According to Democrats in the Colorado Senate, the problem with people intent on committing mass murder is that they are not sufficiently versed in the function and safety of firearms, or at least we might surmise based on Democratic legislating.
When last I visited Senate Bill 25-003, the bill banned most semiautomatic rifles that take a detachable magazine as well as some semiautomatic handguns. As I pointed out, such a ban on common tools of self-defense flagrantly violates the U.S. and Colorado constitutions.
Harassing the innocent
That was then. The bill as it passed the senate on February 18 is considerably revised, and it offers a host of new problems. The “reengrossed” bill of that date, in addition to exempting various particular guns from the legislation (for example, the Benelli R1 Big-Game Rifle), allows people to buy the otherwise-verboten guns after all, if they get permission from their local sheriff and take a training class. Because, you know, the big problem with would-be mass murderers, ostensibly the people the bill is trying to stop, is that they haven’t had enough training.
Almost everyone who buys the guns in question has never harmed anyone with guns or otherwise. Obviously, the bill actually is about harassing the innocent, not stopping criminals.
If Democrats want to know how most conservatives and Republicans feel about asking the government’s permission and jumping through a bunch of government hoops to exercise a Constitutional right, they should imagine a turning of the tables where Republicans want to force women seeking an abortion, or people seeking to identify as transgender, or people seeking to buy or sell pornography, to first ask permission of local law enforcement and pay to take a two-day training class. Democrats would scream.
Okay, okay. Democrats will reply that coming out as trans or viewing pornography never results in someone’s death, whereas a tiny fraction of people who buy guns (on the legal market or otherwise) use them to harm others. (By contrast, one-hundred percent of the time, abortion results in the death of a human embryo or fetus, however you consider its moral status.)
Still, in a just system, government does not preemptively punish the innocent on account of the guilty. And the notion that forcing someone to take training will stop them from committing murder is ludicrous on its face. Someone intent on committing mass murder either will just complete the training (and be a more-effective murderer for it), switch to a weapon not covered by the legislation, or obtain a gun illegally.
Arbitrary power
The bill grants arbitrary power to government to deny people’s rights. Before someone takes the required training class, they first must ask their local sheriff for a “firearms safety course eligibility card.” This requires the applicant to submit fingerprints and pay “the sheriff’s processing fee and the fingerprinting processing fee.”
Here is the kicker: “A sheriff . . . may deny or revoke a card if the sheriff has a reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant or cardholder makes it likely the person will present a danger to themself or others if the person holds a firearms safety course eligibility card.”
These terms are totally undefined, a sheriff has complete discretion, and an applicant has no recourse under the legislation to appeal if a sheriff abuses the process. Under this bill, a sheriff literally could say, “I have documentation that the applicant sought a firearms safety course eligibility card, and, in my judgment, this makes the applicant more likely to present a danger to themself or others,” and there’s not a damn thing the applicant can do about it, at least so far as the bill is concerned. I guess someone could sue the sheriff, and obviously if the bill passes people will sue to have the whole thing overturned.
Once someone has sought the card, been fingerprinted, paid the fees, passed the redundant background check (before going through a second background check to buy the gun), and obtained the sheriff’s permission, then the applicant has to take either a hunter education course plus a four-hour “basic firearms safety course,” or else a twelve-hour “extended firearms safety course.”
Try punishing criminals
True, at least arguably, some aspects of the required training might induce some people to take better care of their guns. The training must cover, among other things, “safe storage of firearms and child safety, firearm deaths associated with mental illness,” and “victim awareness and empathy.” But Colorado already has background checks, waiting periods, a 21-year age law, and a safe-storage law. It’s hard to believe the training requirement will make any substantial difference.
If Democrats wanted to require people to watch, say, a half-hour safety video before purchasing a gun, they might have some argument for that, but forcing people to pay for a twelve-hour class obviously is a way to create arbitrary barriers to gun ownership.
Again, imagine what Democrats would say if Republicans wanted to force women seeking an abortion to first pay for a twelve-hour class to learn about fetal empathy, mental illness, the safe handling of birth control, and the like.
The way to reduce violent crime is not to divert scarce police resources to harassing the innocent, nor to make peaceable people pay to jump through a bunch of government hoops. The way to reduce violent crime is to consistently hold people responsible for their threats and acts of violence.
Ari Armstrong writes regularly for Complete Colorado and is the author of books about Ayn Rand, Harry Potter, and classical liberalism. He can be reached at ari at ariarmstrong dot com.
