‘Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed’ — Sen. Lisa Frizell
By BRIAN PORTER | Rocky Mountain Voice
Debate over Senate Bill 25-003, which began in the late afternoon Thursday and continued into the wee hours of Friday morning, ended with Democrats giving initial support to one of the country’s most extreme gun laws in a mostly party line voice vote in the Colorado Senate.
At issue is whether, in the interest of stemming mass shootings in the state, if Coloradans should sacrifice constitutionally-provided gun ownership rights.
Bill co-sponsor, Democrat Sen. Tom Sullivan, relayed the story of his son’s death in the Aurora theatre shooting more than a decade ago, which inspired his writing of the bill.
“This is primarily working to enforce the [high-capacity magazine] bill from 2014,” Sullivan said.
But, the political right sees it as much more, as an attack on the existence of the rights to gun ownership and self-defense.
“If we allow Colorado to overreach today, where does this stop,” Mesa County Republican Sen. Janice Rich said. “It does not disarm the criminals. It disarms the law-abiding citizens who follow these laws. This bill will not stop crime.”
El Paso County Republican Sen. Larry Liston spoke directly to Sullivan.
“We do feel your grief and your sorrow,” he said. “We do think about your son and your family, and what you have had to go through. Two wrongs unfortunately don’t make a right. We’re going to take away rights of honest citizens.”
While some gun owners contest the constitutionality of the bill, Sullivan responded, “We have lawyers, too, and our lawyers say it is constitutional.”
Where the bill began Thursday and where it ended in the wee hours of Friday morning was a considerable difference. Democrats agreed to a three-point plan that would ask prospective semiauto gun purchasers to complete a combination of a hunter’s education and basic firearms safety course within five years of purchase, an extended firearms safety course within five years or a basic course if an extended course had been taken more than five years prior.
“We’re concerned about the next firearm, not the one you have,” said Sullivan, which identified the bill’s approach to prohibit purchase, sale and transfer of common-use firearms.
By the time debate ended for the evening, sponsors had also conceded on 40 specific semiauto firearms that would be exempted, except that Cheyenne Wells Sen. Rod Pelton noted he owned hunting rifles not on the list. Concessions made in amendments may or may not end up in the final bill.
“The American people are pretty smart,” he said. “They don’t need us telling them what is going on in this building. They know their Second Amendment rights are being taken away.”
His cousin, Sterling Sen. Byron Pelton, attempted to define the oft-misunderstood difference between military “weapons of war” and commonly owned AR rifles, which stands for the Armalite brand name and not “assault rifle”. He explained the semiauto single trigger pull for each round.
“These weapons we’re talking about are different [from military grade],” he said.
Pelton, a small-time cattle owner, noted the purpose for his semiauto rifle is coyote control.
Many gun owners are concerned the bill not only focused on semiauto AR-model rifles, but on shotguns and pistols through its language.
“I believe Colorado is way off course with these gun-control measures,” said Weld County Sen. Scott Bright. “The right to bear arms is not just a privilege, but a constitutional guarantee.”
He noted the bill did not address solutions to the root issues of gun violence.
Sen. Mark Baisley asked Democrats to consider an oath of office senators were administered a month prior to “uphold the constitution of this state and of the United States”.
“We cannot uphold our oaths of office and pass this bill,” he said.
Douglas County Republican Sen. Lisa Frizell criticized the bill as an attack on law-abiding citizens, while giving criminals a pass.
“Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed,” she said. “As our gun laws have grown stricter and stricter, we have not seen violent crime reduce.”
Rich added a prediction the law would, if passed, go down as the President Bill Clinton-era ban: “It had little, to no, effect on illegal and criminal activity.”
Western Slope Sen. Marc Catlin identified the concern of gun owners across the state.
“They won’t be able to sell any of the ones they got and they won’t be able to buy a new one,” he said. “That sounds an awful lot like infringement.”
Bill co-sponsor Democrat Sen. Julie Gonzales contended throughout the debate that gun owners, activists and their advocate groups exaggerate the bill’s effect.
“What the bill seeks to do is limit the number of firearms sold in Colorado with greater than 15-round magazines,” she said. But that’s not how the bill or the bill’s summary read.
Still, some Coloradans might have the desire to own a firearm for protection, Brighton Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer said.
“Colorado is ranked as the 8th highest state in violent crime. We’re in the top 10 in strength of gun laws,” she said. “All of the gun laws that have been passed in this state have not cut down on violent crime. You can pass gun law, after gun law, after gun law. You can take rights from law abiding citizens. You still have violent crime.”
To her point, Bright said, “The bottom line is the people don’t feel safe in Colorado.”