While much of the attention on guns will be focusing on Florida for the next few days, at a minimum, we can't forget that Colorado still passed a particularly egregious set of restrictions for semi-automatic firearms. In fact, some will argue Florida needs a similar law.
But the law illustrates some problems with the urban-rural divide, as well as accomplishing none of its stated purposes.
See, what people in cities want and what people in the country need aren't exactly similar. How could it be? The differences are night and day.
In large cities, you have large police departments with significant budgets while in some rural areas, you've got a sheriff and a handful of deputies, with maybe one on duty in the middle of the night, and he might be on the other side of the county when you need him.
Mesa County commissioners passed a last-gasp resolution last week urging Gov. Jared Polis to veto a gun-control measure that limits purchases of most semiautomatic guns with detachable magazines.
Polis signed the bill the next day, setting off a wave of threats to challenge the constitutionality of the law. In political terms, this is a partisan issue, with all 34 Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) in the Legislature opposing Senate Bill 25-003, “Semiautomatic Firearms & Rapid-Fire Devices.”
But it’s also emblematic of the rural-urban divide in the state. Colorado has endured some of the nation’s most notorious incidents of mass shootings — at Columbine High School in 1999, at the Aurora movie theater in 2012, and the Boulder King Soopers in 2021 among others — nearly all on the Front Range.
The new law targets the type of firearms used in those attacks. When it goes into effect in August 2026, Coloradans will have to pass a background check and a training course before they can purchase a range of semiautomatic firearms — including those commonly described as assault weapons — with detachable magazines.
It’s natural for lawmakers to respond to urgent appeals to “do something” about the threat of gun violence in the state. But what does this law really accomplish?
It doesn’t prohibit the possession of the weapons. It does not apply to most common handguns or shotguns. It doesn’t require gun owners to turn in weapons. And the firearms covered under the law can be sold to people who haven’t passed background checks so long as the weapons have a fixed magazine.
The law just makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to get their hands on quick-reload firearms associated with mass shootings.
And the steps one must go through in order to get such a weapon are the kind of thing that most people don't really have an easy way of making time to undertake, especially in farming communities where days off may be few and far between during certain parts of the year.
Of course, I do take issue with the author's claim that guns with fixed magazines can be sold without a background check. Colorado is a universal background check state, so all gun sales require a background check. I think the author means that guns with fixed magazines don't have to go through the same kind of checks as those involving a detachable magazine, but this is a point worth clarifying.
Still, the fact that rural gun owners may need weapons that can be reloaded quickly is a valid thing, and not just because of two-legged predators, either. I've never heard of anyone who had to defend themselves or their animals say that they wish they'd had less ammo. I've heard the other side of that a few times, though.
And let's understand that this won't even stop mass shooters, necessarily.
Someone who hasn't raised any red flags, like the alleged FSU shooter, and is well known and liked by law enforcement, would easily get the permit without a problem. That doesn't mean he or she won't end up killing a bunch of people.
The whole thing is stupid, especially when you think about those rural folks now being made to jump through a bunch of hoops just because the city folk don't know how to keep the criminals from getting rowdy.