The Haxtun-Fleming Herald - What can we reason but from what we know? -Alexander Pope

Rumors of a bill banning so-called “assault weapons” have been circulating at the State Capitol (and outside of it) since before the 2023 session started. Up until a week ago, Democrats were downplaying the chances that the bill would be introduced.

All that flew out the window on March 3, when one of the House’s most progressive Democrats introduced House Bill 1230, although the bill’s expected sponsor has now dropped off the measure.

Its legislative declaration, which says why the bill is needed, says assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are “disproportionately used in public mass shootings,” with 76 percent used in mass shootings compared to 44 percent involving a handgun.

As a result, assault weapons in civilian hands endanger Colorado’s streets, stores, churches, schools, movie theaters and communities. These weapons are “uniquely lethal due to tactical features” designed for the battlefield to kill or harm large numbers of people “quickly and efficiently,” making it the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

The bill defines an assault weapon as a .50 caliber rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge, such as a .50 Browning machine gun caliber. The definition also includes a “semiautomatic” firearm that uses a detachable magazine or modified to do so, or one with a pistol grip, detachable stock, flash suppressor, grenade launcher or a threaded barrel.

Exemptions in the bill include antique firearms, shoguns and muzzle-loaders that use black powder for hunting or historical re-enactment purposes.

Under the bill, which has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, it would be illegal for someone to manufacture, import, purchase, sell or transfer ownership of an assault weapon.

Violations of the law carry both a class 2 misdemeanor charge and a civil fine. Providing an assault weapon to a juvenile would result in a class 1 misdemeanor charge, which can result in a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Exemptions are limited to active-duty military, peace officers, sales to active-duty military, use by forensic laboratories; and federal, state or local historical societies so long as the weapon is securely housed and unloaded. Firearms dealers with remaining inventory have until July 1 to sell that inventory; after July 1, they’re required to sell or transfer the weapons to an out-of-state buyer. 

The bill does not contain any exemptions for wildlife management or other agricultural purposes and applies statewide.

HB 1230 is sponsored by Representative, Elisabeth Epps, D-Denver, a first-term lawmaker whose legislation in 2023 also includes “safe” injection sites for drug users.

However, the chances for HB 1230 receiving a warm reception from the Governor are slim and none. While he sponsored a bill to ban assault weapons as a member of Congress in 2018, Polis has been less keen on the idea since becoming governor.

During his 2023 State of the State address, Polis called for lawmakers to send him bills on “ghost guns,” which are untraceable; strengthening the state’s extreme risk protection order (a measure that will be heard in a Senate committee on March 8) and deterring unlawful weapon possession by felons. 

When asked about a possible ban after the speech, Polis responded that strengthening the red flag law would be a better way to address the issue.

It’s also unknown where the Speaker of the House, Rep. Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon, stands on the issue. She told a Denver TV station in January that she would take a position on the bill when it’s introduced, although she has not yet done so. “At the end of the day, the legislation that’s introduced, the legislation that comes forward has to be about saving lives. And that is where I believe all of our Democrats will be focused.”

McCluskie, along with six other Democrats, recently voted against a House bill that would allow county officials to ban firearms discharges in unincorporated parts of a county with 35 dwellings (or 91 residents) per square mile. 

The four major gun bills introduced two weeks ago are all up for committee hearings this week. That includes House Bill 1219, which would impose a three-day waiting period for purchasing a firearm; Senate Bill 170, the extreme risk protection order bill; Senate Bill 168, which would allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers and firearms dealers; and Senate Bill 169, which would raise the age for purchasing a firearm from 18 to 21. The latter three are all scheduled for the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 8. 

A hearing date for House Bill 1230 has not yet been introduced.

The State could embark on a comprehensive study of the economic impacts of the Republican River, under a bill introduced last week by Rep. Richard Holtorf, R-Akron.

House Bill 1220 is co-sponsored by Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont, who chairs the House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee.

The measure would task the water center at Colorado State University with looking at the anticipated economic effects of the forced elimination of groundwater withdrawals within and surrounding the Colorado portion of the Republican River basin that could occur if Colorado fails to comply with a 2016 resolution to retire 25,000 retire acres of irrigated acreage in the basin by 2029. Last year, the legislature approved a measure to pay for buying and retiring irrigation wells and irrigated acreage in the river basins. However, the $60 million under Senate Bill 22-228, split between the Republican and Rio Grande river basins, is not enough to cover all of those purchases.

The wells targeted for retirement are contained within the Republican River’s South Fork focus zone, in the southern portion of the basin.

The study would look at the economic impacts to all three states (Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas), McCormick told this reporter last week.

The report would be due by Jan. 1, 2026, with a requirement to present its findings to the General Assembly’s ag committees. HB 1220 is scheduled for its first hearing in the House Ag committee on March 13.

A bill that would prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption (which is already illegal under federal law) is now headed to the full Senate.

Senate Bill 38, however, was rewritten in the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee to require humane transportation of horses headed to slaughterhouses, located in Mexico and Canada. There are no slaughterhouses for horse processing in the United States; the last one closed 15 years ago. 

That led to questions from critics about just what the bill would accomplish; the law would have jurisdiction only over transportation within Colorado and would not apply outside of state borders. “This is a solution in search of a problem,” said one witness during the ag committee hearing.

The sponsor, Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis, D-Longmont, was criticized during the committee hearing for introducing a bill considerably different from what was negotiated with agricultural groups during the summer. 

Landon Gates, representing the Colorado Cattlemen's Association and Colorado Woolgrowers Association, told the committee they were “shocked” by the original version of SB 38. They much preferred the rewrite, he explained.

"When you remove an option of disposing of a horse that has reached the end of its useful life, you end up with fewer options," Gates said.

The bill passed on a party-line 4-3 vote in the Senate ag committee on Feb. 16 and is now awaiting review by the full Senate.