Second Amendment Under Attack in Colorado

AMAC Exclusive – By Neil Banerji

Late last month, Colorado Democrat Governor Jared Polis signed four gun control bills into law, the latest in a wave of anti-Second Amendment legislation following several high-profile tragic shootings this year. But as the left moves once again to restrict access to firearms, gun advocates are pointing out that much of the legislation making its way through Democrat-controlled state legislatures will do little to keep guns away from criminals or prevent mass shootings, and will instead only infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Perhaps the most alarming of the four bills Polis signed is Senate Bill 23-170, a variation of “red flag laws” in other blue states which allow the government to confiscate guns from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or the public.

Under Colorado’s old red flag law, so-called “extreme risk protection order petitions,” which empower law enforcement to seize firearms from someone, could only be initiated by a family or household member or a law enforcement officer. Thanks to SB 23-170, that list now also includes healthcare providers, educators, and even district attorneys.

In practice, this means that activist-minded left-wing prosecutors can order police to seize guns of anyone they deem a “threat” – even if they have no actual evidence. Second Amendment advocates have pointed out that anyone who has their guns confiscated has no option for legal recourse and is effectively denied due process.

Colorado Senate Bill 23-168, which Polis also signed into law, permits lawsuits by victims of gun violence against gun manufacturers – a tactic long employed by the left to drive gun makers out of business by burying them in legal fees. Although the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 law passed by Congress, is supposed to shield gun manufacturers from liability, activist judges have in recent years adopted an extraordinarily broad reading of the PLCAA’s exceptions to allow several high-profile court cases against gun makers to advance – most notably a $73 million lawsuit against Remington.

The two other bills Polis signed, Senate Bill 23-169 and House Bill 23-1219, are also reflective of the methods employed by Second Amendment opponents throughout the country to restrict access to firearms. SB 23-169 raises the minimum age requirement for gun ownership from 18 to 21, while HB 23-1219 mandates a three-day waiting period between the purchase of a firearm and its delivery.

In both cases, supporters of the legislation have failed to demonstrate how such measures will prevent gun violence. As many commentators have pointed out in regard to other waiting-period laws, if a person is in legitimate danger (such as a woman who fears a retaliatory ex-boyfriend) a three-day waiting period could mean the difference between life and death. There is also no evidence that raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm would do anything to stop gun violence.

Second Amendment advocacy groups have moved quickly to voice their opposition to these restrictions. In a public release, the NRA pledged to swiftly challenge the constitutionality of the bills in court, stating that “Governor Polis has disregarded the voices of concerned citizens who oppose gun control. He signed four bills that will harm law-abiding Coloradans’ Second Amendment rights… The NRA is exploring all options to challenge these unconstitutional restrictions.” 

Another group, the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, has already sued both Polis and the state government of Colorado over the new restrictions. In a statement, Taylor Rhodes, the group’s executive director, blasted Colorado Democrats, saying, “They will not be happy until all law-abiding gun owners are disarmed and only the criminals have guns.”

Opponents of the new gun control laws believe that some parts of the new Colorado laws may run afoul of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a 2022 Supreme Court case which held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry firearms outside the home, and District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 case which found that the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms within the home for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.

The Court notably ruled in New York State & Rifle v. Bruen that states may require gun owners to meet certain objective criteria, like passing a background check, but that the government cannot employ “arbitrary” evaluations of whether or not someone “needs” a gun. That might mean that SB 23-170 runs afoul of the Court’s decision in the case.

Nonetheless, Democrats in Colorado and elsewhere seem, if anything, even more determined to restrict access to guns. With a slow-moving court system bogged down by piles of litigation, the most expedient path for gun owners to protect their Second Amendment freedoms may be to oust the politicians responsible for infringing on them in the first place.

Neil Banerji is a proud Las Vegas resident and former student at the University of Oxford. In his spare time, he enjoys reading Winston Churchill and Edmund Burke.