DENVER – Lawmakers on Monday took up various attempts to target gun control.
The centerpiece items included efforts to repeal laws passed by Democrats in 2013 that required universal background checks and banned high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than 15 rounds.
A Republican-controlled Senate committee late Monday afternoon advanced a measure that would eliminate the background-checks requirement – and subsequent $10 fee – for private sales and transfers.
The party-line 3-2 vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee reflected a new Republican majority in the Senate. But the measure faces unlikely success in the Democratic-controlled House.
“Why are we forcing people not only to have to ask questions about whether their constitutional rights are being intruded upon ... but that we make them pay for it?” asked Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, who sponsored the measure.
A similar background-check repeal measure was being debated in the House on Monday at the same time as the Senate version. That bill eventually died on a 6-5 party-line vote.
Concerns over the background requirement revolve around uncertainties with the law itself. Some residents say they are unable to even transfer firearms within their own family, and sheriffs have raised concerns over being unable to enforce the law or even transfer firearms within their own departments.
“This (law) turns law-abiding citizens into criminals,” said Sen. John Cooke, R-Greeley, the former sheriff of Weld County. “It put law enforcement in a bad situation, and one that we could not win.”
Sen. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, added, “It’s not a workable solution, both for law enforcement, and it’s not a workable statewide solution. ... It’s a matter of having made them criminals.”
Others who testified, however, said the checks offer another level of oversight. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation reported denying about 6,000 applications last year as a result of background checks.
“Are we going to make it easy for them? Are we going to get tough on crime? Or are we just going to make it easy for the bad guys to get a gun?” asked Tom Mauser, a well-known gun-control advocate who lost his son, Daniel, to the Columbine High School massacre in 1999.
The gun hearings are expected to last into the evening, as residents from around the state are lining up to testify. Officials also tested a new, remote-testimony service that allows citizens to testify by live video.
In addition to the background checks and ammunition magazines bills, lawmakers also scheduled hearings on Monday for legislation that would:
Allow people to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.
Eliminate the risk of liability for business owners that allow patrons to carry a concealed handgun.
Require the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to quickly provide certificates on certain unique firearms transfers, such as for machine guns.
Extend to business owners immunity from prosecution for using deadly force against an intruder.
The bill repealing the law limiting ammunition magazines died on a party-line 6-5 vote late Friday night.
The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier Monday evening passed the measure that would allow residents to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. That bill passed on a 3-2 party-line vote and heads to appropriations, but also faces a tough climb in the House.
The House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee also earlier on Monday killed the measure that would have eliminated liability concerns for business owners who allow concealed-carry. Democrats killed that bill on a 6-5 party-line vote.
Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt, R-Colorado Springs, who sponsored the bill, strongly recommended that his colleagues support the measure.
“If you vote against this bill, then you might be causing more sitting duck zones,” he said, referring to the 2012 Aurora movie theater massacre, pointing out that the theater banned guns, which may be why suspect James Holmes targeted it.
But Rep. Su Ryden, D-Aurora, chairwoman of the committee, said she could not support the measure because there was not enough evidence.
“I still have concerns about the assumption that you’ve made and about the safety of folks,” Ryden told the sponsor. “I’m just not there with you on this.”
