Comprehensive Analysis of Issues with SB25-003
by Colorado Federal Firearms Licensee Association
March 30, 2025
Constitutional Issues
Fourth Amendment Violations: The bill strategically places regulatory authority with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) officers, who possess extraordinary warrantless search powers. This appears deliberately designed to circumvent Fourth Amendment protections, creating a framework where constitutional rights could be subject to warrantless administrative searches.
Second Amendment Conflicts: The bill restricts commonly owned firearms without establishing a historical tradition of such regulation, likely conflicting with SCOTUS Bruen decision's historical analysis standard.
Due Process Concerns: The bill grants sheriffs authority to deny eligibility cards based on subjective "reasonable belief" standards with limited judicial review opportunities.
Equal Protection Problems: The bill arbitrarily exempts specific named firearm models while prohibiting functionally identical firearms, creating irrational classification.
First Amendment Implications: Mandatory training curricula that include ideological content related to "victim awareness and empathy" may constitute compelled speech.
Federal Law Conflicts
Pittman-Robertson Fund Misuse: The bill diverts funds from the Parks and Outdoor Recreation Cash Fund, which likely contains federal Pittman-Robertson wildlife conservation dollars, to implement firearms regulations unrelated to conservation or hunter education.
Commerce Clause Implications: The bill's restrictions on interstate commerce in commonly owned firearms may face federal preemption challenges.
Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) Tensions: The bill creates state-specific barriers to FFL operations that may conflict with FOPA's protections for interstate commerce in firearms.
Inconsistent Federal Classifications: The bill's technical definitions and classifications differ from established ATF guidelines, creating compliance conflicts for FFLs.
Potential FFL License Conflicts: FFLs are federally licensed to sell firearms that would be prohibited under this legislation, creating a conflict between federal authorization and state restriction.
Administrative and Implementation Problems
Diversion of Wildlife Conservation Funds: The bill acknowledges a shortfall in implementation funding and authorizes transfers from wildlife conservation funds intended for other purposes.
Multi-Agency Coordination Failure: Implementation is divided between CPW, sheriffs, and DOR without establishing coordination mechanisms or responsibility boundaries.
Unfunded Mandates to Sheriffs: Sheriffs must establish processing systems with no additional state funding, despite already struggling with CCW permit backlogs.
Database Creation Without Adequate Protections: The bill establishes a government database of firearms training participants without adequate privacy protections, security requirements, or misuse prevention.
Insufficient Implementation Timeline: The development of a functional verification system spanning multiple agencies by August 2026 is likely inadequate given typical state IT project timelines.
Technical Definition Flaws
Overbroad "Gas-Operated" Definition: The definition of "gas-operated semiautomatic handgun" includes "blowback-operated system" is ambiguous, and likely will apply beyond what is intended.
Ambiguous "Permanently Fixed Magazine" Standards: The bill fails to define what constitutes a "permanently fixed magazine," creating compliance uncertainty.
Arbitrary .22 Caliber Distinction: The bill exempts .22 caliber rimfire firearms unless they have "separate upper and lower receivers," a distinction unrelated to functionality or public safety.
Unclear "Rendering Firearms Inoperable" Requirements: The bill requires certain firearms to be "rendered permanently inoperable" without defining acceptable methods.
Ambiguous Transfer Definition: The definition of prohibited "transfer" doesn't clearly address temporary transfers for legitimate purposes like consignment or evaluation.
Business Operation Impacts
Inventory Crisis: Approximately 85% of current firearms transferred by FFLs would be affected, representing significant inventory and revenue loss without adequate transition provisions.
Lack of Inventory Disposition Pathway: The bill provides no clear pathway for FFLs to dispose of affected inventory prior to the effective date.
Instructor Capacity Shortage: Current instructor availability is insufficient to meet projected demand for mandatory training (potentially 80,000+ courses annually).
Interstate Commerce Disruption: FFLs engaged in interstate commerce face compliance challenges with differential treatment of sales to in-state versus out-of-state residents.
Compliance Verification Burden: FFLs must verify training completion through the CPW system without provisions for system failures or outages.
Logistical and Practical Barriers
Sheriff Resource Crisis: Colorado sheriffs already face 9+ month backlogs for CCW permits in some counties; adding tens of thousands of verification requests creates an impossible implementation scenario.
Geographic Access Disparities: Rural Coloradans face disproportionate travel burdens to access certified instructors and training facilities.
Verification System Technical Limitations: The $1 million allocated for system development is likely insufficient for creating a robust verification system connecting multiple agencies.
Training Material Standardization Absence: The bill requires educational content but doesn't establish who develops, approves, or standardizes curriculum materials.
Instructor Qualification Uncertainty: The bill provides no standards for qualifying or certifying the instructors who provide mandatory training.
Economic Impact Concerns
Underestimated Volume: Data suggests over 80,000 annual transactions require verification, while the fiscal note estimates only 50,000 applicants.
Financial Barriers to Exercise Rights: Combined costs of eligibility cards, background checks, and training could exceed $300-500 per person.
Time Burden Impacts: Extended training requirements over multiple days create substantial time commitments that disadvantage working individuals.
Rural Business Disproportionate Impact: Rural FFLs will face greater compliance challenges with fewer resources.
Unregulated Training Costs: No limitations exist on what private instructors can charge for mandatory training, potentially creating exploitation.
Enforcement Problems
Conflicting Agency Guidance: Both DOR and potentially the Attorney General provide guidance about prohibited firearms, creating potential for contradictory interpretations.
Working Group Composition Issues: The bill authorizes DOR to "convene working groups" without specifying inclusion of industry experts.
Limited Enforcement Resources: The bill includes minimal additional funding for enforcement despite creating complex new prohibitions.
Cross-Border Enforcement Challenges: Residents can legally purchase prohibited firearms in neighboring states and possess them in Colorado, undermining the bill's purpose.
Private Transfer Verification Impossibility: The bill creates no mechanism for private instructors to verify eligibility cards' validity.
Consumer Impact Issues
Barriers to Exercise Rights: The bill creates multiple administrative and financial barriers to exercise constitutional rights.
Privacy Invasion: The verification system establishes a government record of who has sought to purchase certain firearms.
Disparate Income Impact: Financial requirements disproportionately impact lower-income residents.
Geographic Discrimination: Rural residents face greater barriers to compliance due to instructor availability and travel requirements.
Veterans and Disabled Persons Barriers: The bill lacks accommodations for persons with disabilities who may be unable to complete in-person training requirements.
Specific FFL Operational Challenges
Consignment Handling Problems: The bill doesn't address how FFLs should handle consignment firearms that become prohibited during the consignment period.
Distributor/Wholesaler Impact: The prohibition on "distribution" affects businesses throughout the supply chain.
Gunsmith Service Complications: The exemption for gunsmiths creates unclear verification requirements beyond current law.
Display and Demonstration Restrictions: The bill doesn't clearly address how FFLs can display or demonstrate affected firearms to exempted purchasers.
Trade-In Valuation Collapse: Commonly accepted trade-ins could become prohibited items, creating immediate asset depreciation.
Legal Framework Problems
Vague Safety Standards: Required course content on "safe storage" and "safe handling" lacks defined standards or curricula.
No Sunset or Review Provision: Despite the experimental nature of this regulation, no sunset clause or mandatory effectiveness review exists.
Absence of Legislative Declaration: Unlike many significant regulatory bills, this legislation lacks a declaration establishing purpose and intent.
Limited Judicial Review: The bill places the burden of proof on applicants for most eligibility card denials.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Omission: No analysis of business impacts or regulatory burden assessment is required.
Law Enforcement Issues
Inconsistent Treatment of Agencies: The bill treats different law enforcement agencies differently without clear rationale.
Officer Personal Purchase Ambiguity: The bill is unclear on whether individual officers can purchase prohibited firearms for personal use.
Tribal Law Enforcement Uncertainty: Application to tribal law enforcement is unclear.
Out-of-State Officer Treatment: The bill doesn't address treatment of out-of-state officers.
Reserve and Retired Officer Status: Application to reserve or retired officers is unaddressed.
Systemic Problems
TABOR Avoidance Strategy: The implementation approach using CPW's enterprise status appears designed to circumvent TABOR revenue limitations.
Disproportionate Impact on Protected Classes: Financial and geographic barriers may disproportionately impact certain demographic groups.
Potential First Amendment Violations: Required ideology in training curricula potentially violates first amendment rights.
Ex Post Facto Concerns: Revocation provisions could potentially affect individuals for actions that occurred before passage.
No Grandfather Provision Clarity: The bill fails to clearly address treatment of previously sold firearms.
Technical Implementation Challenges
Background Check Integration Issues: The bill creates a parallel verification system without addressing NICS integration.
Exam Standardization Absence: The required "90% pass rate" on safety exams implies standardized testing without provisions for test development.
Verification System Downtime Procedures: No provisions address how sales proceed during system outages.
Data Retention Policies: The bill lacks clear data retention and deletion requirements for verification systems.
Reporting Requirements Inadequacy: No meaningful reporting requirements exist to evaluate the system's effectiveness.
Administrative Burdens
Continuous Model Determination Requirement: DOR must continuously evaluate new firearm models against ambiguous statutory definitions.
Instructor Verification System Absence: No system exists for verifying and tracking approved instructors.
Cross-County Verification Challenges: The bill doesn't address sheriffs' ability to verify eligibility cards issued by other counties.
Limited Rulemaking Authority: Insufficient rulemaking authority to address inevitable implementation challenges.
No Implementation Metrics: No requirements exist for tracking implementation progress, wait times, or approval rates.
Customer Confusion Elements
Inconsistent Exemption Explanations: The bill creates complex exemptions that will be difficult for consumers to understand.
Similar Firearm Differential Treatment: Functionally identical firearms receive different treatment based on superficial features.
Training Requirement Ambiguity: Unclear instructor qualifications and standards create consumer uncertainty.
Verification Timing Uncertainty: No clear provisions for how quickly verification must occur.
Cross-Border Purchase Confusion: Different rules for in-state versus out-of-state purchases create consumer confusion.
Liability and Legal Exposure
Instructor Liability Issues: The bill creates new responsibilities for firearms instructors without addressing potential liability.
Sheriff Immunity Inconsistency: Sheriffs receive limited liability protection while FFLs and instructors do not.
FFL Good Faith Compliance Protection Absence: No provisions protect FFLs making good-faith compliance efforts.
Incomplete Government Immunity: Government agencies implementing potentially flawed systems receive incomplete immunity.
Insurance Implications Unaddressed: New liability concerns for businesses without addressing insurance requirements.
Structural Implementation Flaws
Split Effective Dates: Different provisions have different effective dates, creating implementation confusion.
Incomplete Funding Mechanisms: Implementation funding acknowledged as inadequate from the start.
Limited Agency Coordination Requirements: No formal coordination mechanisms between implementing agencies.
Ambiguous Enforcement Authority: Unclear division of enforcement responsibility among agencies.
Inspection and Compliance Verification Gaps: No clear provisions for how compliance will be monitored.
Technical Security Concerns
Database Security Standards Absence: No required security standards for firearms owner databases.
Breach Notification Requirements Missing: No provisions for notifying individuals of data breaches.
System Access Controls Undefined: No limitations on who can access verification systems.
Data Sharing Restrictions Absence: No restrictions on sharing collected data with other agencies.
Audit Trail Requirements Missing: No requirements for logging system access or use.
Regulatory Overreach
Manufacturing Prohibition Scope: The prohibition on "manufacture" applies even to licensed manufacturers producing for exempt entities.
Exhibition and Collection Impact: Unclear application to museum exhibitions and collectors.
Educational Institution Constraints: Potential restrictions on educational programs beyond intended scope.
Film and Media Production Complications: Limited exemption for film props with unclear application.
Firearm Industry Research and Development Restrictions: Potential impacts on research and development of new firearms.
Collateral Damage to Legitimate Activities
Competitive Shooting Impact: Restrictions affect firearms commonly used in competitive shooting.
Wildlife Management Activities: Potential restrictions on firearms used in wildlife management.
Search and Rescue Operations: Possible impacts on equipment used in search and rescue.
Ranching and Agricultural Use: Effects on firearms commonly used for agricultural purposes.
Historical Preservation Activities: Potential interference with historical firearms preservation.
Documentation and Notification Problems
Federal Reporting Conflicts: The bill creates potential conflicts with existing federal documentation requirements.
Record Retention Inconsistencies: Different record retention requirements than existing federal standards.
Limited Public Education Provisions: No requirements for public education about new restrictions.
Inadequate Notice to FFLs: No formal notification system for FFLs regarding evolving interpretations.
Complex Compliance Documentation: Multiple overlapping verification requirements create documentation challenges.
Unintended Consequences
Black Market Creation Risk: High barriers to legal acquisition could drive transfers to unregulated channels.
Cross-Border Sales Increase: Likely increase in out-of-state purchases, defeating regulatory purpose.
Business Relocation Incentive: Creates incentives for firearms businesses to relocate to neighboring states.
Reduced Compliance with Other Regulations: Resources diverted to this compliance may reduce compliance with other safety regulations.
Law Enforcement Resource Diversion: Implementation diverts law enforcement resources from other public safety priorities.
Economic Impact on Colorado
Retail Sales Tax Revenue Reduction: Decreased in-state sales result in lost tax revenue.
Job Loss in Firearms Industry: Potential employment impacts in retail, distribution, and manufacturing.
Compliance Cost Burden: Significant compliance costs diverted from business investment.
Tourist and Visitor Impacts: Potential reduction in shooting sports and hunting tourism.
Trade Show and Exhibition Losses: Negative impact on firearms-related trade shows and exhibitions.
Oversight and Accountability Failures
Limited Legislative Oversight: No requirement for regular reports to the legislature.
Missing Fiscal Impact Re-evaluation: No provisions for reassessing fiscal impact after implementation.
Absence of Public Comment Process: No formal process for public input on implementation rules.
Lack of Compliance Metrics: No established metrics for measuring compliance success.
Inadequate Problem Resolution Mechanisms: No clear process for resolving inevitable implementation issues.
Contradictory Elements
Public Safety Purpose vs. Implementation Timeline: If immediate public safety is the justification, the delayed implementation timeline is contradictory.
Training Requirements vs. Capacity: Mandatory training without ensuring adequate instructor capacity.
Safety Focus vs. Model Exemptions: Safety rationale contradicted by arbitrary model exemptions.
Verification System vs. Privacy: Verification requirements contradict privacy protections.
Education Requirements vs. Accessibility: Mandatory education without ensuring accessibility.
Compliance Alternatives Issues
Permanently Fixed Magazine Standards: No clear standards for what constitutes acceptable permanent magazine modifications.
Conversion Verification Procedures: No verification process for firearms converted to fixed magazines.
Caliber Conversion Questions: Unclear treatment of multi-caliber systems.
Firearm Classification Disputes: No clear process for resolving classification disputes.
End-User Concerns: The bill doesn't address firearms assembled by end users from compliant components.
Future Complications
New Model Classification Challenge: No system for classifying new firearm models introduced after passage.
Technological Evolution Issues: The bill's definitions may not accommodate evolving firearm technology.
Legal Precedent Changes: No provisions to adapt to evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Cross-State Reciprocity Absence: No reciprocity provisions for training completed in other states.
Instructor Evolution Challenges: No provisions for evolving instructor qualification standards.
Unique Colorado Challenges
Tourism Industry Impact: Colorado's significant tourism industry includes firearms-related activities likely to be affected.
Varied Geographic Access: Colorado's mountain geography creates unique accessibility challenges for mandatory training.
Border State Policy Differences: Surrounding states have different policies, creating regulatory inconsistency.
Rural Implementation Challenges: Colorado's rural communities face disproportionate implementation challenges.
Weather and Seasonal Access: Seasonal road closures affect access to training facilities in mountain communities.
Additional Problematic Elements
Potential ADA Compliance Issues: Mandatory in-person training may create accessibility barriers for disabled individuals.
Veterans With Disabilities Barriers: No provisions to accommodate veterans with disabilities who may struggle with training requirements.
Military Deployment Complications: The bill doesn't address military members deployed during implementation.
Non-English Speaker Barriers: Limited provisions for training in languages other than English.
Self-Contradicting Enforcement: Multiple agencies with guidance authority create potential for contradictory guidance.
Broad Law Enforcement Rejection: Two county sheriffs support, the remaining oppose.
Broad Commissioner Rejection: County Commissioners oppose this bill.
More information, or expansion on existing issues please do not hesitate to send an email to info@CFFLA.org.
