Bill Tracker

This bill has been introduced and assigned to the State, Civic, Military, & Veterans
Affairs Committee. It will receive a hearing on Monday 6 February 2023.
The bill extends the right to use deadly physical force against an intruder by
owners, managers, and employees of a business. This bill has no requirement to
verify that the intruder is, in fact, committing a crime, or that the intruder is, in
fact, unknown or on the premises with the intent to commit a crime. The intruder
need not threaten violence to be subject to summary execution by the business
person.

Recent research (see below) indicates that Stand Your Ground laws are associated
with increased numbers of homicides. The authors assessed in “41 US states, SYG
laws were associated with an 8% to 11% national increase in monthly rates of
homicide and firearm homicide. State-level increases in homicide and firearm
homicide rates reached 10% or higher for many Southern states, including
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana.”
Analysis of “Stand Your Ground” Self-defense Laws and Statewide Rates of Homicides and Firearm Homicides
Michelle Degli Esposti, PhD; Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD; Antonio Gasparrini, PhD; David K. Humphreys, PhD
Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 02/22/2022
Published: February 21, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0077
I ask the Legislative Action Committee to strongly oppose this bill and to authorize testimony against it. The following position supports this recommendation:
Gun Safety: Protect the health and safety of citizens through limiting the
accessibility and regulating the ownership of handguns and semi-automatic
weapons. Support regulation of firearms for consumer safety. P. 12 Program
of Study and Action. Positions for Action 2022-2023

At the present time, a board of county commissioners may designate unincorporated areas of a county where it is unlawful to discharge firearms, except they may not prohibit discharge of firearms in shooting galleries, on private grounds, or in residences under circumstances that do not endanger persons or property.  A designated area must have an average population density of 100 persons or more per square mile.

The bill repeals the exception for private property, repeals the minimum population density requirement, and instead requires that the designated area have 35 dwellings or more per square mile. A board is not allowed to prohibit discharge of a firearm in a designated area by a peace officer, in an indoor shooting gallery located in a private residence, or at a shooting range.

As summarized by Colorado Ceasefire: 

The proposal (as amended) grants to counties the ability to prohibit discharge of firearms when population density is 35 dwellings or more per square mile. An expected amendment on the House floor allows hunting and livestock-related firearm discharges on private property.

Population increases are reflected in increases in unincorporated areas and in areas that were once considered ‘wide open spaces.’  As population density increases, the proximity of gun usage increases danger.  This bill does restrict activities on private property which now are increasingly close to other dwellings, and it imposes a change in density calculation that more nearly approximates modern conditions. 

The bill was amended to accommodate hunting and agriculture activities, we believe that this bill is a reasonable update to firearm discharge regulation. 

We request that the LAC support this bill.  The following position supports this recommendation: 

Gun Safety: Protect the health and safety of citizens through limiting the accessibility and regulating the ownership of handguns and semi-automatic weapons. Support regulation of firearms for consumer safety. P. 12 Program of Study and Action. Positions for Action 2022-2023.

What’s in the Bill

HB23-1219  Waiting Period to Deliver A Firearm establishes a waiting period for a firearms seller to deliver a firearm to a purchaser. The waiting period is 3 days or when background checks are completed, whichever occurs later.  Delivering a firearm prior to the expiration of the waiting period is a civil infraction, punishable by a $500 fine for a first offense and a $500 to $5,000 fine for a second or subsequent offense.

Waiting Periods Elsewhere

As of 2021, four states and the District of Columbia impose a waiting period to purchase any firearm. Five other states impose waiting periods for certain classes of firearms. The length of waiting periods varies by state. For example, California and the District of Columbia require a ten-day waiting period before buyers take possession of a new firearm. In Hawaii, buyers must wait 14 days to receive a permit to purchase a firearm. Other states impose shorter waiting periods.

The Three-Day Waiting Period

The proposed three-day waiting period would impose a burden on legal gun buyers by delaying possession of their purchase.  Most background checks are completed very quickly, well within the Federal three-day margin.  The inconvenience falls within the delays envisioned by the background check system.  

Problems Addressed by Waiting Periods

Waiting periods are intended to reduce suicides by imposing a ‘cooling off’ period to allow a suicidal person to master the impulse or to receive help.  Research reported by the Rand Corporation indicates that waiting periods may decrease suicides, even though risks remain after the time delays specified by law.  Suicide by firearm is extremely effective compared to other methods, so restricting access to firearms may result in fewer suicides. 

Most firearms are purchased by individuals who already own a firearm. Azrael et al. (2017) found that, on average, gun owners had close to five firearms each, and a large majority (62 percent) purchased their most recent weapon from a licensed gun dealer. For those who already own guns, a waiting period may have little or no effect on suicide risk.

Waiting periods allow law enforcement more time to investigate straw purchases and prevent unlawful possession of a firearm.  Firearm trafficking and transfers to prohibited buyers would be disrupted by such investigations. 

Waiting periods allow completion of background checks that cannot be completed within the 3-day Federal delay.  Delays in background checks often result from missing data that must be tracked down manually.  This additional time can be used for more thorough checks. 

Concerns of those Opposed

Self-protection is a primary concern of those opposed.  In counterpart to the scenario of a suicidal person searching for an immediate solution, it is equally imaginable that a domestic violence victim to be fearful of their harasser. 

An acceptable amendment would allow local law enforcement to intervene to abridge the waiting period. 

Other concerns include a skepticism of whether background checks can be improved. 

Rand Corporation.  The Effects of Waiting Periods.  Updated January 10, 2023

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/waiting-periods.html

Azrael, Deborah, Lisa Hepburn, David Hemenway, and Matthew Miller, “The Stock and Flow of U.S. Firearms: Results from the 2015 National Firearms Survey,” Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 5, 2017, pp. 38–57.

https://www.rsfjournal.org/content/3/5/38

LAC Voted to Support this bill.

LWVCO Position:  (p 12, LWVCO Positions for Action)

Gun Safety
Protect the health and safety of citizens through limiting the accessibility and regulating the ownership of handguns and semi-automatic weapons. Support regulation of firearms for consumer safety. 

Summary:  The bill defines the term assault weapon and prohibits a person from manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, offering to sell, or transferring ownership of an assault weapon. The bill further prohibits a person from possessing a rapid-fire trigger activator. A violation is a class 2 misdemeanor.

The bill specifies several exceptions. 

The bill defines the term assault weapon and prohibits a person from manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, offering to sell, or transferring ownership of an assault weapon. The bill further prohibits a person from possessing a rapid-fire trigger activator. A violation is a class 2 misdemeanor.

Committee Assignments:  House Judiciary

Why Support

We know that assault-style weapons cause high casualties and massive damage.  When assault weapons are used in a mass shooting, six times as many people are shot.  Researchers estimate that if we still had a Federal assault weapon ban, we’d see 70 percent fewer deaths in mass shootings. [Everytown]

We know that when assault-style weapons were banned from 1994 to 2004 the number of mass shootings and the number of associated deaths decreased.  In the decade after the ban was lifted, mass killing fatalities increased dramatically, even as overall violent crime trended downward.

During the time of the Federal ban, the number of school shooting victims fell by 54% (Rand Corporation). 

To reduce harm from mass shootings, Colorado should prohibit assault weapons. 

Why Oppose

Opponents find the bill too restrictive.  The descriptions of guns to be prohibited are too broad – prohibiting guns that should not be included in the description of “assault weapons”. 

From the National Rifle Association: 

“The bill’s broad definition of “assault weapon” bans all semi-automatic rifles including  the AR-15, along with countless other rifles, pistols, and shotguns that Coloradans use for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. HB 23-1230 also bans .50 BMG rifles, despite the fact that these rifles are essentially never used in crime. … … the ban extends to common firearm parts and many innocuous components in the definition of “assault weapon” or “rapid-fire trigger activator”

Rand Corporation.  The Effects of Bans on the Sale of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines.  Updated January 10, 2023.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html

Everytown for Gun Safety. “Mass Shootings in America 2009-2019”. Everytown for Gun Safety. (2019). https://bit.ly/2X4IaAt

DiMaggio C., et al. “Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data”. The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000002060

National Rifle Association.  Colorado: Assault Weapon Ban Introduced, Monday, March 6, 2023. 
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20230306/colorado-assault-weapon-ban-introduced

LAC Position: Amend:

LAC seeks an amendment incoprporating the italicized languaged into the text below:

A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT HAS THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT A large-capacity DETACHABLE MAGAZINE , OR THAT MAY BE READILY MODIFIED TO ACCEPT A large-capacity DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, IF THE SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL HAS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING FEATURES

What’s in the Bill

This bill would roll back the requirement that plaintiffs in lawsuits against the gun industry pay defendants’ attorneys’ fees in cases that are dismissed.   The measure would bring the gun industry in line with the liability other businesses face.  The measure also creates a firearm industry standard of responsible conduct that would let people sue the industry when it knowingly violates the standard. 

The measure also would require firearm businesses to comply with false advertising and consumer protection laws, take reasonable precautions to prevent harms from their products, and work to prevent guns from being modified into illegal products or sold to minors and other people who can’t legally possess firearms.

Why Support the Bill

Supporters of the measure say the firearm industry has a responsibility to take reasonable precautions to prevent “foreseeable risks,” including keeping guns away from straw buyers and people who intend to use them for violence or suicide. 

Protection of the Industry

A Federal law (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA) passed in 2005 blocks any lawsuit seeking damages from the firearms industry for unlawful use of a gun.  However, unlawful conduct by the industry itself is not protected, meaning if a gun manufacturer, distributor, or dealer breaks the law, it can be sued.  Additionally, suits may be filed where a gun manufacturer or dealer knowingly transferred a gun to a person with the knowledge that they intended to use it to commit a crime; violated state or federal regulations; was guilty of negligent entrustment or breach of a contract; or, in limited cases, caused harm to individuals due to design defects.

Current Colorado statutes accord unusual protection to the firearms industry.  This protection is unneeded and has prevented the firearms industry from developing regulations and standards that would lead to better products and better business practices. 

Why Oppose the Bill

Opponents say that the protections accorded to the firearms industry were put in place in the face of unusual opposition.  They especially focus on assigning responsibility for bad actors to the manufacturers.  They also point out that there are circumstances in which the industry can be sued. 

Reference:

“S. 397 — 109th Congress: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.” www.GovTrack.us. 2005. March 3, 2023 <https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397>

Colorado Gun Laws https://publicsafety.colorado.gov/colorado-gun-laws

“Here’s how Democrats want to change Colorado’s gun laws,” Bente Birkeland· Feb. 23, 2023, 11:08 pm

https://www.cpr.org/2023/02/23/heres-how-democrats-want-to-change-colorados-gun-laws/

“Colorado law makes it very difficult and financially perilous to sue the gun industry,” Jesse Paul The Colorado Sun  Tuesday, Feb 21, 2023 10:00 AM

https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/colorado-law-makes-it-very-difficult-and-financially-perilous-to-sue-the-gun-industry/

LAC Voted to Support this bill.

LWVCO Position:  (p 12, LWVCO Positions for Action)
Gun Safety
Protect the health and safety of citizens through limiting the accessibility and regulating the ownership of handguns and semi-automatic weapons. Support regulation of firearms for consumer safety. 

Summary:  from the Fiscal Note:  Current law prohibits a person under the age of 18 from possessing or purchasing a handgun (a class 2 misdemeanor for a first offense and a class 5 felony for a second offense). Current law also prohibits a person from intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly providing or allowing a juvenile under the age of 18 to possess a handgun (a class 4 felony). 

The bill prohibits the purchase or possession of any firearm by a person who is not 21 years of age or older. Correspondingly, the bill prohibits a person from knowingly or intentionally selling or transferring any firearm to a person who is not yet 21 years of age. The bill makes exceptions to these prohibitions for hunting, military and other job duties, and supervised use, among others. Failure to comply with the law is a class 2 misdemeanor for the first offense, and a class 5 felony for subsequent offenses. Persons convicted of the class 5 felony are prohibited from possessing any weapons pursuant to law. 

The bill also prohibits a person from recklessly providing or allowing a juvenile under the age of 18 to possess any firearm, a class 4 felony. Under current law, this offense only applies to recklessly providing or allowing a juvenile to possess a handgun.

Committee Assignments:  23Feb23  State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs
8Mar23 > Senate COW,  2nd reading scheduled 10Mar23

What’s in the Bill

The bill raises the minimum age from 18 years to 21 years for the possession of any firearm.  Raising the minimum age for purchase should make it more difficult for underage individuals to acquire firearms through formal channels. According to research from the Rand Corporation, because background checks do not access juvenile records, those aged 18 with established histories of presenting a risk of harm to themselves or others may nevertheless pass background checks. 

Because young people most often obtain their guns from family, friends, or the black market, the disincentive for others to give guns to juveniles must be strong. 

Because reducing access to guns by juveniles can reduce suicide and unintentional harm, a minimum age of 21 and the associated penalties for those supplying guns to  underage youth should reduce gun violence among juveniles. 

The League supports this bill. 

References

Rand Corporation.  The Effects of Minimum Age Requirements.  Updated January 10, 2023.  https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/minimum-age.html

LWVCO Position:  (p 12, LWVCO Positions for Action)
Gun Safety
Protect the health and safety of citizens through limiting the accessibility and regulating the ownership of handguns and semi-automatic weapons. Support regulation of firearms for consumer safety. 

Summary:  from the Fiscal Note:  The bill allows community members, educators, licensed health-care professionals, mental health professionals, and district attorneys to petition for an extreme risk protection order.

The bill repeals and reenacts state law regarding extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs). Under current law, a family or household member and a law enforcement officer or agency can petition for an ERPO. The bill expands eligible petitioners to community members, educators, licensed health care professionals, and mental health professionals, and clarifies which law enforcement officers may petition for an order, to include district attorneys. The bill also requires the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to spend funds on a public education campaign regarding the availability of, and the process for requesting, an ERPO.

Committee Assignments:  23Feb23  State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs
8Mar23 > Senate COW,  2nd reading scheduled 10Mar23

What’s in the Bill

This bill replaces the Extreme Risk Protection Order law with an expanded list of people who can petition for an ERPO.  In the first year of Colorado's 2020 ERPO law (Barnard et al., 2021) 110 petitions were granted.  Concerns that the public is ill-informed about ERPO petitions spurred the expansion of potential petitioners and the directive to CDPHE to conduct a public education campaign. 

Why Support the Bill

According to research presented by the Rand Corporation, ERPO laws affect suicides more than other types of gun violence incidents.  Guns are removed in a formal process, overseen by the courts.  The gun owner can petition for return of guns. 

The relative success of Colorado’s existing ERPO law (110 petitions in the first year) is encouraging.  There are many instances in which the application of the law could have made a difference.  More widespread information campaigns and encouragement could save lives.  

The League supports this bill. 

Why Oppose the Bill

Those who oppose the ERPO bill object to adding unnecessary legal requirements.  Health care professionals and others can contact law enforcement to intervene in a threatening situation.  They are concerned that other entities are not qualified to make those distinctions.  

References

Barnard, Leslie M., Megan McCarthy, Christopher E. Knoepke, Sabrina Kaplan, James Engeln, and Marian E. Betz, “Colorado’s First Year of Extreme Risk Protection Orders,” Injury Epidemiology, Vol. 8, No. 59, 2021.

Rand Corporation. The Effects of Extreme Risk Protection Orders.  Updated January 10, 2023.  https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/extreme-risk-protection-orders.html

LWVCO supports SB23-279 Unserialized Firearms And Firearm Components.  We have adopted this stance based on our support for policies that protect the health and safety of citizens through limiting the accessibility and regulating the ownership of handguns and semi-automatic weapons and to support regulation of firearms for consumer safety.

We believe that this bill supports that position.

As this bill moves through the Senate Committee of the Whole and into the House, we have communicated our support to the bill sponsors but have also shared discussion points raised during the LAC meeting for possible consideration, including: 

• p 4 lines 6-12 on 3D printers:Delete everything after "additive manufacturing process" -- The definition thus becomes a little more flexible and broader. For example, in addition to resin, there are 3D printers that can print metal.
• p 8 line 13 retaining serial number records: There's nothing about how long the records of newly created serial numbers need to be kept.  We advise they be kept as long as federally licensed firearms manufacturers need to keep records of serial numbers on firearms they make. One source referred to 27 CFR 478.123 but we could not find the retention schedule there.

Note:  According to APRIL 11, 2022 FACT SHEET: The Biden Administration Cracks Down on Ghost Guns, Ensures That ATF Has the Leadership it Needs to Enforce Our Gun Laws [ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/11/fact-sheet-the-biden-administration-cracks-down-on-ghost-guns-ensures-that-atf-has-the-leadership-it-needs-to-enforce-our-gun-laws/ ]

…the final rule requires federally licensed firearms dealers to retain key records until they shut down their business or licensed activity. At that time, these dealers must transfer the records to ATF, just as they are currently required to do at the end of licensed activity. Previously, these dealers were permitted to destroy most records after 20 years, making it harder for law enforcement to trace firearms found at crime scenes.  According to ATF’s National Tracing Center, on average more than 1,300 firearms a year are untraceable because the federally licensed firearms dealer destroyed the relevant records that were more than 20 years old.

• p 8 lines 2-4 regarding format of the serial number:  It may be that ATF requires privately manufactured firearms to be imprinted with the full license number as a prefix to the serial number, rather than the abbreviated license number required in the bill.  We recommend that this bill be consistent with ATF's requirement in 27 CFR478.125(i)
• Requirement that all firearms to be serialized – not simply those after 1968.
• Allocate funding to pay for the cost of serializing currently unserialized firearms.