By C. J. Garbo | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
The introduction of Colorado’s Senate Bill 25-003, which seeks to prohibit the manufacture, distribution, transfer, sale and purchase of “specified semiautomatic firearms” and “rapid-fire devices,” is nothing short of a direct assault on the 2nd Amendment.
This misguided bill not only undermines the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, but also threatens the economic livelihoods of small businesses across Colorado.
At its core, this legislation represents a dangerous precedent — the government deciding which constitutionally protected items are deemed permissible for public ownership. The language in the bill is alarmingly broad, targeting semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and even gas-operated semiautomatic handguns with detachable magazines.
These are not niche or fringe firearms — they are among the most commonly-owned firearms in America, used by millions of law-abiding citizens for everything from self-defense to recreational shooting and hunting.
The 2nd Amendment is clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” SB25-003 blatantly infringes on this right by criminalizing the manufacture and sale of commonly-owned firearms. This is not about public safety — it’s about disarming responsible citizens under the guise of “crime prevention.”
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that firearms “in common use” are protected under the 2nd Amendment. By targeting widely used firearms, this bill stands in stark opposition to constitutional protections.
The bill’s penalties — a Class 2 misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class 6 felony for subsequent violations — further emphasize its draconian nature. By criminalizing lawful business practices and personal transactions, the legislation seeks to turn responsible firearm owners and dealers into criminals.
Colorado is home to numerous small businesses that serve firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and responsible gun owners. These businesses are already burdened by heavy regulations and compliance costs. SB25-003 threatens to devastate these local economies by revoking permits, imposing penalties and severely restricting the products they can sell.
Firearm dealers, gunsmiths and manufacturers — many of which are family-owned businesses — will bear the brunt of this legislation. The bill not only jeopardizes their livelihoods, but also threatens jobs in industries reliant on the firearm market, including hunting, shooting sports and outdoor recreation.
The true danger of SB25-003 lies in its erosion of the foundational principle that underpins the 2nd Amendment — the ability of a free citizenry to protect itself. By limiting access to commonly owned firearms, the government is disempowering its citizens and chipping away at their ability to defend themselves, their families and their communities.
History offers countless examples of the dangers posed by governments that strip their citizens of the means to defend themselves. The Founding Fathers understood this, which is why the 2nd Amendment exists. To disarm the public is to render them subservient to the whims of those in power, a prospect no free society should tolerate.
Since 2010, Colorado has enacted a series of restrictive gun laws touted as solutions to reduce violent crime. Measures have included universal background checks, magazine capacity limits, red flag laws and mandatory waiting periods. Supporters argued these laws would make Colorado safer by restricting access to firearms for those who might misuse them. However, the data paints a starkly different picture, raising serious questions about the effectiveness of these restrictions.
Between 2013 and 2023, Colorado’s violent crime rate surged by 48%, according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. The murder rate, often committed with firearms, rose by nearly 38% during the same period.
In Denver alone, firearm-related homicides increased by 77% between 2015 and 2021, despite the implementation of multiple gun control measures. These statistics illustrate a troubling trend: the more restrictions placed on lawful gun ownership, the higher violent gun crime seems to climb.
The introduction of red flag laws in 2019, for instance, was heralded as a groundbreaking effort to prevent gun violence. Yet, a 2023 study found that Colorado’s red flag laws were used in fewer than 125 cases annually, a minuscule fraction of the state’s violent incidents. Even in cases where these laws were applied, there is no conclusive evidence they prevented violent crime. Meanwhile, law-abiding gun owners — who are overwhelmingly responsible citizens — found their rights restricted, often with little due process.
Similarly, Colorado’s 2013 law limiting magazine capacities to 15 rounds was championed as a way to reduce the lethality of mass shootings. However, the law has been widely criticized as ineffective, with reports showing that many Coloradans simply circumvented the restriction by purchasing magazines out of state. Moreover, the law failed to prevent high-profile shootings such as the Boulder King Soopers tragedy in 2021, where the shooter used a firearm that complied with the magazine limit.
The conclusion is unavoidable: Colorado’s experiment with restrictive gun laws has not only failed to deliver on its promise to reduce violent crime but has also undermined the rights of law-abiding citizens.
The increase in violent crime despite these measures suggests that the state’s focus has been misdirected. Instead of targeting the root causes of crime – such as mental health, economic inequality, and repeat offenders – lawmakers have opted for feel-good legislation that penalizes responsible gun owners while doing little to address the real problem.
The failure of these laws should serve as a cautionary tale as Colorado considers further restrictions like SB25-003. The data is clear: disarming law-abiding citizens does not make communities safer. It is time for lawmakers to pursue evidence-based policies that target criminals, not constitutional rights, and acknowledge the reality that more gun control has not – and will not – lead to less crime.
SB25-003 is a classic example of political pandering, introduced to appease special interest groups rather than address the root causes of violence. The bill does nothing to target criminals who obtain firearms illegally or address the systemic issues that contribute to crime. Instead, it penalizes law-abiding citizens and businesses, fostering distrust between the government and the people it is supposed to serve.
The bill’s classification of “rapid-fire devices” as dangerous weapons is equally misguided. This is yet another attempt to demonize firearm components based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how they function. Legislators behind this bill fail to acknowledge that such devices are already heavily regulated and that their misuse is exceedingly rare.
SB25-003 is a gross overreach, and it is imperative for Colorado residents to stand against it.
The people of Colorado deserve leaders who respect their constitutional rights and seek to address crime in ways that focus on the actual perpetrators, not law-abiding citizens.
We must hold our elected officials accountable for attempting to legislate away our freedoms. This bill is not about safety – it is about control. And it is our duty to resist such overreach to preserve our liberties for future generations.
Colorado has a rich tradition of self-reliance, independence, and respect for the Constitution. SB25-003 is an affront to that legacy. The 2nd Amendment is not negotiable, and the people of Colorado must ensure their voices are heard loud and clear: this bill is an unacceptable assault on their rights and their freedoms.
C. J. Garbo is a 15-year Colorado law enforcement veteran and seasoned political strategist dedicated to upholding constitutional freedoms and individual rights. He brings firsthand knowledge and training in public safety and crime prevention. Holding a B.A. in Political Science from Metropolitan State University, Garbo has managed and advised numerous Republican campaigns, combining his law enforcement and political expertise to advocate for limited government and constitutional principles.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.