Trio of firearm bills dominate debates at State Capitol

The Colorado State House spent the weekend working on a trio of gun bills, with approval largely along party-lines, although there were a few Democratic defections along the way.

Majority Democrats also invoked a rarely used rule to limit debate, after two solid days of Republican filibusters on the bills. 

The first bill, Senate Bill 168, would allow victims of gun violence to sue firearms manufacturers and dealers for damages in civil court, under a claim of wrongful conduct. It would overturn a 2000 law that supporters of the bill claim is among the most restrictive in the nation, and which shielded the firearms industry not only from liability but required plaintiffs to pay defendant legal fees in dismissed cases.

Sandy and Lonnie Phillips sued an online firearms dealer who sold thousands of rounds of ammunition to the shooter in the Aurora Theater massacre in 2012. The Phillips’ daughter was among the deceased.

The case was dismissed by a Colorado court and the family was ordered to pay more than $200,000 in legal fees. They eventually filed bankruptcy and lost their home.

Republicans began filibustering SB 168 early afternoon Friday and into the night, with claims that the bill will drive law-abiding firearms dealers out of business. 

Representative Richard Holtorf, R-Akron, pointed out during Friday’s debate that the person handling the firearm has the responsibility to handle the weapon in a responsible manner. If handled responsibly, there is no liability to the industry, he said. If it is handled carelessly, then liability would apply, he said. 

Holtorf later told the House about friends who hold FFL — a federal firearms license that allows them to sell firearms. It’s often a “side hustle” for farmers and others who need a little extra income, he said. He said he’d gotten a call from a constituent in Phillips County who is concerned the bill will put him out of that side business. This bill does not work for his constituents on the Eastern Plains or any other rural area, he added. 

The debate on SB 168 continued until 11 p.m. and the House adjourned without taking action.

They resumed Saturday morning but began with a different bill.

Senate Bill 170 would expand the types of people who can seek extreme risk protection orders (ERPO), also known as the red flag law. Under an ERPO, and as the law currently exists, only law enforcement, family or household members can seek the petition, which would ask a court to remove firearms from a person deemed at risk to themselves or to others. 

Under the law, a judge would first issue a temporary order of up to 14 days, along with scheduling a full hearing. If after the hearing, the judge determines the person is still a risk, the firearms can be held by law enforcement for up to a year. The State is required by the law to provide the person at risk with a lawyer, regardless of ability to pay. The law also includes penalties for filing a false petition. A Larimer County woman was convicted last year of filing a false petition in 2020 against a Colorado State University police officer.

The law is named after Douglas County Deputy Sheriff Zackari Parrish III, who was ambushed in 2017 by a mentally ill man who later killed himself. The man was previously known to law enforcement as suffering from a mental health crisis, and his mother attempted to get his firearms removed without success.

The law was upheld by the state Supreme Court.

In 2020, the first full year after the law’s implementation, 111 petitions were filed, mostly by law enforcement, according to a third-party analysis ordered by the Attorney General. 

But the shooting at Club Q, an LGBTQ+ club in Colorado Springs in November, prompted the Governor and Democrats in the General Assembly to add more people to the list of those who can seek petitions. The shooter, who is awaiting trial, was also known to law enforcement for making bomb threats in 2021. His firearms were removed at that time under a restraining order.

However, the shooter continued to obtain firearms after losing his other weapons, and the Colorado Springs sheriff told this reporter a red flag law does not prevent that.

El Paso County is a Second Amendment sanctuary county, and refuses to enforce the law, under an ordinance adopted by county commissioners after the red flag law was passed in 2019. 

That’s what led to Senate Bill 170. The bill would add district attorneys, teachers, school counselors and college faculty and health care providers, including mental health professionals, to the list of those who can obtain a red flag order. The law does not change in any other aspect. 

Republicans filibustered that bill, too, despite days of warnings beforehand that it could lead Democrats to take drastic action. At 6 p.m.it happened.

House Majority Leader Monica Duran, D-Wheat Ridge, asked for a majority vote (which was granted) to invoke Rule 14, which allows debate to be limited to one hour. Duran’s request limited debate on SB 170 as well as for the conclusion of the debate on SB 168, the liability bill.

Republicans were outraged but had no ability to contest it, under the rules.

Both bills won preliminary approval on Saturday.

Lawmakers were back on Sunday to do final votes on the two bills plus take up the third: Senate Bill 169, which as introduced raised the age for sale and possession of firearms from 18 to 21. 

Both SB 170 and SB 168 were approved largely along party-lines, with a few Democrats voting “no” along with the chamber’s 19 Republicans. 

For Senate Bill 169, Duran again invoked Rule 14, limiting debate to four hours.

When the bill was in the Senate, it was heavily amended to allow possession of firearms by those under 21, to include those in law enforcement, active-duty military, State-authorized firearms classes, shooting sports, those with hunting licenses and those who need firearms to defend livestock.

The debate lasted only an hour: The bill was substantially changed, with amendments from the sponsors, to remove all language around possession and deal only with purchases of firearms . It won preliminary approval Sunday night and a final vote on Monday.

All three bills now head back to the State Senate for review of amendments. 

In the Senate last week, lawmakers approved a bill imposing stronger penalties for those who deal drugs resulting in death.

Senate Bill 109 is sponsored by Senator Byron Pelton, R-Sterling, who said the law was needed to deal with the explosion of meth cases in his district. 

The bill would align penalties for distribution resulting in death with those imposed in last year’s bill on fentanyl. That law imposed a class 1 felony, with up to 32 years in prison, for anyone convicted of distribution of fentanyl or any drugs mixed with fentanyl.

That’s become a problem for prosecutors who testified that they can’t always tell from autopsy reports just what killed the person: fentanyl or something else mixed with it. That creates a situation where two different laws apply, they said.

SB 109 would make distribution of any illegal drug resulting in death a class 1 felony. 

The bill drew strong opposition from Democrats in the state Senate who claimed the bill would impose penalties on those who share, not sell, drugs. But Pelton and his co-sponsor, Sen. Kyle Mullica, D-Thornton, were able to persuade enough Democrats to win the bill’s approval, on a close 19-16 vote. The bill now heads to the House.