| | |

CO Poised to Be Testing Ground for Experimental Firearm Ban: SB25-3 is an Accident Waiting to Happen

Democrat lawmakers in Colorado are championing SB25-003, an overreaching and unprecedented semi-auto firearm – or “assault weapons” – ban. This experimental legislation is unlike anything previously seen in the U.S., with Colorado poised to be the test state for a dangerous experimental prohibition on firearms commonly used for hunting, sport shooting, and self defense. The proposed legislation seeks to ban the sale, purchase, transfer, and manufacture of most modern semi-automatic firearms, specifically targeting rifles, shotguns, and gas-operated pistols that can accept detachable magazines.

READ: 10 Crucial Facts You Need To Know About SB25-003

The bill sponsors dishonestly claim this gun ban closes a “loophole in Colorado’s magazine capacity laws” and that the banned firearms could still be manufactured, sold or purchased in Colorado only if they have a permanently fixed magazine — either by welding, epoxy or soldering.

Um. What? Read that again. They expect gun owners to now use firearms that have their magazines epoxied in place? This is insanity on a whole new level. Can you imagine the enormous safety risks that would come along with their experimental plan?

Even the moderate-left leaning Colorado Sun has confirmed this is the future bill proponents envision. Twice in this article they reference “welding, epoxy or soldering” as the solution.

Key Safety Concerns

  1. Removable Magazines in Modern Firearms are a Critical Part of Safe Operating Protocols: They make it simple and certain that you have removed ammunition from a gun. Fixed magazines make the firearm risky to unload, potentially leading to dangerous practices. Users will be forced to choose between leaving the gun loaded, shooting the firearm to clear it, or attempting risky disassembly of a loaded gun based on unreliable videos found online.
  2. Inherent Risks in Forced Modifications: The bill requires firearms to be modified in ways they were not originally designed to accommodate. This includes permanent alterations like welding magazines in place or using epoxy, which could compromise the structural integrity and safety of the firearm.
  3. Lack of Testing for Modified Firearms: Firearms that undergo the modifications proposed by SB25-003 have not been and likely will not be tested for safety under these new conditions. This oversight could lead to unexpected failures and increased safety risks.
  4. Complications in Maintenance and Cleaning: Integral to firearm safety is the ability to disassemble and clean all components properly. SB25-003 would make it impossible to remove magazines for thorough cleaning, likely leading to poorly maintained and potentially malfunctioning firearms.
  5. Durability Issues with Magazines: The bill’s requirements could lead to situations where damaged magazines, typically made from polymer or aluminum, cannot be easily repaired or replaced due to their fixed nature. This could render the firearm inoperable or unsafe if the magazine fails.
  6. Uncertainties in Magazine Removal Effects: The non-standard modifications proposed might affect the firearm’s operation in unforeseen ways, particularly when the fixed magazine is integrated in a manner not originally intended by the manufacturer.
  7. Legal and Practical Travel Complications: Federal regulations require magazines to be removed when transporting firearms for air travel. The fixed magazine stipulated by the bill contradicts these regulations, potentially barring firearm owners from legally traveling with their weapons.
  8. Potential Increase in Negligent Discharges: The shift to firearms with non-removable, top-loading magazines could complicate the process of ensuring a firearm is unloaded. This increases the risk of negligent discharges, particularly in homes with children or during situations requiring the secure storage of the firearm.

While bill sponsors claim the intent behind SB25-003 is to enhance public safety by restricting access (even though data shows crimes are rarely committed with these types of weapons), the legislation may paradoxically increase risks associated with firearm ownership. By complicating maintenance, forcing untested modifications, and potentially increasing the likelihood of negligent discharges, SB25-003 could inadvertently raise the rate of firearm-related incidents in Colorado. Stakeholders and citizens alike must critically assess these implications as the bill moves through the legislative process.

2 Comments

  1. Public Safety and Common Good are terms used by Communists. This Bill is not about either of those Public Safety or Common Goodness. This bill is about ending the private citizen ownership of firearms. It creates a monopoly of Force for one side and one side only.

    For the last 5 years, Colorado’s Legislature has demonstrated their contempt for the Good Law-Abiding Citizens of Colorado when it comes to Firearms ownership. There are 20000 gun laws and not one of them has had the effect that they claim it will have. Not to mention, this is nothing more than punishment of the law-abiding and not the people who should be punished for committing such acts. The reason for all of this in my opinion, is they want WE THE PEOPLE of Colorado completely disarmed so they can hurt us any way they want without resistance. They know that with an armed citizenry, they are not able to control us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *