By Phillip Anderson | Rocky Mountain Voice guest commentary
Many conservatives and Second Amendment advocates have raised concerns about the constitutionality of SB25-003, a bill that seeks to make it significantly more difficult for Coloradans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. These advocates argue that if the bill becomes law, it will not withstand a constitutional challenge under the Bruen standard established by the Supreme Court of the United States.
If you do not closely follow Supreme Court cases or have never heard of the Bruen standard, you may be unsure what to make of these claims. The Bruen standard of review in Second Amendment cases originates from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. In this case, two New York residents challenged a state law that allowed officials to deny handgun carry licenses for self-defense unless an applicant could demonstrate a “special need.” The plaintiffs were denied licenses because they failed to cite such a need.
In a majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court established a historical analysis test for evaluating Second Amendment cases. Under this test, the government bears the burden of proving that a firearm regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm laws. When applying the Bruen standard, a court must first determine whether the regulated conduct falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text. If it does, the court must then assess whether modern firearm regulations are consistent with historical firearm laws and the Second Amendment’s original understanding. This requires comparing the challenged regulation to historical firearm restrictions from the 18th and 19th centuries to determine whether there is a historical precedent for the modern law.
The original version of SB25-003 proposed an almost total ban on the manufacture, distribution, transfer, sale, or purchase of semiautomatic firearms in Colorado. However, after multiple revisions, the current version of the bill would impose extensive and burdensome requirements on individuals seeking to purchase a semiautomatic firearm. These requirements include completing a rigorous safety and training course, passing a background check, and obtaining law enforcement approval for a license. While current firearm owners would be allowed to keep their weapons under a grandfather clause, transfers would be limited to direct heirs, out-of-state recipients, or licensed dealers, effectively phasing out these firearms over time. Supporters of SB25-003 argue that the bill is necessary to address public safety concerns, particularly in response to mass shootings involving semiautomatic weapons with large-capacity magazines.
Considering the Bruen standard, supporters of SB25-003 will likely face an uphill battle if the law is challenged in court. The purchase and possession of semiautomatic weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes—such as self-defense—are protected unless they are considered “dangerous and unusual.”
SB25-003 imposes multiple burdens on individuals attempting to purchase semiautomatic firearms, thus raising constitutional concerns. Because the bill affects a broad class of commonly owned firearms, Colorado would need to prove that its restrictions align with historical firearm laws under the Bruen standard. However, historical precedent does not support such restrictions. During the 18th and 19th centuries, there were no licensing, training, or registration requirements for purchasing firearms. While some taxes and registration requirements for carrying firearms emerged in the 19th century, no historical laws regulated firearm purchases in the manner SB25-003 proposes. Because there is no historical equivalent to these restrictions, the law would likely be deemed unconstitutional.
Another challenge for SB25-003 is that public safety concerns—the bill’s primary justification—are irrelevant under a constitutional analysis. Before the Bruen ruling, courts balanced Second Amendment rights against public safety concerns when evaluating firearm laws. However, in Bruen, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the use of public safety arguments, such as concerns over mass shootings, in determining a law’s constitutionality. Now, historical tradition is the only factor that matters in Second Amendment cases. The constitutionality of SB25-003 must be assessed through a historical lens, not based on modern policy concerns or crime statistics.
The Second Amendment has faced significant attacks in Colorado in recent years, as the state remains under the control of a Democratic trifecta. If SB25-003 passes, it will almost certainly face a swift constitutional challenge under the Bruen standard—and fail. The Supreme Court has made it clear that Second Amendment rights cannot be abridged without strong historical justification, and no such justification exists for the restrictions proposed in SB25-003. Colorado lawmakers should carefully consider this legal precedent to avoid costly litigation and to uphold the constitutional freedoms of Coloradans.
Philip is a graduate of the University of Memphis, Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law. After graduating, he and his wife, a Colorado native, moved to Colorado to be closer to their family. Philip strives to provide legal insight and a conservative perspective on politics in Colorado and at the federal level.
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.