By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project
The Feds might put a stop to Colorado’s merchant code gun law
SB24-006 passed out of the Colorado legislature in 2024 and was quickly signed by Jared Polis.
Piercing through the confusing jargon in the bill’s fiscal note, it essentially requires credit card companies to tag purchases related to firearms in their systems, in theory to make it easy to spot someone planning a mass shooting.
To my knowledge, that has yet to happen. The only outcome thus far that I’m aware of is that the government has leaned on private industry to help them keep track of of constitutionally-protected activity.
Per the We the Second post linked second below, a law recently made it out of the Federal House of Representatives to put an end to this practice.** Quoting with link intact:
“The U.S. House of Representatives has passed federal legislation that would dismantle Colorado’s controversial requirement that firearm retailers – and their customers by proxy – be identified through a special credit card merchant code. On July 14, the House approved H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, by a vote of 221–201. The bill would prohibit banks, credit card networks and payment processors from requiring or assigning a merchant category code that specifically identifies firearm and ammunition retailers.”
There’s more in the piece which I will leave it to you to read. It’s also important to note (as We the Second does too) that passing the House is one step on a long journey. Much as I celebrate this, there’s still plenty to do to get this bill over the finish line.
Whether you are ambivalent about Republicans or not (I will admit to being somewhat ambivalent about the party at the national level, not at all somewhat at the state level), I hope you take note of how they are working to protect your Second Amendment rights in a way that none of the people running this state are.
Again, like all they’re doing or not, efforts like these ain’t nothing.
**If you have yet to sign up for updates from We the Second, stop. Go sign up. This is an excellent Second Amendment resource.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-066
And then they came for the lawnmowers
Per the Sum and Substance article linked first below, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission–yet another of those unelected and unaccountable boards that sets so much of our state policy–is back for another run at gas powered lawn equipment.
They’ve been at this for a while now. The second link below is to a 2023 newsletter I wrote; it’s the first reference I can find in my own writing to such efforts.
Back in 2023, it was all about banning the sale of gas powered equipment. No, they weren’t coming to take away your lawnmower. They just wanted to control what you bought when it died.
This effort ultimately failed with enough of a fuss. Fast forward with me now to 2026 where, quoting from the Sum and Substance article, “…Colorado regulators will consider rules later this year to limit the percentage of companies’ mowers and blowers that are revved by fossil fuels.”
I’ll leave it to you to read the article to see more detail about the proposed regulations. In short, it is essentially a stepped rule, a decrease in the percent of gas powered equipment commercial landscapers can use over the next 6 years.**
The title of this post is somewhat tongue in cheek but only somewhat.
Let me set this up with another quote from the Sum and Substance.
“The rule would impact only independent landscaping and lawn-care companies, not private entities like golf clubs or apartment complexes that employ in-house staff for groundskeeping. It’s more difficult to reach those companies and determine what kind of equipment they use, though any that contract out such services to commercial operators would be affected, said Leah Martland, a supervisor in APCD’s [Colorado Air Pollution Control Division–housed in CDPHE] regulatory development and engagement unit.”
As we saw in COVID, the rules are often applied per the ease of enforcement. In this case, because “it’s more difficult to reach those companies and determine what kind of equipment they use”, the rules only applied to a select few. This idea was challenged later and expanding the rule only lost by one vote.
What I’m getting at here is that the criteria for the scope of the rule is not reasonableness. It’s not where to put the line on government overreach. It’s enforceability.
READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT THE COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
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.