Colorado’s latest legislative measures have sparked intense debate over potential infringements on constitutional rights, as complex gun licensing requirements and speech restrictions raise serious concerns among defenders of the Bill of Rights.
At a Glance
- Governor Jared Polis signed SB 25-003, imposing strict licensing, fees, and approvals for purchasing common firearms
- The law requires multiple appointments, classes, minimum $300 fee, and sheriff approval for semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines
- House Bill 1312 proposes penalties for “deadnaming” or “misgendering,” potentially affecting free speech rights
- HB 1312 also includes provisions that could impact child custody arrangements based on gender identity disputes
- These measures follow recent Supreme Court battles over the boundaries of constitutionally protected speech in Colorado
New Gun Control Legislation Faces Constitutional Scrutiny
Colorado’s recently signed SB 25-003 has quickly become a flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over Second Amendment rights. Critics argue the law creates a prohibitively complex process for purchasing common firearms, effectively limiting gun ownership through bureaucratic hurdles rather than direct prohibition. The legislation, signed by Governor Jared Polis, establishes a multi-stage system requiring prospective gun owners to complete several appointments, educational classes, pay a minimum of $300 in fees, and obtain permission from their local sheriff to purchase many common firearms.
The law has been particularly criticized for its broad categorization of firearms and magazines. Upon signing the bill, Polis claimed, “This legislation builds on our commitment to improve public safety, reduce gun violence, uphold our freedom.” However, critics counter that the law mischaracterizes “high capacity” magazines and imposes undue restrictions on semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines, which include many commonly owned models used for self-defense and sporting purposes across America.
Fogleman: The good, the bad and the ugly of the legislative session #copolitics #coleg #cogov
The Colorado General Assembly officially adjourned for the year last Wednesday after weighing more than 700 bills in 120 days.
Perennial issues like taxes, guns, and the future of…
— Jon Caldara (@JonCaldara) May 14, 2024
Free Speech Concerns Mount Over Proposed Identity Laws
While Second Amendment advocates rally against SB 25-003, free speech defenders are raising alarms about House Bill 1312. This proposed legislation would make it “unlawful to, with specific intent to discriminate, publish materials that deadname or misgender an individual.” The bill’s language directly quotes: “It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful to, with specific intent to discriminate, publish materials that deadname or misgender an individual.”
“We’re pleased with the outcome for our client, as well as the Supreme Court’s validation of the protections afforded to citizens by the First Amendment,” said Megan Ring regarding a recent Supreme Court case involving free speech in Colorado.
HB 1312 extends beyond traditional public speech concerns into family matters, with provisions that would characterize “deadnaming” and “misgendering” as forms of “coercive control” for consideration in child custody disputes. Parents who refuse to acknowledge a child’s preferred gender identity could potentially face custody consequences, a provision that has alarmed parental rights advocates who view this as government overreach into family matters and private speech.
Supreme Court Context Shapes Constitutional Debate
These legislative actions come in the wake of significant Supreme Court rulings on free speech in Colorado. In a recent 7-2 decision authored by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court ruled that Colorado violated a man’s First Amendment rights in a case involving online communications. The decision raised the standard for when speech can be considered threatening, requiring proof of intent to harm or reckless disregard for the substantial risk of being perceived as threatening.
“It’s very hard to draw these kinds of lines,” noted Christopher Jackson, highlighting the complex balance between protected speech and legitimate public safety concerns.
Additional controversial legislation includes HB 1169, which critics say discriminates between religious and non-religious nonprofits, and SB 77, which would create special legal protections for journalists. Together with SB 25-003 and HB 1312, these bills represent what some observers characterize as a concerning pattern of constitutional boundary-testing by Colorado lawmakers. The outcomes of these legislative battles may set important precedents for similar debates across the country, as states grapple with balancing public safety concerns against constitutional protections.
