New Democrat Law Abolishes Self-Defense Rights

Following the 2022 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the right to bear guns, a number of states then made it simpler to get carry permits and more difficult to utilize them. Politicians in those states were concerned that citizens would begin using their right to carry a pistol in public for self-defense once they were no longer required to demonstrate a “special necessity.” Sensing that the result was unacceptable, lawmakers prohibited firearms in a broad number of “sensitive” areas. As a result, even for those who hold the necessary license, it is now extremely difficult for them to lawfully carry a pistol outside of their houses.

Colorado was already a “shall issue” state, meaning citizens could obtain permits as long as they met specific, objective criteria, as opposed to “may issue” states like NY, Maryland, New Jersey, California, and Hawaii, where certain licensing officials had broad discretion to deny carry permits before the Supreme Court’s ruling in NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Legislators in Colorado, however, are following the lead set by New York and others by suggesting extensive limitations on the locations where gun permits can be carried.

Introduced last month, the bill would prohibit firearms from being in “sensitive places” (without “express permission”), including parks, recreation centers, zoos, museums, playgrounds, libraries, “public gatherings,” hospitals, amusement parks, banks, stadiums, bars, and places of worship. Breaking these rules would be considered a misdemeanor and carry a potential $250 fine—that amount increasing to $1,000 for repeat infractions. Colorado Newsline points out that “Democrats possess a majority in both houses” of the state legislature and “will easily approve their legislative goals,” even if the bill is still in its early stages of review.

Along with Senator Chris Kolker (Dem-Centennial), state senator Sonya Jaquez Lewis (Dem-Longmont) filed the bill in her chamber, arguing that it is “simply common sense” because “we must have a classification of where it is OK to carry a handgun and where it is not.” Kolker also appeals to “common sense,” stating, “My constituents are sick and tired of just prayers in reaction to gun carnage,” which is why he is introducing this measure.

The assumption is that S.B. 24-131 would aid in preventing mass shootings, since Democrats regularly attack Republicans who oppose tougher gun regulation for providing little more than “thoughts and prayers” following such incidents. However, that assumption is utterly unrealistic, given that rules that ostensibly establish gun-free zones are unlikely to prevent mass murders. For instance, school shootings often take place in environments where it is already illegal to own a handgun under both state and federal law.

In written testimony opposing S.B. 24-131, David B. Kopel, a gun policy specialist at Colorado’s Independence Institute, argues that “five out of six shooters chose ‘gun-free zones,’ and the measure creates a lot more of them.” This estimate is based on a Washington Post investigation that discovered 86% of large-scale public shootings that occurred between 2009 and 2016 took place in areas that were gun-free. According to Kopel, “the bill provides several safe zones where criminals may strike without fear of armed residents being able to fight back.”

What about more widespread “gun violence”? “The Concealed Carry Act from 2003 [which established the state’s licensing system] decreased violent crime in the state by 1.2%, according to even the nation’s preeminent anti-gun expert testimony,” Kopel claims. In 2017 research, law professor John Donohue and two other co-authors found that, ten years after the law’s enactment, Colorado’s right-to-carry legislation had a “−1.2%” “impact” on the state’s “violent crime rate.” To which he points.

Since everyone who carries a concealed firearm in public without a license is already breaching the law, S.B. 24-131 primarily targets permit holders. Carry permit holders in Colorado “are significantly more law-abiding than the overall population,” according to Kopel. He claims that they have a “39 times lower chance of detention than someone who doesn’t have a carry permit.” The number of permits canceled as a result of arrests in 2020 is the basis for that computation. Kopel continues, saying that “statistics from other states are comparable,” meaning that “those who have permission to carry are extremely highly law-abiding when compared to people who do not.”

Bruen has confirmed that S.B. 24-131 will have a significant influence on the right to self-defense while armed and in public, but its advantages to public safety are questionable. Interestingly, the law covers both “sensitive” places and “near parking areas.” “Firearms stored in secured containers in cars” are exempt. However, that appears to imply that a person with a carry permit who goes to a government office, a club, or a museum would already be breaking the law when he pulled into the parking lot unless he had put up his pistol beforehand, which he would have to do somewhere that is not considered “sensitive.”

The law is “ridiculously overbroad,” according to Kopel. For instance, he claims that if a mall has “one tiny branch bank” or “one pub,” “it outlaws licensed carry from the whole parking lot of a retail mall.” Additionally, he observes that “a lady who walks or jogs in parks early in the morning would not be able to protect herself.” More broadly, he states that the measure “as long as the attackers chose to attack at the sites listed in the bill, it assures that violent attackers will be protected from the possibility of being shot by armed civilians.”