CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS LOOMS: COLORADO'S SEMI-AUTO BAN CREATES BACKDOOR TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

By Sean Steele
Colorado Federal Firearms Licensee Association
March 10, 2025

A constitutional crisis is brewing in Colorado as Senate Bill 25-003 advances through the legislature, with implications far beyond the firearms debate. Legal experts are raising alarm over a little-discussed provision that appears designed to circumvent Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

The controversial legislation, which would restrict sales of most semi-automatic firearms in Colorado, contains a provision that places regulatory authority with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) officers—the same officers who possess unique powers to conduct warrantless searches in the context of hunting and fishing regulations.

This arrangement creates a dangerous constitutional precedent. By housing this regulatory system within an agency that already possesses extraordinary search powers, lawmakers have created a framework where constitutionally protected rights could be subject to administrative searches that would be unconstitutional if conducted by traditional law enforcement.

The bill requires individuals seeking to purchase affected firearms to complete educational courses and background checks, with records maintained in a CPW database. This effectively creates a registry of firearms owners housed within an agency whose officers can legally conduct administrative searches without traditional warrants.

According to CFFLA analysis, the legislation would impact approximately 85% of inventory at over 2,100 federally licensed firearms dealers across Colorado, creating significant economic disruption while establishing a troubling legal precedent.

Legal experts note that CPW officers' current search authority stems from the "highly regulated activity" doctrine, which has traditionally been limited to privileges like hunting and fishing—not constitutionally protected rights. This legal doctrine allows game wardens to check licenses, inspect wildlife in possession, and examine equipment without warrants because participants have implicitly consented by engaging in these regulated activities.

The strategic placement of firearms regulation within a conservation agency appears deliberately designed to leverage search powers that would be constitutionally questionable if granted directly to police. It's a concerning approach regardless of one's position on firearms.

When questioned about why CPW was selected as the implementing agency rather than the Colorado Bureau of Investigation or Department of Revenue, which traditionally handle firearms regulations, bill sponsors have provided no clear justification.

The CFFLA has raised these constitutional concerns during legislative testimony, but reports that lawmakers have been dismissive of these fundamental issues.

As the bill continues to advance, legal challenges appear inevitable, potentially setting up a significant test case for both Second and Fourth Amendment rights in Colorado.