Colorado's new permit requirement for semi-automatic firearms has a problem, and it's one they should have seen coming after the Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA vs Bruen.
They either didn't see it coming or figured they were too special for it to apply to them.
Either way, they've opened themselves up to problems.
A bill that Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed into law last week requires residents of that state to obtain the government's permission and complete 12 hours of firearms training before they can legally obtain semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. The law, which Polis improbably claims "will make Colorado safer," imposes broad restrictions on firearm ownership that seem inconsistent with the test that the Supreme Court has said gun control laws must pass to comply with the Second Amendment.
Senate Bill 3, which is framed as a means of enforcing Colorado's 2013 ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, applies to "a semiautomatic rifle or semiautomatic shotgun with a detachable magazine"—a category that encompasses some of the most popular guns sold in the United States, including AR-15-style rifles. The law makes exceptions for guns that fire ".22 caliber or lower caliber ammunition" and for specified hunting rifles. It does not apply to handguns unless they are gas-operated and have detachable magazines.
Beginning in August 2026, anyone who wants to acquire a covered firearm will have to complete two new steps. First, he will have to obtain a "firearms safety course eligibility card" from the local sheriff, who is charged with verifying that the applicant is not legally disqualified from owning firearms. The sheriff "may deny an application" if he "has reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will pose a danger to [himself] or others."
...
S.B. 3 makes the freedom to acquire a broad class of commonly owned firearms contingent on a local law enforcement official's approval, which can be denied if that official deems the applicant dangerous. And even when the applicant receives a sheriff's permission, the application fee and training requirement impose an additional financial burden that may be daunting to would-be gun owners of modest means.
And here's the thing: there's no objective standard for who can be deemed dangerous or not.
A progressive sheriff could well deem anyone who is affiliated with the NRA--a group New York Attorney General Letitia James called "domestic terrorists" to be too dangerous to be trusted with a gun. Literally anything can be used to describe someone as too dangerous to themselves or others if someone wants to push it.
I mean, I can make a pretty good case that Democrats are violent these days. Should they be stripped of their ability to buy certain guns? God knows, most of them aren't very responsible in any aspect of their lives, so it shouldn't be a difficult case to make.
But they're not talking about them, are they?
The truth is that even if the police think someone is the biggest scumbag on the planet, unless he's been convicted of anything, he shouldn't have to face being denied his right to keep and bear arms.
More to the point, though, the fact that this is so subjective may well imperil the law all on its own. When you also keep in mind that the Supreme Court likes to talk about guns "in common use" being protected, and semi-automatic firearms are most definitely in common use as they're the most common firearms sold in this country, coupled with the history, text, and tradition the Bruen decision said constitutional gun control laws had to meet, there's no chance this one should survive.
Unfortunately, we're talking about the federal courts here, so I'm also not holding my breath.