Four separate gun control measures recently launched in the Legislature will do little to impact violent crime or suicides. They are a product of the emotional and reactive “gotta do anything” mindset that drives discussions of firearms under the Gold Dome.
SB 169 seeks to increase the age at which any firearm can be purchased or possessed in Colorado from 18 to 21, claiming to reduce “gun violence.” It will have negligible impact on suicides, homicides or other violent crimes. Sponsors provide no statistics to support their claims. By its terms, the bill is destined to be ineffective. The law — at best — applies only to those 18-to-20-year-olds who engage in broadly defined “gun violence” (including suicides and homicides) with legally acquired weapons. It will have no impact on stolen weapons, ghost guns or firearms obtained without the knowledge or consent of friends or family.
Suicide numbers will barely be impacted. In Colorado, suicide numbers cannot justify legislators’ infringement of rights. Arapahoe and Douglas counties comprise nearly one-fifth of Colorado’s population. Over the last half decade, from 2018-2022, Douglas has had five firearm-related suicides for 18-to-20-year-olds. Only one appears to have been the product of a firearm owned by the suicide. In Arapahoe County, there were eight such suicides, with only three attributable to firearms owned by those who took their lives.
There likely will be no Colorado data to support the claim that homicides and violent crime will be reduced by restricting firearms from law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds. Anecdotally, we know that this law would have made no difference in the horrific crimes mass shootings/murders at Columbine H.S., Aurora Theater, STEM School, Boulder King Soopers and Club Q.
Those are the same mass shooting/murder cases that would have been unaffected by the new three-day waiting period proposed in HB 1219. The leftist champions of “evidence-based policies” (a euphemism for statistics) have scant evidence to support the idea that every law-abiding Coloradan eligible to exercise their Second Amendment rights needs to have their rights delayed to decrease crime. The bill cites a single, unidentified and undated “study” as support. Be skeptical.
SB 170 would expand the list of those who can seek to impose a red flag order on someone to doctors, therapists, social workers, teachers, and — the attorney general? — based on an “interaction” that could be up to six months old. This bill is reckless, unjustifiable and ineffective. The bill jettisons the premise of the original red flag law that it could only be sought by a household or family member, someone with presumed intimate knowledge of the gun owner, or a law enforcement officer. It is unlikely those seeing a therapist would be as candid, if they suspected that saying the wrong thing could result in lost rights. And teachers? Once the Legislature rips away the rights of 18-to-20 year olds, the only educators to which this could apply are in higher education, where they are exposed to students for a couple of hours a week over a semester? C’mon. As for empowering the AG to seek a red flag order — I have no words. It is an embarrassing suggestion. What’s next, the secretary of state?
Finally, SB 168 poses the greatest risk to gun manufacturers and, subsequently, gun purchasers. It is a bill designed to unleash the money-hungry plaintiff’s bar on the gun industry. Litigation is costly and is used by the unscrupulous as a weapon to deter and destroy. Opening the floodgates to spurious litigation against gun-makers will not make their products any safer from those who abuse them. The proposed law would create liability for gun-makers even when someone else misuses them — like in a crime or a suicide — if the outcome was “reasonably foreseeable.” Weird.
We do not sue alcohol, marijuana, or motor vehicle makers for intoxicated drivers who kill or maim the innocent, even though it is foreseeable that people will drive drunk or high. Alcohol and marijuana distributors know well that tens of thousands of consumers will get drunk and high and drive down the streets and sidewalks of Colorado, and yet — no liability. Last year, Colorado lost 271 people to alcohol-related driving incidents — a 25-year high. Yet, there are no lawsuits against Ford or Budweiser for them.
Meanwhile, the year after Gov. Jared Polis signed into law the preservation of the right to obtain firearms by convicted drug dealers and car thieves, the Legislature is poised to kill a bill that would classify gunshot wounds as “serious bodily injury” for purposes of enhanced sentencing of criminals who abuse firearms.
There are no limits to the delays, inconveniences, and infringements to the law-abiding Coloradan when it comes to exercising their Second Amendment rights. Conversely, there is no limit to the lengths the Legislature will go to protect and comfort — and protect from liability — those who commit crimes and abuse our rights. Who is the Legislature representing?
George Brauchler is the former district attorney for the 18th Judicial District. He also is president of the Advance Colorado Academy, which identifies, trains and connects conservative leaders in Colorado. He hosts The George Brauchler Show on 710KNUS Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Follow him on Twitter: @GeorgeBrauchler.
Your Privacy Choice