House State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs [Mar 16, 2026]

We're good. The State Civic Military and Veterans Affairs Committee will come to order.

Brooks.

Carter.

Espinoza.

Frey.

Luck.

Wynn.

Ricks.

Clifford. Here. Madam Chair. Here. I'm delighted that we're starting at 133, but also a little sad that nobody's going to be interpretive dancing for being late today. We have one bill on the committee, Senate Bill 43, and both of our sponsors are here. Who would like to begin? Representative Froelich.

and we ask for an aye vote Representative Brown Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Committee for hearing our bill today I appreciate your work today I know it will be an important conversation today. You know, I think it's important just to add on to what my co-prime sponsor was saying. And first of all, I'm always honored to join her on any bill, but also especially on gun violence prevention bills. This is something that we both care very deeply about, and she has been a leader in this work for so many years. So I am honored to be a part of this bill. I think it's important to make sure that folks understand that the bill does not ban firearm barrels. It doesn't prevent law-abiding Coloradans from owning or replacing them. It's really just about common-sense regulations to ensure that firearm barrels are purchased through federally licensed dealers and that there's a clear record that is maintained for law enforcement purposes. By requiring the in-person sales and maintaining basic purchase records, We're closing this loophole, as my co-prime sponsor mentioned, 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. We also, I'll point out that the bill includes thoughtful exemptions for military, government, and licensed collectors. So it's really about responsible oversight, traceability, not banning lawful gun ownership. I think it's also important to recognize that it does not require gun barrels to be serialized necessarily. It is really just about making sure that there are sort of regulated checkpoints, regulated points of sale, so that we can make sure that we are dealing with the threat to public safety that sort of ghost guns and their like would place on our community. So with that, we ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Representative Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that question, Representative Luck. I really appreciate your engagement on this bill and the thoughtful way that you approach legislation. The short answer is no. we obviously believe that to be regulated under this law an item must be at least one of two things One it must be an article that has reached a stage of manufacture where it may be readily completed or assembled for use as a firearm barrel. And two, it must be an article that is marketed to the public as a firearm barrel. So not straws, not pipes, normal pipes that you would find at the hardware store. And the reason for that is that it's about the intent and the manufacturer. So a standard metal tube at a hardware store is intended for plumbing, construction, DIY use. It is not intended for a rifle. It does not have things like rifling or a chamber or specific threading. It is also not marketed that way. And there is a particular case law that addresses this. In particular, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed this issue in 2020 in a case by the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis. And the central lesson from that case was exactly what I'm talking about, that intent manufacturing and the exclusion of integrated parts in particular really matters as to whether this kind of a bill would apply.

Does anybody else have any questions? Okay. Okay. Maybe you can ask a couple, and then we'll let somebody else ask questions, and we'll come back to you. Does that sound okay?

Okay, perfect.

Why don't you ask two questions, and then we'll let someone else take a crack.

Representative Froelich. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Representative Luck. We feel that because the bill specifically says that these are items marketed to the public as a firearm barrel that those descriptions that you have described are not marketed to as firearm barrels and so our language clarifying that it has to be marketed as a firearm barrel to the public covers us in what you are suggesting. And I appreciate that, Rep. Frolic. In talking with another attorney, I do think that the way it is listed in that second sentence, a firearm barrel includes, it's not limited to. And so to be able to limit in the first, because it's not extensive, unless you wanted to add in a firearm barrel includes and is limited to these things, this may be a better way to do it. But that's just something to consider.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Luck. We do have a firearms expert coming to testify so maybe they can offer clarification on that Okay And I will make sure that your question gets answered by that person Wonderful Thank you My second question for now is as relates to intent to sell

Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I would have to talk with you more about what your intent there is, Representative Luck, but I mean I can tell you that obviously there's nothing in this bill that would prevent someone from replacing their barrel. And I think that if a barrel has been bought prior to this legislation, I don't know that that necessarily would be covered either. So if a person had barrels at home that they were intending to use for replacing their barrels through the kind of sport shooting that you were talking about, I don't know that anything is precluded in this bill from that. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've raised these questions outside of the hearing with the sponsors. just want to put it on the record for some clarification that would be helpful for me as we move forward with this bill. The first is, and this is, let me put on my Judiciary Committee hat and my law professor hat and my Statutory Revision Committee hat to say, I'm really looking strongly at legislation that's using this term that no longer exists in statute of unclassified misdemeanor. So I'd ask you to redefine that throughout the statute and make a choice on whether it's a first-degree misdemeanor or a second-degree misdemeanor. And an unclassified used to be treated semi like a petty theft, but in 2021 we eliminated that term from our legislation. And so I'd like to ask you to decide how you want to deal with that and the civil infraction.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rep. Espinosa, for bringing those concerns to us previously. So we want to make clear to committee that there are two different situations here. One is the purchase of the unlawful purchase of a barrel. That is a civil infraction. the unlawful sale gets you into misdemeanor territory the drafter has uh has said that we standardly use and we have used in other gvp less legislation i understand that it's not liked by uh by the folks in statutory review committee but unclassified misdemeanor so that there's more discretion and they can decide because if misdemeanor one and two have specific number of days um when you are charged with a misdemeanor one and two and if you say unclassified misdemeanor you can have more uh flexibility in the number of days specifically they did not want folks spending particularly long uh six months in jail, which is required in a class one misdemeanor. But you can do the fine or the jail, and they wanted more flexibility through the word unclassified misdemeanor. Representative Espinosa. I would suggest that that's not an appropriate term, because unclassified misdemeanor was a term of art that was previously in our statute. It does not lead to the description that you just indicated. And so I would again ask you to look at this as this bill moves forward. And we can have more discussions about that. And I understand the flexibility you're talking about, but that would be more in the range of what you've said with regard to the civil infraction rather than misdemeanor. And I would just note that even in the civil infraction, we've inconsistently used that through the statute. And so it's important to clarify the level of what you're talking about in the civil infraction, because when we omitted unclassified misdemeanor in the statute, we did allow for and create this term of the civil infraction, which I think is leading to the kind of discretion that you're talking about. But there is no firm definition or penalty with a civil infraction. And it's usually, and in the absence of these things being defined in the statute, then there's an issue. So the former unclassified misdemeanor, I just did some review with the public defenders before I came in, does allow, did allow for that kind of flexibility potentially. but there's also a way to do that in another way, and I'll be happy to work with you outside of committee, but I did just want to put that on the record. I did have one more question, if I may, Madam Chair.

Yeah, sure, and I think I speak on behalf of my co-crime sponsor and myself when I'd say we'd be happy to work with you, Rep. Espinosa. You obviously have a level of expertise that I don't have and certainly appreciate the concerns that you're raising forward. So, you know, happy to continue those conversations going forward. And I do want to note that the bill drafter is in the room, if that would be helpful to bring that individual up for your questions. I think this is a larger question I'm having with OLS. It seems like if there's a misunderstanding of how that would play out in the gun space versus maybe the criminal space, but I think these are terms of art we need to clarify, maybe even at a higher level. So that would not be necessary today, Madam Chair.

And I'm going to throw two things in. Just one thing, I know that you're looking at an amendment to add the gunsmithing school back in, so I appreciate that. And then I did just want to give you an opportunity on the record to discuss whether there's any inconsistency on bottom of page 5 and top of page 6 in subsection F with regard to the transfer of weapons. because there is also in subsection A the transfer between family members. And I guess I'm just trying to figure out how in an estate transfer, which is referred to in subsection F, that would happen and how that would be enforced. Representative Froelich. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Espinosa, for the question. It's our understanding of the way it's written, And I understand there's a precision that you bring to this that we and Representative Luck bring to this that we appreciate and are willing to make sure we get right. So it's our understanding that as outlined in the bill, if you are transferring through an executor or administrator as a process of a will, you're fine. if it in a trust and the trust is doing a mass transfer of these barrels then you have to go through an FFL So it the trust created in a will a trust that has to contract with an FFL to do that transfer en masse But if it just through a regular will and there hasn't been a trust established and you're not doing a big behest, than it's the usual. And then for committee to understand that a municipality doing a buyback program also doesn't have to go through an FFL. That's what that section following that is.

Sure, thank you. I have two, if that's okay. I'm going to be very quick.

Yes. Okay, great. Absolutely. Absolutely. So sponsors, I grew up in an era where some of my agricultural family members would have guns from way back, back from the day when gunpowder used to be corrosive. And now it takes to advancements. It's not. But if you didn't, just as a quick background, didn't clean your gun right away after using it. I mean, the whole barrel would just rot out. So this is actually very similar to a question that my colleague from Fremont County had asked. Hers was more along the lines of barrels that are currently owned already that would the ownership precede the potential onset of this law. I'm just thinking that for, like, let's say a family heirloom item that you're wanting to restore and you want to swap out the barrel to something because it's been damaged even through just a regular use, you know, why would we want to trigger this level of kind of state oversight for something that would be fairly routine just to be able to replace a damaged barrel?

I mean, first of all, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Brooks, for your question. I mean, I certainly understand your concern and where you're coming from. And I think to your point, you know, barrels do need to be replaced on a fair, you know, somewhat of regular clip here. Depends on the kind of rifle it is and how often it gets shot. I know in my family that the rifles that get used, I don't know that we've ever had to replace the barrel. But to your point, technology has changed. I will say that I think it's a matter of understanding sort of what kind of, you know, what are the benefits to public safety that we are gaining here. It's a really important thing that we are able to make sure that firearms are not, you know, falling into the wrong hands and that we are protecting our communities from ghost guns. And so for me, it's a small inconvenience in the nature of greater public safety gains.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Brooks. What the bill contemplates and what we're trying to get after is that there's 3D printing of firearms, which we have we have addressed through ghost gun bill and through our recently passed 3d printing you still going to need a barrel so to put barrels into ffls to make sure that you not meeting someone in the Walmart parking lot to exchange barrels outside of an FFL You not ordering online to complete your ghost gun So it's just closing that barrel loophole so that you are purchasing your barrel through an FFL. And it doesn't matter how many times you go to the FFL, how many barrels you want to replace. Ownership of a barrel is not contemplated as any kind of penalty. this. If you're a sports shooter and we have someone who contacted us who said, I go through hundreds of these in a year. Good for you. You're having a great time at the range or whatever you're doing. That's a lawful exercise. But you didn't make a ghost gun or acquire a ghost gun, and now you need a barrel and you're meeting someone you contacted through Facebook Marketplace or you're ordering an online to complete this purchase, which we feel should be done through an FFL. Representative Brooks. Sure, thank you. A different subject line. I just would ask for

Representative. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Brooks. We typically on all of our gun violence prevention bills get an amendment that says exempt all military current or former. for every single thing that we run. And it's just, you know, these are folks who deserve to be protected as well. These are folks who are also at an alarming rate contemplating suicide. And so all of our gun violence prevention measures, our three-day waiting period, ERPO, this bill, we do not like to extend so broadly an exemption because we feel those are our neighbors as well. and deserve to be protected by the legislation that we're running.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm wondering if you guys foresee this having a chilling effect on lawful ownership. Do you anticipate that the registration and recording requirements under this bill will lead certain folks to not actually change out barrels?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't think so. Personally, first of all, there's no registry that is contemplated here. This is just a normal record that is already being kept similar to what is being kept for if you purchase a firearm through an FFL. I don't believe that there would be any sort of chilling effect here other than the fact that it makes sure that we are, that the sale of these particular elements of a firearm are going through licensed dealers. So, no, I guess that was a really long way of saying no. Sorry about that. No worries.

Representative Froelich.

Last question. Yep, go ahead.

Representative Froelich.

Representative Bottoms. Thank you, Chair. Representative Frohler, can you give me a place where I can look up that the use of ghost guns went down anywhere?

Any further questions? Seeing none, we're going to move into witness testimony.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, perfect. And I have a number of folks signed up in support as well as in opposition and two signed up in either a neutral or amend position. Is it your preference that we would start with a support panel, hear the opposition, and then end with your neutral amend and then your final support panel? Okay, perfect. We will proceed with that. As we're getting started with testimony, I just want to remind everybody that we will be wrapping comments at two minutes. And two minutes, again, means two minutes. And so we're not allowing committee members to ask you to finish your testimony. Props are not allowed. If you've got a t-shirt with something on it, that's no big deal. And ask that you be respectful of committee members and focus your comments to the content of the bill. We will also, once we've wrapped up with the panel, allow for up to five minutes of questions, alternating as best as we can between parties. So with that, we'll start with our first panel. Amanda Cox, Steve Lindley, Stephanie Greenberg, David Carnes, and Kimberly Carroll. Are you perhaps Stephanie Wilcox? Amanda Wilcox. Amanda Wilcox. Okay, perfect. Welcome to the committee. The floor is yours for two minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Amanda Wilcox, and I'm here today on behalf of Brady,

Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Wilcox. Please hold for questions. We're going to go online now to Steve Lindley. Welcome. Please come off mute. Tell us who you are on the floor for two minutes.

Thank you very much I also call Ms Eileen McCarran I believe you here in person if you like to join the panel Let go now to Stephanie Greenberg Thank you very much I also call Ms Eileen McCarran I believe you here in person if you like to join the panel Let go now to Stephanie Greenberg

Thank you so much, Ms. Greenberg. Your time has expired.

Thank you very much for your time and attention. Thank you, Ms. Greenberg. Let's go to Kimberly Carroll.

Thank you very much. And finally, on this panel, Ms. McCarron, welcome.

Thank you very much. members what questions do you have representative luck and for our friends that may be virtual

this particular bill in either of those categories. Mr. Lindley. Well, first dealing with a law abiding citizen that has worn out a firearm, I'm sorry, the barrel, on their firearm. I don't see a prohibition here from them going to a dealer to pick up that new barrel as compared to receiving it in the mail. There's a lot of public safety impact by making sure that that process is done in person. And if I do have a worn out barrel, going to an FFL in order to receive that new barrel really isn't a major inconvenience to where I would preclude purchasing that barrel. When it comes to using other items as a firearm barrel, that has been done most likely for centuries, but in more modern contexts, people build guns of all types of quality. And if they are using a plastic barrel or a modified tube or pipe, that really does pose more of a threat to the individual who is using that poorly manufactured firearm but they're also probably doing that for more of a criminal activity therefore this bill being somewhat successful in ensuring that they're not having a modern firearm barrel in order to produce a firearm to kill somebody or themselves

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you very much. I'm Nephi Cole. I'm the Director of Government Relations and State Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is the Firearms Trade Association of America. I just wanted to start, and if you have questions, please ask me a lot after this. This is a very technical issue. But I think the most important thing you need to understand, there is no mechanism to make this bill work. There's no federal mechanism. There's no FFL mechanism. You can't track where these are made. You can't track where they're purchased. You can't track where they come from. There is no background check in this bill. It's a huge flaw. And there is no tracking mechanism in this bill. There's a huge flaw in that. You're going to hear people tell you this is just like a bill from someplace else. It isn't. There's nothing like this in the United States. There never has been. In the U.S., we serialize receivers for a reason. No FFL has ever sold a ghost gun. We just don't. They all have serialization on them. And that's because you can't track these things without serialization. That's why serialization is required on every firearm that an FFL sells. That is why receivers are required under the Gun Control Act to have the requisite serialization on those receivers. There no background check as I mentioned in this and there no mechanism for completing a background check because what you talking about is not a component You talking about a tube that is an unregulated item There significant interstate commerce issues associated with trying to, it just doesn't work. There's no regulatory mechanism. This is also a black hole for our dealers. There's no way for them to check and see if somebody can legally have or not have a gun in this bill just doesn't exist. And so they can't check and see who bought what from them. And then when they do sell something, you're asking them to keep paperwork that it's a nothing burger because there's no background check associated with it. And then it's a file cabinet that just becomes a black hole because it doesn't go anywhere. You find a gun built someplace. If I find a tire outside of a big old tire, where did the tire come from? What kind of car did it

Next up, Missy Espinoza. Missy Espinoza, representing myself. Here we go again with another illegal bill, another bill with a zero fiscal note, straight up defrauding the citizens. There is literally zero reason for this bill, unless the reason is control, more control. And there's no such thing as ghost guns. there's firearms built by citizens which has been a crucial part of our nation's history and that alone makes this bill illegal based off of the supreme court decision you ignore every time if you have respect for us citizens you will kill this bill but if you're all about that lobster back money you'll continue to be the tyrants you are

Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. My name is Kelvin Curtis, representing the National Rifle Association of America and the thousands of law-abiding Coloradans, whose Second Amendment rights are once again on their type by Senate Bill 26043. This legislation constitutes a substantial overreach by equating an inerrant piece of metal, a firearm barrel, with a serialized firearm. By requiring that every transfer be conducted in person through a federal license dealer, this bill efficiently criminalizes the private secondary market and prohibits the common practice among law-abiding citizens of ordering replacement parts online for home delivery. Perhaps the most disturbing is the defacto registration that it creates. Firearm dealers will be compelled to record the residential address, telephone numbers, and specific make, model, and caliber for the firearms owned by our members and the stores this data for a period of five years. Law-abiding residents utilize these components for maintenance, competitive activities, and self-defense purposes. They should not be subjected to governmental surveillance when repairing their own property. We strongly advocate voting against Senate Bill 26043. Thank you.

Michael White. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm here representing myself. I just fighting against this bill I have several issues mainly some particularly with what the sponsor said First a lot of talk about ghost guns but not a lot of talk about ghost guns including unserialized firearms where the serial number has been scratched off, are oftentimes counted in these ghost gun numbers that they love to tell about the dangerousness of ghost guns. And those, there's no barrel purchase involved in that. I also have an issue that there's no enforcement of this bill. You can't backtrace who bought what barrel until you find who bought a barrel. And then now you can go to the gun stores and say, hey, you bought this barrel. Where did you buy it from? Unless you do like the ATF and you create a name searchable database with firearm numbers and firearm models, There's no way to actually backtrace and search these things. Along with that is the data issues. We claim that we're not creating a registry, but I heard the testimony on Ken DeGrasse bill. And law enforcement has no idea where they get their information from all these databases. And so we should trust them with more information is our thing. And then the fees. There's going to be a fee to transfer these from FFLs to people. And so you're just adding more fees to gun ownership and trying to prevent poor people from owning guns. And I think that's despicable, above all things, from a party who claims to be working for the working class. To just throw more and more and more fees on a constitutional right is quite – it's shameful. So thank you.

Can you hear me okay?

Please proceed. Good afternoon. My name is Leslie Hollywood, and I am the director of Rally for Our Rights. We're a nonpartisan gun rights advocacy organization, and I am speaking in opposition to this bill. I am going to dig into one of the biggest pieces that I see as a glaring issue is the fact that, and I know Nephi just touched on this, there is no mechanism for a background check written into this bill. The only similar legislation we have across this country is California, and California themselves wrote into the bill how to run a background check. This bill itself simply says that the person that somebody who is prohibited from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm under state or federal law cannot purchase one of these. Nowhere in here do we address the fact that our background check system is actually under CRS 2433.5-424. And that specifically says that it is only legal to transfer a firearm as firearm is defined under federal law. If you go into federal law, you will find that firearm does not include barrel. There is no way for anybody to run a background check on a barrel purchase. An FFL simply cannot do it. And if we're going to say that they can somehow without revising or without amending or revising our revised statutes around background checks, if we're going to say that these FFLs can suddenly start running background checks on whatever they want, then what happens next? Can somebody run a background check on the guy they're going to date next weekend? Because right now, the way that this is written, it absolutely does not cover any mechanism to run a background check at all. And that may be the intention. It may be that this bill is not supposed to actually run background checks, and these FFLs instead are just supposed to ask, are you legally allowed to own a gun? And somebody says, yeah, and they just sell it. But ultimately the way the bill is written means that in the end if they sell to a prohibited person the FFL is on the hook The liability falls back on them They won take this gamble Thank you very much Ms Hollywood Your time has expired Please vote no.

This question is for the State Shooting Association. I forgot your name. nephi it's nephi cole the national shooting sports foundation okay um we brought up already that there are uh that the competitive shooting you do have exchange of barrels that's a pretty consistent thing i've seen a couple of other things that are actually very common very consistent that seem to be left out of this too and uh one of the things that that i've been involved with with competitive shooting is you, you know, if somebody needs a magazine or something and you hand, you know, you've got an extra, you hand them that if there's going to be multiple drop magazines or whatever. And so there's a, there is movement of parts, um, from gun owners to gun owners in these things. They're not, they're not relatives. They're just people. Sometimes you don't even know them that well, but you're, you're passing these things off. But something also I've seen is when you're trying to have a lower caliber for a younger kid to be able to shoot, and you switch out a barrel. It's a little more involved than that, but you switch out a barrel. I see that commonly, and that's very common. And also, you're not related to the person. It's just somebody that a bunch of guys are out shooting, and somebody will say, hey, well, why don't you lower this so that the younger kid will be more comfortable. And I like to start kids off shooting as young as possible, get them comfortable with the guns, and usually a .22 or something like that makes it easier. But what do we do? This bill makes that illegal. What do we do with that? Mr. Cole.

question is for you mr cole as well so when i first read this bill i read the section on page 4 for a 2 that um to to encompass background check requirements but if i'm listening to you and Ms. Hollywood correctly, you're saying that FFLs would not read that as giving authority or a requirement to actually Perform a background check?

We have 30 seconds, Representative. Quick follow-up.

That's correct. Under federal law, you can't use the system to check this. This is not a regulated part. You can only use it to check the serialized part, the receiver.

Can you guys hear me? We can hear you.

Can you guys hear me?

My name is Terrence Storiamagow. I am a USCCA firearm instructor. I'm also a certified gunsmith with a associate degree in firearm technology. I'm opposing from this bill Senate 043. It's unconstitutional. There's no way to track any of these barrels at all. I heard the committee talk about Facebook Marketplace. It is, you cannot go to Facebook Marketplace to find any of these firearm barrels. I've looked, I checked, I double checked. So what this is pretty much doing is violating our constitutional rights These firearm barrels are interchangeable from one firearm to another different models different makes and all that For example you have a PSA dagger that can be barrel can be interchangeable to a Glock 19. You have a SARS-B6 can be interchangeable to CC75. So I I've heard you guys to vote no on this bill and come to the conclusion that this is unconstitutional. Sorry. The rest of my time. Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, can you hear me? We can. I can. Thank you. My name is Ronald Dietz. I am speaking in opposition to this bill. As a father whose son committed suicide, I take exception and I'm very disturbed by using the excuse of suicide prevention as a reason to pass this bill. building a gun from scratch is something that takes time patience and above average knowledge of how firearms work suicidal people are not going to take the time to do that guns do not cause people to commit suicide and banning guns sir ma'am can anybody else who is uh logged on please mute yourself so that our individual can can complete their testimony thank you you can you can proceed mr deets yes um guns do not cause people to commit suicide and banning guns does not eliminate suicide or reduce it as anyone who is suicidal will always find another way that was my experience i locked up all my guns so that my son could not get them and he simply found another way he asphyxiated himself we need to deal with the real cause of suicide which is the antidepressant drugs and our broken mental health system. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members. Josiah Neerman, I co-own Saladagun Shop in rural Colorado. Ron, thank you for the testimony. I'm really proud to hear you speak today. I want to bring up a couple of things that Nephi Cole and Leslie Hollywood brought up and just echo what their sentiments are is the fact that it's still untraceable. As an FFL, we kind of know the track record of firearms in our system being tracked. We understand how the records are going to be collected, how we're actually going to disseminate that information, when that information is going to need to be collected by law enforcement. And we comply, obviously. Without a barrel documentation being filed and serialized, it's going to be, again, like Nephi was saying, a black hole of documentation. I pulled up, I think it's page 6 or 5, line 16, Colorado Bureau of Investigation shall create a form for retail record-keeping pursuant to this section. And the documentation on our side to do that, it's great. We're going to document more stuff just like we do with the FDD on pistol and handgun revolver documentation when somebody actually does purchase one of those. But where is that documentation leading? And the fact that bill sponsors are continuing to say that this is not a registry. If it isn a registry then why do we need to collect that information when again it isn even searchable at that point So I give the rest of my time Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Valentis.

speaking in opposition to this bill. This bill is set up as an opportunity to entrap FFLs, but also to profile gun owners. In House Bill 1037, a blue match analogy was shared, wherein law enforcement and our General Assembly are very interested in being able to figure out who bought a blue match anytime there's a case of arson and you find a blue match at the crime scene. That analogy translates perfectly to gun ownership, and plenty of law-abiding gun owners are going to be ensnared in this new regulation, and they're going to be harassed, they're going to be profiled, they're going to be investigated just because they own the same tool that was misused by someone else. Someone else who very likely did not go through an FFL to obtain their barrel or to obtain their firearm. This is just a system for creating redundant registries of gun owners in the state. this is an extension of all the other legislation that has been put forth it is calculated as such it is a lazy attempt but it is destructive all the same because it is bureaucratic overreach which is the objective of this chamber i urge everyone on this panel to vote everyone in this committee to vote against the bill and retain your dignity please

representative luck thank you mr chair my question is for mr nearman so as an ffl i'm wondering if I'm understanding correctly, this bill, if it were to pass into law, would require that before you could sell a barrel, you'd have to check an ID to make sure that the person is 18 and then somehow figure out whether that person is allowed to possess, receive, own, or purchase a firearm under state or federal law without being able to access the background check system. If that is a correct understanding, it seems to me that as an FFLU, probably not be inclined to sell barrels.

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Okay, the next panel is all remote participants. We going to call Mark Tisdale Jeannie Rush Mike Stern Alicia Garcia Alf Mack Seth Stern Brandon Wark and David Olson if you could promote all of those online please Did you get all those, or do you need me to repeat them? I sent them the list. Oh, thanks. I know that was a lot. And while those people are being promoted, we'll go ahead and get started with Miss Rush since I see you ready, reared and ready to go. I'm always ready.

Thank you, Ms. Rush.

I'm here.

The fact that we could be actually dealing with crime. Mr. Tisdale, your time has expired. Thank you. Next, we'll go to Mike Stern. You'll have two minutes. Please state your name and anyone that you represent for the record. Mr. Stern, you're still on mute. There we go. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Stern. Next, we'll go to Alicia Garcia. I don't see her up. Oh, there she is. There you are, Miss Garcia.

Thank you. Mr. Alph-Mac, we are sending you a request to be promoted as a panelist. Please click accept on that so that you can come and testify. We're going to skip over you for now and come back. Seth Stern is next. Mr. Stern is not here. We will move to Brandon Wark.

There's no identifying information on the barrel itself. There'd be no way to know that. They'd have to tie it to a gun store somehow. And if somebody goes into a gun store, pays cash for the barrel, 3D prints the rest of the gun, this bill does nothing to do, nothing to stop any of that from happening. Thank you so much, Mr. Work. Your time has expired. Alf Mack, welcome. Can you come off mute and the floor is yours for two minutes? Yes, this is real just real simple. This is, again, one more infringement incrementally, you know, laws like this. And there's been many just to go against the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution. It's just another incremental infringement on our rights. and it's just another thing that we just have to say no to. It's as simple as that. I say no to this bill and that's all I have to say. Thank you so much, members. Any questions for this panel? Representative Luck.

Mr. Work? You know, that's a very valid concern, Representative. I really appreciate you bringing that up because as it is right now, this bill leaves a lot lacking in terms of what the bill sponsors are saying that this bill is to accomplish. Ultimately, if they want to accomplish what they're setting out to, they would need to create a state registry where gun dealers, FFLs, would have to process a background check through CBI, put them in a system, log everything, track it, and then create a statewide database that law enforcement can use, potentially with either a serialized barrel requirement or just looking up the information in the system. So yeah, there's very valid concerns. We've seen this incrementalism and this step-by-step dismantling of our Second Amendment rights here in Colorado. And of course, this bill, it's very interesting, Representative. I'm really glad you brought that up because this bill does some things, but it definitely doesn't go very far. And I have to wonder, as you mentioned, without the ability to have a fiscal note because of the tight budget of the state this year, more planned for this type of bill and will there be more planned in the future This is just the first step it seems because ultimately we can almost see what can happen right Somebody 3D prints a firearm it used this law is cited but it not actually able to help in the investigation and then we got to take it one step further And that how our rights get dismantled, one step at a time as they move further along. And we've heard the bill sponsors talk about previous legislation and legislation this year around 3D printed firearms, and this is just another step in that direction to totally track every gun purchase and every part purchase of a firearm component in the state of Colorado. So I really appreciate the question and appreciate the attention to this. All right. I'm not seeing any other questions. Thank you all so much for your testimony. Next up, we're going to hear from folks that are either in an amend or neutral position. Both are registered remotely. Charles Daldry and Trent Chappell. If there's anybody here in person that wishes to provide testimony in a neutral or amend position, please come forward at this time. Mr. Chappell, please come off mute and the floor is yours for two minutes. Yes, I started out as neutral and tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. Upon listening to this, This bill is ridiculous. Swapping out barrels. I'm going to start as a teenager. Shotgun barrels were swapped out between buddies and things on a regular basis. Most of us would go hunting for one thing and another person would go hunting for something else. Number two, you're talking about ghost guns, etc. If anybody who's small enough to get a ghost gun and make it work, they're going to figure out how to bypass this law. It's going to do nothing. Sir, I'm going to stop you for just a moment. If you're listening to the sound from committee, maybe try and turn that down. Yeah, okay, because it was sounding like you were testifying from outer space. Okay, do you want to give it a try and we can start your time over? Is that better? Oh, my goodness, yes. Okay, we're starting your two minutes over if you want to start your time, okay? Okay, all right. Oh, no, we're back in outer space. Okay, I've been listening to outer space all the way through. What can I do? I'm going to try to solve that. was that better yes okay again i tried to give you guys benefit of the doubt this bill is ridiculous as a teenager my friends and i would swap out shotgun barrels on a regular basis so one guy could hunt quail another guy could hunt ducks. If you're intelligent enough to get a ghost gun going, you're intelligent enough to bypass the system that you have going on. It also says on there firing a projectile, shot, or quote-unquote bullet. Well, that to me could actually step all the way down to a spit gun, spit wads. So it's so vague. it's again ridiculous it also is it said permanently attached well if you can unscrew the barrel and replace it off Firearms have replaceable barrels. You guys wrote this up, whoever wrote it up. My interpretation is it's intentionally vague. It's time that you make a clear, concise bill that is constitutional and is not going to cost this state thousands and thousands, if not millions of dollars. And then to have it turn around and be sued out of existence. That's what I got to say. Thank you very much. And then Mr. Charles Daltrey, I believe that our tech folks are trying to elevate you to a panelist so that you can testify. If you're able to accept that, we'd certainly love to hear testimony from you today. Okay. All right. We're going to move on to our last panel then. Oh, I'm so sorry. Does anybody have any questions for this witness? Okay. Seeing none, thank you so much for your time, sir. All right. Last panel will be Julie Ort, Cheryl Wilson, Pat Rochefer, and Anna Robbins. If there's anybody else with us today that wishes to provide testimony in support of the bill, please come forward at this time. Welcome back. Thank you. Pat Bronshaffer is in another committee. I just texted her to let her know to come over. Okay, perfect. Would you like to kick us off? Sure. Thank you. Okay. My name is Julie Ort. I live in Douglas County, and I support this bill. I am old enough to remember when a prevailing gun owner ethos was, I purchased a firearm for self-defense and I hope I never have to use it. It was a conservative, honor-driven posture centered on a healthy respect for the lethality of guns. In 1981, I was 13 when a homeowner shot me and rendered me permanently paralyzed during a toilet papering prank. This was three years before Bernie Goetz would open firearm for black teenagers in a New York City subway. In both instances, I recognized, even then, a gravitational shift away from shooting people as a last option to our modern-day shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later culture. With today's mass shootings and daily tallies of gun carnage, we tragically live with the consequences of our inaction. SB 43 is a preemptive measure. 3D printed firearms are a burgeoning enterprise with their own gravitational shift towards homemade, unpredictable, piecemeal, and unbound by manufacturing standards and regulations lethality. A niche hobby creative endeavor that has morphed into criminal enterprises that seek to usurp the role of the ATF and FFLs in ensuring lawful sales and transfers. And we are again at a dangerous inflection point. Regulating detached firearm barrels wisely anticipates the proliferation of a relatively cheap, universally accessible underground 3DPF market. One that could usurp an entire industry and place deadly weapons in the hands of virtually anyone. SB 43 affirms responsible, accountable gun manufacturing and ownership. Please support this bill Thank you so much Welcome Press that little grey button and the floor will be yours My name is Cheryl Wilson. I'm representing myself and I'm in favour of this bill. I just returned from Honolulu where I met with the chief of police and I talked to him about gun violence there. and I said, well, you're an island. It should be easier to control. He said the big problem right now are the 3D printed guns. And if they had a bill like this that could keep people from being able to get the barrel, then it might help save even one or two lives. And that's all we should care about is saving lives, not about if it's sporting for something. I mean, this is a whole thing. But after talking to the police chief, it made me realize that this is a huge problem. And this bill would put some teeth into allowing law enforcement to pursue any kind of charges if they found something. The other thing I want to say, and this can go to almost any of the bills, I keep hearing law abiding. And how people's rights are being infringed on. Everybody is born law-abiding. We can't be sure that every person in this room will still be law-abiding tomorrow. So I wish they would quit using that term to defend their so-called gun rights. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. You made it. Do you want us to come back to you? Okay. All right. Good afternoon, chair members of committee. My name is Anna Robbins, and I'm a student from University of Colorado Boulder. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm here to discuss this bill through an economic lens. My analysis of this bill approaches it from an economic perspective, specifically through the concept of negative externalities. When a transaction imposes costs on third parties who are not involved in the exchange, the market outcome may be inefficient. Those spillover costs are known as externalities. Firearm violence presents a clear example of this issue. Beyond the human toll of these incidents, these incidents, sorry, beyond the human toll, these incidents impose substantial economic costs, including medical expenses, law enforcement resources, and lost productivity. These costs are largely borne by victims, families, and communities, not by the original buyers and sellers of firearm components. Firearm barrels are a necessary component for a firearm to function. However, they can often be purchased separately from complete firearms and historically have faced fewer regulatory requirements. This creates a gap in oversight. When critical components are transferred without documentation or licensed intermediaries, traceability is reduced and diversion risks may increase. Senate Bill 26043 addresses this gap by requiring firearm bail transfers to occur through federally licensed dealers and by establishing record-keeping requirements. Importantly, the bill does not prohibit ownership. Instead, it increases accountability and traceability in a targeted way. From an economic standpoint, the bill functions as a partial internalization mechanism. By modifying costs through license transfers and documentation, it helps align private incentives with broader social costs. The efficiency of the policy depends on whether these compliance costs are outweighed by reductions in external harm. Senate Bill 26043 represents a focused attempt to address a documented externality while preserving lawful access. Evaluated through an economic lens, it reflects a targeted regulatory approach rather than a broad restriction. For these reasons Senate Bill 26 should be adopted Thank you for your time Thank you very much We have two other individuals I believe one online and one in person that wanted to provide testimony and so we call them now and then we'll let you wrap up this testimony. So Mr. Aaron Lewis and Mr. Seth Stern. Mr. Stern, welcome. Please come off mute and the floor is yours for two minutes. I apologize if my voice doesn't come across great. I'm at home with a cold. I don't know exactly how I ended up on the support panel because I don't support any of this. the fantasies the state majority seems to carry about the efficiency of government preventing all ills to society has just been proven delusional time and time again and as much as i empathize with the senator from new york back when the news of what had happened uh started to land it's gone to a point where you know unfortunately we're impringing upon the rights of the law abiding which i don't really care what you other panelists had to say about the subject we will continue to use the phrase law abiding because we're not the ones committing crimes statistically it's those with severe mental health issues and gang affiliations which i can't imagine why we would want to go after law abiding gun owners instead of two groups of people not known for following the laws this is not going to do anything but continue colorado's slow slide into one of the top 10 most violent or most criminal states uh in the union it's it's been real great uh what happened to our once purple state and now that it's drowning into the weight of the blue hole in the center of it uh this isn't going to do anything positive but i know in this echo chamber nothing actually changes it's all dependent on which lobbies are paying the bill. So, you know, it'll probably go through and then we're left hoping that the governor proves that he's still not the worst of you and vetoes it. I'm done. All right. And we did call Mr. Aaron Lewis, I think two or three times now. So we're going to move on. Ms. Rothscher, welcome. You can close us out. Thank you. My name is Pat Rothscher and my words today are my own. SB 26043 is an important piece of legislation that is needed in this world where there has been an explosion of 3D printed firearms and firearm parts. It appears that the firearm barrel is one part that is not easily produced by a 3D printer though. So those who cannot purchase firearms legally and want to print them for themselves will still need to procure a barrel to go along with the other parts in order for the firearm to work as a firearm. A few weeks ago, I was at my son-in-law's house. He has a 3D printer, and my 8-year-old grandson was showing me how easy it is to print something. He just needs the code from the computer, and voila, an 8-year-old can print things. Is this really what we want? 8-year-old's able to produce a working firearm. All they need is the code and one of those 3D printers. I think not. This bill does not infringe on anyone right to own and bear arms just on their right to own a firearm barrel So constitutional arguments do not even come close to applying This bill just requires a federally licensed firearm dealer to report the sale of a firearm barrel and maintain these records for at least five years. Our firearm dealers already have requirements to maintain records. Any business in the United States must maintain records. They can do this with little issue. This bill also makes it illegal for a person, not an FFL, a person to be in possession of a firearm barrel with the intent of selling or transferring it to another person. Please vote yes on SB 26043. Thank you very much. Members, do you have any questions for this final panel? Representative Luck and then Representative Bottoms. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two

Ms. Sort. first of all i would say that um it's really addressing individuals who are trafficking in barrels so not through the ffl so we're talking about the ffl's responsibility but we also have to look at the market that would be going on behind the scenes so that's it's trying to address that so putting it through the ffl so setting a standard that these barrels go through an ffl i think also um going back if you could repeat again part of your question i just want to make sure I, you were asking how this would affect it again. Can you, Representative Luck?

Right, but it does give us an opportunity to trace it back, right? We have a record, so if we find that there is a propensity of somebody who's dealing in these or these 3D guns are showing up in crimes, we can actually go back and find that person where they purchased it so we can also have a record so we can trace that where the barrel is coming from. Isn't that, I mean, that's a big part of this, right? And that crime guns, we know within one to three years, if they're showing up, that they're usually a trafficked gun. So our FFLs are a great opportunity. We don't, all our FFLs, most of them are operating within the law, but we know that there are some that don't. So it's important to be able to track where those barrels are coming from and how 3D printed guns are getting their barrels? Representative Luck.

If you can just state your name real quick for us, and then you can go. My name is Anna Robbins. And I didn't do specifically an analysis on those parts. I focused kind of more on the negative externality of firearms in general, but not as much of the positive benefits of it. Representative Bottoms with our last question.

Ms. Wilson I am listening to what a lot of the experts have said. I am not an expert on the Constitution, but I have seen where gun laws have been passed to try and help protect people who are just living their normal lives and have been shot and killed. Yes, one follow-up, but we only have 20 seconds.

I have seen families destroyed by family members being shot. And these people have a right to live their life if they're living a good life. And so you have to balance that out. The Constitution was written so long ago before the forefathers couldn't even have imagined what is going on. So I'm just using what I've heard from that. Thank you so much to this panel for your time and your testimony. With that, the witness phase is now closed. Bill sponsors, come on up. Are you ready? Representative Froelich, do you want to move your amendment?

Ooh, way to go, Carter. Tell us about the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Froelich.

Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. So if I'm understanding correctly, the instructor would be subject to these rules, but the student will not be.

Representative Carter and then Bottoms.

Thank you. Chair, the amendment, who is it trying to protect? Representative Froelich.

So why did you limit it to just one tiny small group of gunsmithers? If it's protection of gunsmithing, why don't we just allow it for all gunsmithers? That would seem more constitutional.

Representative Bottoms. Well, I'm just asking in a general sense. I don't know who gunsmiths in their basement are not. I'm saying gunsmiths in general. Most of them are not in their basement. why wouldn't you carve this out for all gunsmiths rather than just one tiny small group? If this is a protection, why would you limit it to just one small group? Representative Brown?

I appreciate your questions and your interest in this particular aspect of the bill. I would just say that I think we all recognize that in many cases for many different situations, when we are educating students for the purposes of a particular profession, there are different kinds of restrictions or regulations that might be at play And so this is a recognition of the unique role that these community colleges play and it is similar to an amendment that we added on 1144

So let me get this right. You're carving out students in gunsmithing so that they can learn something that you just have said and many of the witnesses have said, is egregious and dangerous to our society, but we're going to teach this to young people and let them be carved out, but theoretically they can't use it when they become adults because it becomes dangerous then? I'm not following that line of reasoning.

So thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Bottoms. I don't think that I have said that this is dangerous necessarily. What I have said is that ghost guns are a problem in terms of criminal activity, and my co-prime has mentioned the challenges of death by suicide. In this particular case, obviously there are different standards and different requirements that we use in higher education than we do for a regular person who might be purchasing a firearm. or a barrel. And so that's really the intent of this, is to recognize the unique role of higher education institutions and these particular programs in training gunsmiths. All right.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 43 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

would you like to close? Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee, for being with us this evening. We started Committee last Monday at this time at 3.30, so we are feeling pretty good about our discussion today in terms of its impact on our tiredness. But But, you know, we hear a lot about responsible gun ownership. I think this is well within the same purview as folks who want to promote responsible gun ownership. Let's not buy guns in the Walmart, gun barrels in the Walmart parking lot or off of Facebook. or let's go through FFLs and the proper procedures. It was interesting to hear so much advocacy for background checks from the same groups of folks who have resisted efforts in that regard. This isn't a cure-all for gun violence, but it's a sensible measure, and we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair And I really appreciate the attention of the committee I appreciate the testimony from the witnesses who showed up today I just want to remind everybody that in 2022 a shooter opened fire at Club Q in Colorado Springs killing five people wounding 25 more He used two ghost guns, one of which was equipped with a custom stock and a magazine for an AR-15 style rifle. And in 2023, a 17-year-old shot two school administrators before dying by firearm suicide. The gun he used was a ghost gun printed with a 3D printer. So those are just two examples of the deadly cost of easy access to ghost guns and really what this is all about. We know that ghost gun recoveries have increased dramatically since about 2019. They've increased by about 350%. And now ghost gun recoveries rank about 13 per month. So this is a sensible public safety measure that will help to make sure that people can still buy barrels when they need them. It doesn't ban firearm barrels. It doesn't require serial numbers. It doesn't create a registry. It doesn't require a background check. But it does make reasonable steps that will protect public health, protect citizens from dangerous criminal activity, and hopefully save lives. And so with that, we'd ask for an aye vote.

And thank you for indulging me, Madam Chair. I do want to thank the folks who came out and who joined us online for the discussion this evening. I thought if I didn't have my notes that I would still remember, but I did just want to say one thing about our efforts that really are related to suicide. Nine out of ten folks who attempt suicide without the use of a gun will survive. And nine out of ten folks who attempt suicide with a gun will end their lives. This is an integral part. Access to guns is an integral part of our fight against suicide and gun death in Colorado. And ghost guns present an opportunity, an access to folks who, with a cooling off period, might make a different decision. So it's part of why we're asking for an aye vote.

Chair, thank you. So I'm going to just kind of step back a little bit from what I believe might be assumed to be my opposition in terms of I don't believe that for me my most effective concern is going to be about just 2a issues. I think that there is a technology here that has advanced rapidly when it comes to 3d printing and you know we've already seen some legislation in that space to try to address that. I We're in a space to where we're legislating a little bit in the dark on some of these items and trying to get out ahead, assuming that there are issues and getting out ahead in some spaces that aren't entirely yet discussed, certainly not resolved. Specifically around issues that I have questions with, federal law treats barrels as ordinary components. The inability to track, the inability to be able to really also with interstate commerce. I believe that this is an issue. We start legislating across all different states. We're going to have patchwork almost in the same way that we're kind of struggling in the AI space. I believe there are some true interstate commerce issues here that need to be resolved. I think that these are questions that we probably ought to be slowing down on and looking at and ensuring that we're not getting ahead of ourselves just in terms of trying to chase an idea and try to chase an idea in the name of gun violence, because we know that that's always going to get under that topic, that subheader, a certain amount of support. I think that there's a granularity to this that we need to be looking at that we're ignoring right now, and I'm uncomfortable with. I will be a no, as I expect you probably thought that already, but I hope that it's for reasons different than the off-the-shelf no that you thought, because I think there's just more work that needs to be done in this space.

Representative Luck Thank you Madam Chair I too am going to be a no unsurprisingly to the bill sponsors I sure But I want to say on the record some of my concerns about this particular policy. I don't see how it works. There are other policies in this space that I'm just going to ideologically be against. But this particular policy, I don't see the nexus of how it actually works as written. I think we've heard from the FFLs, hey, look, if we want to implement this properly, we don't have the mechanism to implement it properly. And it's going to leave us in a situation where we actually can't sell these barrels. I think that's a fair rebuke. I think that's a fair retort and question of if indeed the background system requires them to implement a receiver number, a serial receiver number. They don't have one, so they can't actually do a check to see if these folks are, as the bill requires, not prohibited from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. If it were me as the FFL, I simply wouldn't enter into that space. I wouldn't put my entire business at risk for selling one component part. And that concerns me because there are people who change their barrels regularly, right? All of our shooters who are in competitive sports. And so what are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to drive to Kansas or Utah or Wyoming or New Mexico and get those barrels? And is that a fair burden to put on them? And then so then the next question is OK well we are hearing that there is this crime that is being done by ghost guns Again I don see the nexus between this because it not as if an owner has to come in the FFL and show the weapon that they're going to replace a barrel on and say, this is what it is, do it for me. It's simply, I'm purchasing a component part, and I'm leaving your store, and you have no idea what I'm attaching that to. It could be a gun that I, a receiver I bought from that same FFL last week, or it could be a ghost gun that I printed at home. We don't actually know. And so attaching that to the ghost gun conversation, I don't see how that is actually impacting it because they're still being able to purchase those barrels. And then what they use them on, we have no idea. And then the piece that is as relates to the record keeping. Okay, so to the point of the opposition, the FFLs keep a record, but it's stored in their own filing system and there's no mechanism by which at this present juncture cbi or law enforcement can access that unless perhaps the idea is that they find a ghost gun and they go to the the different ffls within 25 mile radius and ask all of them hey do you do you have this particular type of barrel that you sold in the last how much time i mean unless they know the alleged um defendant if they unless they know who they suspect has done it how do they search those records what do they search for it's not like the barrels are being serialized such that they can go and say hey did you sell barrel 255 And if they can do that then what the point of keeping those records and what the point of subjecting them and law folks to this additional level of scrutiny and requirement and inability to access It does concern me, especially in light of what I've been told is a desire to eliminate firearms from our state. If that is a desire to do that, this bill helps to facilitate it because if people can't buy replacement parts, if they can't buy barrels, they can't maintain the weapons they already own. And so I really am concerned. I'm concerned that I don't either understand or that the bill itself doesn't actually address the stated problem and that it is going to create a host of other problems that I myself can't support. So I will be a no.

Representatives Bottoms? No. Brooks? No. Carter? Yes. Espinoza? Yes. Bray? Yes. Froelich? Yes. Locke? No. Wynn? Yes. Ricks? Yes. Clifford? Yes. Madam Chair? Yes. Senate Bill 43 as amended passes on a vote of 8 to 3.