed, second reading, order of advice, place the count of third reading, and final passage. House Bill 1202, Senate Bill 150, lay over into 414-2026, retaining the place on the calendar. House Bill 1084, lay over into 416-2026, place the calendar in House Bill 1071. Senate Bill 134, lay over into 417-2026, retaining their place on the calendar. Consideration of resolutions. Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion is lay over SJR 21 on Friday, April 17th, 2026. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The aye is having an SJR 21 will lay over until Friday, April 17th, 2026. Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of SJR 1026.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Schaffler, please read H.J.R. 1026 at length. Whereas Roy Romer served the state of Colorado with distinction for decades, including eight years as a member of the Colorado General Assembly, 10 years as the Colorado State Treasurer, and 12 years as the 39th Governor of the State of Colorado. And whereas throughout his public service, Governor Roy Romer demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the people of Colorado, guided by a belief that effective government can expand opportunity, strengthen communities, and improve the lives of future generations. And whereas during his tenure as governor from 1987 to 1999, Governor Romer provided steady and principled leadership during periods of significant growth and change, helping to shape Colorado's modern economy while preserving the state's natural beauty and quality of life. And whereas Governor Romer was a tireless advocate for education, recognizing it as the foundation of a strong democracy and a prosperous state, and worked relentlessly to improve Colorado's public schools, higher education institutions, and workforce readiness. And whereas Governor Romer's leadership extended to transportation and infrastructure, where his vision emphasized long-term planning, regional cooperation, and investment in systems that connect communities and support economic vitality across the state. And whereas Governor Romer's legacy is further defined by his integrity, civility, and bipartisan approach to governance, earning him the respect of colleagues, public servants, and citizens across political and geographic lines. and whereas the dedication of a section of I-25 to honor Governor Romer recognizes not only his contributions to Colorado's transportation infrastructure but also his enduring impact on the state's growth, mobility, and future prosperity and whereas mile marker 204.51 through mile marker 213.13 shall be dedicated and known as the Governor Roy Romer Memorial Highway due to Governor Romer's support of logistics, community connectivity, and regional economic development Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the 75th General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the Senate concurring herein, one, that we, the members of the Colorado General Assembly, hereby honor former Governor Roy Romer for his extensive public service, visionary leadership and lasting contributions to the State of Colorado two that the Department of Transportation may accept and expend gifts grants and donations for the purposes of the initial placement of signs to mark I in Denver County at mile marker 204 Through mile marker 213.13 as the Governor Roy Romer Memorial Highway. Three, that the Colorado Department of Transportation may explore a cooperative agreement with the City Council for Denver County or other authority for the maintenance of the signs marking the Governor Roy Romer Memorial Highway. And four, that this designated section of I-25 shall stand as a lasting tribute to Governor Romer's dedication to public service and as a reminder to all who travel it of the profound difference that one committed public servant can have on the state. Be it further resolved that copies of this joint resolution be sent to the former Governor Roy Romer, Chris Romer, Denver City Council, and the Mayor's Office.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, you may be seated. Thank you. I just wanted to have it read at length. I didn't want to do a lot of speech or anything on that. This was done in the House. Obviously, the governor and his family were there for that resolution. So I just wanted to have it read at length so everybody could hear all the great things that he had done for the state of Colorado, whether it was being a House of Rep, a representative in the House and or governor and some of the other work that he did in Colorado and across the country. On that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the roll call be added as co-sponsors.

Members of the Geologic Storage Stewardship Enterprise Board for a term expiring September 1, 2026, Ashley Ross of Golden, Colorado, to serve as an expert in geologic storage, preferably with an actuarial science background, as related to evaluating the long-term risk of geologic storage facilities appointed. For a term expiring September 1, 2027, Robert Randall of Denver, Colorado, to serve as a member with formal training or substantial experience in environmental protection, public health, or other relevant fields appointed. for term expiring September 1, 2028, Anna Littlefield of Evergreen, Colorado, deserves a substantial experience in well-born monitoring, long-term stewardship, or other relevant technical fields appointed.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the appointments on the consideration of Governor's Appointments Consent Calendar, which consists of Ashley Ross of Golden, Robert Randall of Denver, and Anna Littlefield of Evergreen for the Geologic Storage Stewardship Enterprise Board.

House Bill 1038 by Representative Paschal and Clifford and Senator Snyder concerning County Commissioner redistricting

Thank you Mr. President, I move that the Senate adopt the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1038.

Well, in the conference committee, we added three things that came from our House colleagues. Basically, when you're appointing these committees, you have three Republicans, three Democrats, and three unaffiliates. This would require that each of those potential appointees be a member of their party or unaffiliated for the previous three years. We also have asked them to establish a reasonably accessible public application process for these members. And then the members shall only be selected after no fewer than 30 days before the date the county commissioners select the commissioners.

Yes, on the conference report for 1038.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the repassage of House Bill 1038.

Mr. Minority Leader.

Brazil. Zamora Wilson. Rich. Listen. Basley. Pelton R. Carson. Bright.

Happy birthday to you! Happy birthday to you! Happy birthday dear Senator Pelton. Happy birthday to you.

Oh, okay. Thank you, Mr. President. So provided these bills are introduced and assigned to appropriations, tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. in LSBB, we will hear House Bills 1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1350. 1352, 1353, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1366. Some of you will notice we missed one. 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1371, 1372, 1373, 1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1382, 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1387. They said I had to read them all. 1388, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395. Okay, I appreciate you guys bringing in the refreshments. 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399. Okay, I don't know if I'm going to make it. 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407 1408 1409 1411 1412 and this is where it gets fun 1410 and 1413 And any other bills as assigned We start at 7 a.m. Very good, very good.

Thank you, Mr. President. Senate Transportation and Energy Committee will meet today at 1.30 in Senate Committee Room 352. And we will be hearing Senate Bill 101, Senate Bill 148, and not Senate Bill 142. we have moved that contrary to the counter.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Education Committee will be meeting at 1.30 and 3.57, hearing one bill, Senate Bill 145.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm glad floor work is starting to wind down for us senior citizens. It's starting to crowd into our nap time. But tomorrow morning we only have five Bible studies left, so please come down and listen to Pastor Dan Fowle give a good Sunday school lesson, and we'll feed your belly while you're there.

Thank you, Mr. President. Judiciary, our list of bills is not quite as long as appropriations, but we have some work to do this afternoon at 1.30. Usual time will be in old Supreme Court to hear in this order, 149, 36, 159, 158, and 96. See you there.

Thank you, colleagues, for the work today. We will be recessing as we allegedly have some bills to read across the desk later, so there's no need to return. On that note, Mr. President, I move the Senate adjourn until 1, a recess, until 1.30 p.m. today.

.