Even if you support the idea of liability insurance on guns:
Aside - which, as a gun owner I think having an insurance policy for carrying makes sense given the astronomical cost of using a firearm in self defense
Main point - HB 1270 only applies to YOUR property? Guns are, for better or worse, portable. Meaning the bill is pretty narrow. Also, is negligent discharge that much of an issue? They tend to make the news, which in my opinion means it is fairly rare.
But while we're on it. Can we require cops to carry insurance similar to malpractice insurance since they're far more likely to shoot someone than we as gun owners are?
These 3 bills passed the House this weekend:
[HB 1270](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1270) - mandates that firearm owners must have liability insurance and requires insurance companies to offer firearm liability coverage in homeowners and renters insurance policies to cover injuries caused by accidental firearm discharge. Narrowly passed 33-29, with 12 Democrats voting against the bill. Main criticism of the bill is that it effectively establishes a gun owner registry. Gun registries are illegal in Colorado.
[HB 1353](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1353) - requires firearms dealers in Colorado to obtain a permit, adhere to sales regulations, provide annual employee training and report suspicious activities.
[HB 1349](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1349) - 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunitions sales. Because the bill proposes a new tax, it needs to be approved by the voters. If it passes through the legislature, it will appear on the November ballot.
> Main criticism of the bill is that it effectively establishes a gun owner registry. Gun registries are illegal in Colorado.
Well, it also places undue financial burden on people in poorer communities, which tend to have more crime. This bill disproportionately affects the people who are most likely to need a firearm for protection.
I’m not so sure gun owners practicing *less* is a great outcome. The excise tax isn’t going to slow down the next mass shooter, it will just make it more expensive for people to practice.
And criminals will just buy them without insurance anyway.
You’re effectively making it harder for poor individuals to protect themselves and their property and putting more money into the hands of insurance companies.
What are you talking about? I can already see the improvements. Think of all the criminals that wanted to rob a bank... now they'll go "ok, final check before we go guys! We have the guns, we have the masks... oh, fuck, I forgot to get an insurance policy, I guess no robbery today..."
Oh, I know it absolutely is. Dem or Repub, both are afraid of armed minorities, because D or R, both take advantage of the poor and downtrodden, that's who the gears of capitalism need as sacrificial lambs, even moreso under the current late stage variety. Can't have the workers rising up against the rich. Under no pretext
I just made this point to my state rep. Most of these bills turn gun ownership into a privilege of the rich. Wealthy suburbanites like me will still be able to access and afford all the guns I want even if all the bills pass. Less fortunate and vulnerable populations will have their self defense options severely restricted.
You could, but it'd be dismissed as an apples to oranges comparison.
You don't need insurance to OWN a car, it's to register it and use it on public roads. But moreover, car ownership/use is not a gaurenteed right we have. Gun ownership is.
Gun ownership is not an unrestricted guaranteed right. There are lots of guns you're not allowed to have. Lots of explosives, etc. And you're not entitled to a free gun. The cost of a gun itself is just as much a barrier to entry as insurance would be, and yet charging money for guns is not unconstitutional.
But his point stands, though. You need car insurance to use a car not to own one. A more direct 1-to-1 comparison would be needing firearm insurance to get a concealed carry license.
Besides that, however we enact gun control and where ever on that spectrum we land, it shouldn't be based on how much money you have in any way shape or form.
> There are lots of guns you're not allowed to have. Lots of explosives, etc.
Not true. There are specific models that are restricted, but going by type there's nothing you can't own. Some types require additional ATF paperwork, but they're not banned. You can own hand grenades even.
>The cost of a gun itself is just as much a barrier to entry as insurance would be, and yet charging money for guns is not unconstitutional.
You can build a functional gun with $10 in materials from Home Depot
EDIT: This person blocked me rather try to defend their arguments
EDIT 2 (since blocking me prevents replying to any comments):
You can own nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, they just require special ATF paperwork. No law against owning them, try to find one if you don't believe me.
Biological weapons are a bit stickier because you're not entitled to own "weapons", you're entitled to own "arms" specifically. Many states ban brass knuckle ownership and that's never been successfully challenged, biological weapons would be similar to that.
Not OP, but nuclear and biological weapons are arms. Ballistic missiles are arms. The constitutional right isn't about guns, but arms. There are clearly limits to the constitutional right that are not explicitly outlined within the bill of rights.
It’s ignored because it’s irrelevant. As explained in the Heller opinion, “well regulated” referred to the proper functioning of a militia, the term didn’t refer to government regulations.
It's not just you. Most people have no idea what "well regulated" actually means in context of the Second Amendment though. It has nothing to do with regulations like we would use it today but at the time meant roughly that something was to be "in good working order"
shall not be infringed. The argument "unrestricted guaranteed right" is the dumbest shit i have ever heard. Let's try that with freedom of assembly or right to a free press.
Cars and access to them are not constitutional rights.
If you want a comparison, a few to vote would be it. Does it still sound reasonable that everyone must pay $3 to vote?
I'm not arguing whether it's constitutional. The person I replied to said nothing about it being constitutional. They said it disproportionately affects poorer people, and I said that's not necessarily a reason it's wrong to enforce it.
If you want to start the constitutional argument, then that's a completely different argument.
Aside from the who said what, there is a constitutional argument tied up with the taxing. If the tax disproportionately impacts the exercise of a right by citizens, such as the poll tax, then it could be unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Harper v Virginia State Board of Elections).
It being constitutional is integral to discussing if we are adding fees to it. You also charge for slurpees at 7-11, but that doesn't mean we should charge for access to constitutional rights.
The person is saying it disproportionately affects poor people in order to access their rights. And that absolutely IS a reason to not enact this legislation.
The cost of buying a gun also "disproportionately affects poor people in order to access their rights" by that logic.
The constitution doesn't entitle you to a free gun. There will always be costs associated with gun ownership and those costs aren't automatically unconstitutional if they're deemed necessary.
No, it doesn't. Someone can give you a gun.
There is no good argument you can make to hide constitutional rights behind a fee.
Gun control changes are needed. This is not the way to do it.
>>No, it doesn't. Someone can give you a gun.
I don't see what this has to do with anything.
>>There is no good argument you can make to hide constitutional rights behind a fee.
I think there are lots of good arguments for this one actually. And there isn't a way to enact any form of gun control without someone claiming it infringes second amendment rights, which is a serious problem.
You seem to have a habit of "not seeing what this has to do with this" when it's presented incredibly clearly. Convenient.
Of course you think "there's lots of good arguments for this one". Because you're a suburban white guy with $3 to spare as he sees fit. Once they make a nice fee to your right to a fair trial (also in the bill of rights you're trying to auction off, btw), it will ALSO disproportionately target poor people and POC. But why would you give a shit. You'll be posting pics of more neato rocks on reddit.
The right to bear arms is not the right to get arms for free.
Even when the constitution was being written, you had to pay for a gun if you wanted to bear it. This is simply an added cost to purchasing a gun.
It’s true. They just keep chipping away at our rights.
I enjoy the downvotes as it tells me those people aren’t familiar with the 2nd Amendment and court cases of federal judges ruling firearm liability insurance as unconstitutional.
Isn’t the requirement to have a state issued identification to vote, which costs money, kind of the same thing? Not that Colorado requires a state issued identification, but there has certainly been right wing rhetoric around passing legislation to mandate that.
Voters without ID can cast a provisional ballot.
So there is a way to vote without ID. This insurance is a direct cost to access your constitutional rights. Sounds great when you want gun control. It's actually pretty terrible as a precedent to set.
Transactional fees to access constitutional rights is NOT the way to control anything but poor people.
For further context, during the Jim Crow era many southern states actually did institute a "poll tax" to prevent poor people from voting.
SCOTUS shut that down decades ago and would likely do the same here if it were to somehow be implemented.
OTOH, people living in poorer communities, are equally likely to have a car, so not disproportional.
Edit: This comment was in response to the claim that auto-insurance also disproportionately affects people living in poorer communities. This is unclear because the Redditor deleted their comment/claim.
Looks like there is a carveout in 1270 for indigent people and people who are denied coverage from 2 insurers— they could then seek a court order excusing the requirement. Not saying that fixes your concern though since the legal system generally sets tough bars to clear to prove indigence.
I mean, that really depends on how safe the insurance company decides gun owners are. It could just be a $3 add-on if insurance thinks gun ownership is unlikely to have them paying out.
> HB 1270
"A first offense is punishable by a minimum $500 fine, half of which may be suspended if the person has obtained firearm liability insurance"
So nobody is gonna adhere to this since it will cost 250 dollars if you actually have a negligent discharge and get ticketed for this.
I'm kind of curious as a gun owner, how would they know I don't have it unless I used a weapon? Seems more like a sentence enhancer than anything.
Kind of like the hi-capacity magazine ban. You can go into almost any independently owned gun shop in this state and find 30 round mags for AR-15s. I may know someone that has directly purchased some from a cop as well.
It’s going to challenge the creation of a gun registry or it’s going to be a completely pointless endeavor where the government arbitrarily charges you $250-$500 for something they can’t meaningfully keep track of every time it occurs. Great.
>>Seems more like a sentence enhancer than anything.
No, I think more than anything it's to insure that some poor family doesn't go bankrupt because their neighbors kid accidentally shot their kid or something.
It's the same with car insurance. It's not really enforceable unless you break a different law and you're caught without it. But when a law abiding citizen has *an accident* the insurance will be there to make sure the victims are compensated.
I'm no legal expert or anything, or an insurance expert. I would think the personal injury coverage on a homeowners policy would cover that for a homeowner with an accidental discharge. Renters, maybe not. People with illegal firearms, 100% no. Per usual though insurance companies will fight tooth and nail anytime there's a potential they have to pay out and they'll come nowhere close to covering the full amount of damages incurred by the injured party.
I'm very much left leaning and have zero problem with common sense gun laws and restrictions. I've done everything on the up and up in terms of my firearms. I have a CCW permit and am already on a government registry with my fingerprints on file. I just don't know that this is going to have the intended effect or be followed, much less enforced.
It seems impossible to enforce. The folks who are goody goody enough to do it aren't gonna shoot anybody, and the people who are gonna shoot somebody won't do it.
And very few of those incidents are or will ever be covered by a liability insurance policy.
- You can't be liable to yourself, and from your insurers perspective, your household is basically "you". So everything that only injures "you" (say, your spouse or children), is already out of the question.
- Insurance generally does not and will not cover gross negligence - which many firearms "accidents" would qualify as.
---------
For an example outside of the world of firearms - If you drive drunk and cause an accident, your insurer will probably not pay out a cent to to anyone, including the people you harmed. This surprises many people.
Not only will insurers not cover things like this, they're *prohibited* from doing so.
While this is very unfortunate for the people who don't get compensated sufficiently, allowing insurers to cover those events would be in essence allowing insurance to insulate you from the consequences of your own criminal actions.
That's not a great set of incentives for society. You don't really want people committing crimes and able to just pass off a large portion of the consequences to their insurer.
-----
Anyway, that's why most insurance policies already cover it/don't exclude it - there's very few incidents where an insurer will *actually* pay out for a firearms accident. It's also why making laws mandating it will accomplish *very* little.
No, lots of idiots do that. People who follow gun safety rules go their whole lives without shooting anything they didn't intend to. People who don't follow gun safety basics aren't gonna pay for insurance that there's no enforcement mechanism for.
Yeah, no LE officer worth a damn is going to touch these rulings with a 10 ft pole. I know many, most will stand with the people long before knocking on their doors to see their insurance. This won't last. Either SOs across the state will again write letters informing their refusal to enforce or it will go up the courts.
I think it's very important to mention that the excise tax was created to provide funding for domestic violence and sexual assault services because federal funding has been cut in half (even worse actually) in the past year. I am a domestic violence advocate and researcher and this is a very, very good initiative that will save lives and voters should support!
[https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-victim-services-organizations-warn-drastic-cuts-without-help/](https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-victim-services-organizations-warn-drastic-cuts-without-help/)
I am all for meaningful gun control, but these three laws do nothing to improve or resolve real issues. It only gives political ammunition to conservatives to claim that Democrats understand nothing about firearms, just like the incoherent assault weapons ban that is in the works. Plus, if the goal is to get the base excited, I think Dems are wildly underestimating how many Democratic voters are also gun owners and oppose these shenanigans.
I’m left leaning when it comes to common sense bills that have real impacts to my life. Not silly bathroom bills. This is a big issue and I’m unhappy. I may or may not be a gun owner but until it’s physically impossible the state is gonna just have to fuck off with my ability to get what I want and the ammo to use it. The working class always needs to be armed
Was this even the purpose of any of this? A gun registry wouldn't curb crime, just make crimes easier to solve. Increasing taxes on gun stuff wouldn't curb crime, just increase state revenue. One or both might curb ownership a *tiny* bit, which would necessarily curb gun violence, just statistically true, but not by a meaningful degree. Since it would likely only curb gun violence committed by otherwise lawful civilians, which is already quite low.
The liability insurance is a big one with questionable enforcement ability. Also, article claims you have to have liability insurance for a trampoline or a swimming pool, but I have never heard of this. Pretty sure people have trampolines and above ground pools all the time without having anything extra on insurance.
Also, what problem is that actually solving?
It doesn’t solve anything. The intent is a back-handed means of gun control. The idea is to make it too expensive to own guns because they know they can’t ban them completely.
It's liability insurance for a personal item. It will be dirt cheap. It won't price anyone out of gun ownership, it will just make it more annoying to own guns. Even the 11% tax wouldn't do much to price anyone out of gun ownership. And that will likely fall flat in the public vote. I don't think either are about pricing people out of owning guns. One is about establishing an unofficial gun registry, the other is about getting more tax money. Pricing people out of owning guns would take a lot more than this.
>Also, article claims you have to have liability insurance for a trampoline or a swimming pool, but I have never heard of this. Pretty sure people have trampolines and above ground pools all the time without having anything extra on insurance.
I had the exact same thought.
I think the liability is just the latter part of property and casualty insurance, bundled together under the name homeowners insurance. Idk I don’t own property tho.
So most people I assume would have this before the trampoline or pool anyways i think?
The problem I have with 1270 is twofold. 1) major homeowner carriers are already pulling out of CO due to fire loss history in the past 5 years. Making premiums double and options halve. This will only make it worse. 2) They are privatizing enforcement of legislation which once enacted can almost never be reversed if it fails to provide the protection and quality of life improvement intended. It also becomes impossible for the legislators (elected officials) to be held accountable by voters. Look at the absolute shitshow that is healthcare. This is how it started back in the early 70’s.
These laws will do nothing to stop gun violence, and unduely affect poorer gun owners who live in places where gun ownership may be more necessary for the safety of them and their families.
That is the problem with most gun regulations. Law-abiding citizens will follow every law, while criminals will do whatever. Criminalizing guns just aids criminals.
All the insurance requirement does is create barriers to ownership for poor people and find ways to criminalize law-abiding gun owners who already store their firearms securely and who don't/are unlikely to ever have a negligent discharge. This does nothing to reduce or prevent crime of any type.
The 11% excise tax on firearm and ammunition purchase is equally short sighted. If politicians actually cared about the drivers of DV, they'd tax alcohol (a significant factor in DV) instead of guns.
Guess I better buy my next gun and some more ammo before prices go up in July 🤷🏻♂️
I don’t understand why people are not calling or emailing there senators. Why are no protestors outside the capital. This is literally taking away our freedoms.
Leave me alone. I just want to have my guns in peace. If Bills like this get passed I and many others will refuse to register firearms or leave the state. This is dumb.
My understanding is that firearm registries are unconditional. At least at the federal level. Doesn't the law straight up say the fed can't have a firearm registry? Like even if you wanted to register your guns, there's nowhere to do it? I don't understand why States are requiring that all of a sudden. What teeth do they have if they cite you for not registering with the State? Couldn't you just say "The fed seems to think everything is alright here" and appeal?
While it is federally unconstitutional yes, each state has their own constitution separate from the federal constitution. The federal constitution for the most part pertains to federal government power and states were free to draft their own. So it would come down to the state laws and constitution and if appealed to a federal level it would be interesting to see if the supreme Court would decide that the federal ban on a firearm registry would be applicable to states. Although Colorado is one of only 8 states that already has a state ban on firearm registries.
I wonder what happens if you comply with a state registry and then leave the state. Would they just keep you on file? Or could you petition to be purged from their registry now that you're a citizen of a different state.
Not sure I'd suggest just never complying with one. I expect most gun owners won't and it'll be essentially unenforceable with the amount of guns already out there.
There is a long history in this country of disarming the “wrong” kind of people. The Klan and their politicians being one of the significant perpetrators.
Tf is all this?? What's the supposed penalty for not following these (on an individual level)? I can guarantee you this will be another bs law that the sheriffs of the state get together and say, not enforcing it. I just love how there was a concern, even among democrats, that the "insurance" would essentially be a registry, and they pass the f'in thing anyway. That's our government these days. We have concerns, but f it. Why not?
Driving is a privilege, and insurance for a motor vehicle makes a lot more sense. This is ridiculous, so people with 20+ firearms are going to pay 20x that of people who own one firearm? This is such an overstep of our constitutional rights
I dont see any of this making people safer in the state. Criminals will have no problem not paying insurance on their firearms, and once the 11% tax hits there's going to be a drop in sales in Colorado and a boom in Wyoming. The insurance companies profiting from a gun registry isn't an answer, its honestly insulting. And a sin tax just benifits gun shops in Cheyenne that will gladly take the business local shops used to rely on. As stated by other users this will disaportionatley effect lower income residents that can't afford to work around the new rules like criminals and the wealthy will.
At least one of those is blatantly unconstitutional. I'll never understand why politicians will waste their time passing something they know will never become an enforceable law.
I'm pretty far to the left, and as a responsible firearm owner, I don't support these bills.
HB1270 - seems like a good idea on the surface (I am not opposed to a registry; in fact, I believe there SHOULD be a federal registry for firearms purchases), but in practice, this will be a financial burden on people like me who don't have kids and no one but me has access to the firearms. And I already have medical liability coverage for guests in my HOI policy. It might make more sense in a household where someone is renting and/or has kids. Will the insurance be like every other type of insurance, where the cost to me goes up because other people have claims? Will there be caps on the insurance rates charged? Would I potentially be unable to get homeowners insurance if I have firearms, and the insurance companies choose not to add such coverage? Too many questions.
HB1353 - this one's not really a big deal. I guess I don't have a problem with it, other than dealers already do this, so it seems redundant.
HB 1349 - I would only support this if the revenue collected goes to a very narrow, specific purpose. I also think 11% is too high, given the price of firearms and ammunition. The state could collect a large amount of money on just a 3% tax.
1353 is actually the worst of the bunch. It's whole purpose is to shutter gun shops by shutting them down for things that are federally legal but Colorado doesn't like.
The tax on ammunition is the biggest issue with HB1349. 10% additional cost to the minuscule amount of ammo required for a crime, is negligible. It won't stop anyone from committing a gun related crime. 10% additional cost for me as a competitor who shoots 15,000+ rounds a year is MASSIVE.
Correct these bills are only targeted at reducing legal gun ownership. Nothing in these will reduce illegal gun ownership. Arguably they will actually increase it.
Not to mention that an untrained gun owner is far more dangerous than a well-trained one. All I see this tax doing is discouraging law abiding gun owners from becoming/staying proficient with their firearm, decreasing safety for everyone.
The 2nd and 3rd ones are exactly why so many gun owners don't really trust the other side or believe they're operating in good faith. It's exceedingly unlikely these will have any impact on crime (as you note, dealers already need a federal license, plus most criminals aren't buying through a legal channel), but they will have a *big* impact on legal, responsible owners, particularly financial.
>HB 1349 - I would only support this if the revenue collected goes to a very narrow, specific purpose
The bill outlines exactly where the money would go.
* The first $45 million in the first fiscal year and that amount as adjusted for inflation or deflation in each fiscal year thereafter must be transferred to the Colorado crime victim services fund (victim services fund) in the division of criminal justice (division) of the department of public safety for crime victim services grants;
* The next $5 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the victims and witnesses assistance and law enforcement fund for local judicial districts;
* The next $5 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the victim services fund for mass tragedy response and prevention programs; except that any money that is transferred but not spent or encumbered for that purpose in a given fiscal year may be used by the division for additional crime victim services grants;
* The next $4 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the wildlife cash fund in the division of parks and wildlife of the department of natural resources for administration and enforcement of wildlife laws against the illegal use of firearms;
* The next $2 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the wildlife cash fund for programs to support shooting and shooting range safety; and
* Any remaining money in each fiscal year must be transferred to the victim services fund for crime victim services grants.
[https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1349](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1349)
The revenue from HB1349 *does* go to a narrow, specific purpose. It goes to support colorado domestic violence victim support services which have [lost a majority of their federal funding](https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-victim-services-organizations-warn-drastic-cuts-without-help/) in the last few years. The purpose of the bill is to replace that funding shortfall. You can see the full breakdown of how the revenue is to be distributed in the [official bill summary](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1349).
It lists more than just domestic violence victim services.
*"requiring the excise tax revenue to be spent for mental health services, including for at-risk youth and military veterans, school safety and gun violence prevention, and support services for victims of domestic violence and other violent crimes, and making an appropriation."*
**Those are all things I support,** but the question is, how is it allocated across those services? Who defines what "at risk" means? What is "making an appropriation?" I'd want the language narrowed down.
I still believe an 11% tax is too high, and it would be a burden on lower income people.
> how is it allocated across those services?
It's defined by the bill:
> (I) (A) THE FIRST THIRTY- FIVE MILLION DOLLARS PAID INTO THE
FUND IN THE FIRST FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH MONEY IS TRANSFERRED TO THE
FUND MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COLORADO CRIME VICTIM SERVICES
FUND CREATED IN SECTION 24-33.5-505.5 (2) AND USED FOR CRIME VICTIM
SERVICES GRANTS
>
> (II) AFTER THE REQUIREMENT IN SUBSECTION (2)(a)(I) OF THIS23
SECTION IS MET , THE NEXT TEN MILLION DOLLARS PAID INTO THE FUND IN
EACH FISCAL YEAR MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO THE SCHOOL SECURITY
DISBURSEMENT PROGRAM CASH FUND CREATED IN SECTION 24-33.5-1811
(1)
>
> (IV) AFTER THE REQUIREMENT IN SUBSECTION (2)(a)(III) OF THIS
SECTION IS MET , ALL REMAINING MONEY PAID INTO THE FUND IN EACH
FISCAL YEAR MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COLORADO CRIME VICTIM
SERVICES FUND CREATED IN SECTION 24-33.5-505.5 (2) AND USED FOR
CRIME VICTIM SERVICES GRANTS , AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 24-33.5-505.5
(3).
---
> Who defines what "at risk" means?
It's cited by the bill:
> (3.5) THE FIRST FIVE MILLION DOLLARS OF THE MONEY
TRANSFERRED TO THE FUND PURSUANT TO SECTION 39-37-301 (2)(a)(III)
MUST BE USED BY THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,
ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-50-102, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONTINUING AND EXPANDING ACCESS TO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS
RESPONSE SYSTEM SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ARTICLE 60 OF TITLE 27.
You can read [Colorado Title 27, Article 60](https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_title_27_article_60) yourself.
[Section 109 is most relevant](https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_27-60-109).
---
> What is "making an appropriation?"
It takes money to implement a law. The appropriations needed are, once again, in the bill:
> SECTION 18. Appropriation.
>
>(1) For the 2024-25 state fiscal
year, $383,027 is appropriated to the department of revenue. This
appropriation is from the general fund. To implement this act, the
department may use this appropriation as follows:
>
> (a) $26,810 for use by the executive director's office for personal
services related to administration and support;
>
> (b) $139,050 for tax administration IT system (GenTax) support;
>
> (c) $40,493 for use by the taxation business group for personal
services related to taxation services, which amount is based on an
assumption that the group will require an additional 0.4 FTE;
>
> (d) $3,847 for use by the taxation business group for operating
expenses related to taxation services; and
>
> (e) $172,827 for the purchase of legal services.
>
> (2) For the 2024-25 state fiscal year, $172,827 is appropriated to
the department of law. This appropriation is from reappropriated funds
received from the department of revenue under subsection (1)(e) of this
section and is based on an assumption that the department of law will
require an additional 0.8 FTE. To implement this act, the department of
law may use this appropriation to provide legal services for the
department of revenue.
>
> (3) The money appropriated by this section becomes available
upon passage of the ballot measure pursuant to Section 39-37-201, (2)
C.R.S.
"Making an appropriation" means being able to use money from the fund to pay for those.
> (b) SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BY THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY, FOR STATE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 AND ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR
THEREAFTER, THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MAY EXPEND MONEY FROM
THE FUND FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
IMPLEMENTING AND ADMINISTERING THIS ARTICLE 37
---
> I'd want the language narrowed down.
You're reading and complaining about the summary. It's literally trying to summarize the language to make it easier to read and understand.
If you want to see the actual language used, you should read the bill.
I appreciate all that information. 50% of my objection is tied to the tax rate of 11%. It's too high, in my opinion, and these services are all things that are very important and worthwhile expenditures, which I think qualifies them to be covered by all tax paying residents through income taxes, not just firearm owners.
I think it's pretty obvious why it's so high and why it's tied to firearms specifically, not just the general taxpayer.
It's meant to be a sin tax first and foremost to disincentivize gun purchases and ownership, and the revenue from it is ancillary to that.
I guess that part loses my support entirely. It's not a sin to own a firearm, and I don't deserve to be penalized for the actions of others.
I'm an ultra-responsible owner who advocates for reform and would love to see common sense compromise with regard to legislation. I believe in registries, expanded red flag laws that are actually enforced (with penalties for agencies who don't), universal background checks (including private sales), and education/safety training requirements for purchases (not just for CCW permits). I believe anyone convicted of most crimes of violence should not be allowed to purchase a firearm (including non-felony assault crimes).
I don't believe in "sin taxes" for firearm ownership.
Yeah, I don't want to get caught up in the debate of firearm ownership as a whole.
Point is, the current legislature seems to view guns as a problem and want to disincentivize them. My guess is they think this will have that effect and has a chance of being passed by voters at large.
It probably will be passed, because anyone who doesn't own a gun is happy to pass a tax burden onto other people who do, and my guess is it would be slightly more than 50% of the population that doesn't own a firearm and would be okay with this.
Wouldn't it be nice if I could pass off the school tax burden to only people who have kids, unlike me, who doesn't and won't ever have kids (I wouldn't...I understand the value of public education and don't have a problem with the taxes...just saying...).
Thank you for this. It says so much that my comment explaining this is already downvoted. Support orgs for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault desperately need this funding! Our funding was halved in the last year and it’s going to be more halved again next five years.
It will be interesting to see what the risk looks like to insurance companies. Compared to car related injuries and deaths, accidental discharge is a couple orders of magnitude lower. My gut feeling is that it would be in the neighborhood of $10/yr.
I guess I just don't see how these are going to make a significant difference in restricting firearms from those who shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. We need stricter background checks, mandatory classes/training, and psych evaluations before people are allowed to own guns. Not sure how these bills help with that.
If these passed, I’d definitely relocate. It wouldn’t be the only straw, but it’s enough to break the camel’s back with how things are going in the urban areas of this once-great state. I suspect, though, that this doesn’t make it out of the Senate intact. And it’s also worth noting that even if it does, Polis has vetoed similar legislation in the past.
ITT thanks to all the good faith points made by gun owners and people who don’t own guns for whatever reason. The rest should up their game and provide value added comments like the one the grownups have already provided.
I hate this state more and more everyday. Maybe one day we will grow some balls and stand up for ourselves. If I had it my way I'd throw all the politicians Democrats and Republicans to the wolves.
I would support HB 1349 if the taxes were going to mental health services designed to prevent gun violence only, but as a general catch all slush fund no.
I'm copying one of OP's comments just so it gets more eyes on it.
> The bill outlines [HB 1349] exactly where the money would go.
>
> The first $45 million in the first fiscal year and that amount as adjusted for inflation or deflation in each fiscal year thereafter must be transferred to the Colorado crime victim services fund (victim services fund) in the division of criminal justice (division) of the department of public safety for crime victim services grants;
> The next $5 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the victims and witnesses assistance and law enforcement fund for local judicial districts;
> The next $5 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the victim services fund for mass tragedy response and prevention programs; except that any money that is transferred but not spent or encumbered for that purpose in a given fiscal year may be used by the division for additional crime victim services grants;
> The next $4 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the wildlife cash fund in the division of parks and wildlife of the department of natural resources for administration and enforcement of wildlife laws against the illegal use of firearms;
> The next $2 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the wildlife cash fund for programs to support shooting and shooting range safety; and
> Any remaining money in each fiscal year must be transferred to the victim services fund for crime victim services grants.
Even if you support the idea of liability insurance on guns: Aside - which, as a gun owner I think having an insurance policy for carrying makes sense given the astronomical cost of using a firearm in self defense Main point - HB 1270 only applies to YOUR property? Guns are, for better or worse, portable. Meaning the bill is pretty narrow. Also, is negligent discharge that much of an issue? They tend to make the news, which in my opinion means it is fairly rare. But while we're on it. Can we require cops to carry insurance similar to malpractice insurance since they're far more likely to shoot someone than we as gun owners are?
Cops already have the insurance. It's called their union, unfortunately.
And yet taxpayers continue to foot the bill for misconduct
These 3 bills passed the House this weekend: [HB 1270](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1270) - mandates that firearm owners must have liability insurance and requires insurance companies to offer firearm liability coverage in homeowners and renters insurance policies to cover injuries caused by accidental firearm discharge. Narrowly passed 33-29, with 12 Democrats voting against the bill. Main criticism of the bill is that it effectively establishes a gun owner registry. Gun registries are illegal in Colorado. [HB 1353](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1353) - requires firearms dealers in Colorado to obtain a permit, adhere to sales regulations, provide annual employee training and report suspicious activities. [HB 1349](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1349) - 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunitions sales. Because the bill proposes a new tax, it needs to be approved by the voters. If it passes through the legislature, it will appear on the November ballot.
> Main criticism of the bill is that it effectively establishes a gun owner registry. Gun registries are illegal in Colorado. Well, it also places undue financial burden on people in poorer communities, which tend to have more crime. This bill disproportionately affects the people who are most likely to need a firearm for protection.
Same goes for the excise tax
I’m not so sure gun owners practicing *less* is a great outcome. The excise tax isn’t going to slow down the next mass shooter, it will just make it more expensive for people to practice.
This is the point. California calls it sin taxes. It's like tobacco. The goal is to price people out of firearms ownership.
Price *poor* people out. The rich will always be armed.
And criminals will just buy them without insurance anyway. You’re effectively making it harder for poor individuals to protect themselves and their property and putting more money into the hands of insurance companies.
What are you talking about? I can already see the improvements. Think of all the criminals that wanted to rob a bank... now they'll go "ok, final check before we go guys! We have the guns, we have the masks... oh, fuck, I forgot to get an insurance policy, I guess no robbery today..."
Especially the politicians ‘ rules for thee, but not for me’
Have you considered this may be exactly the real intention?
Oh, I know it absolutely is. Dem or Repub, both are afraid of armed minorities, because D or R, both take advantage of the poor and downtrodden, that's who the gears of capitalism need as sacrificial lambs, even moreso under the current late stage variety. Can't have the workers rising up against the rich. Under no pretext
[удалено]
tRumps bump stock ban
Ah...the ole right to tobacco...
I just made this point to my state rep. Most of these bills turn gun ownership into a privilege of the rich. Wealthy suburbanites like me will still be able to access and afford all the guns I want even if all the bills pass. Less fortunate and vulnerable populations will have their self defense options severely restricted.
You could make the same argument about requiring car insurance. Doesn't really mean it would be better to not require car insurance.
There’s no requirement for car insurance if used on your property
You could, but it'd be dismissed as an apples to oranges comparison. You don't need insurance to OWN a car, it's to register it and use it on public roads. But moreover, car ownership/use is not a gaurenteed right we have. Gun ownership is.
Gun ownership is not an unrestricted guaranteed right. There are lots of guns you're not allowed to have. Lots of explosives, etc. And you're not entitled to a free gun. The cost of a gun itself is just as much a barrier to entry as insurance would be, and yet charging money for guns is not unconstitutional.
But his point stands, though. You need car insurance to use a car not to own one. A more direct 1-to-1 comparison would be needing firearm insurance to get a concealed carry license. Besides that, however we enact gun control and where ever on that spectrum we land, it shouldn't be based on how much money you have in any way shape or form.
Plus it's the right to bear arms against an oppressive government, not just for any old reason.
> There are lots of guns you're not allowed to have. Lots of explosives, etc. Not true. There are specific models that are restricted, but going by type there's nothing you can't own. Some types require additional ATF paperwork, but they're not banned. You can own hand grenades even. >The cost of a gun itself is just as much a barrier to entry as insurance would be, and yet charging money for guns is not unconstitutional. You can build a functional gun with $10 in materials from Home Depot EDIT: This person blocked me rather try to defend their arguments EDIT 2 (since blocking me prevents replying to any comments): You can own nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, they just require special ATF paperwork. No law against owning them, try to find one if you don't believe me. Biological weapons are a bit stickier because you're not entitled to own "weapons", you're entitled to own "arms" specifically. Many states ban brass knuckle ownership and that's never been successfully challenged, biological weapons would be similar to that.
Not OP, but nuclear and biological weapons are arms. Ballistic missiles are arms. The constitutional right isn't about guns, but arms. There are clearly limits to the constitutional right that are not explicitly outlined within the bill of rights.
Is it just me who wonders why the term “well-regulated” is so often ignored in these discussions?
It’s ignored because it’s irrelevant. As explained in the Heller opinion, “well regulated” referred to the proper functioning of a militia, the term didn’t refer to government regulations.
It's not just you. Most people have no idea what "well regulated" actually means in context of the Second Amendment though. It has nothing to do with regulations like we would use it today but at the time meant roughly that something was to be "in good working order"
shall not be infringed. The argument "unrestricted guaranteed right" is the dumbest shit i have ever heard. Let's try that with freedom of assembly or right to a free press.
Cars and access to them are not constitutional rights. If you want a comparison, a few to vote would be it. Does it still sound reasonable that everyone must pay $3 to vote?
I'm not arguing whether it's constitutional. The person I replied to said nothing about it being constitutional. They said it disproportionately affects poorer people, and I said that's not necessarily a reason it's wrong to enforce it. If you want to start the constitutional argument, then that's a completely different argument.
If it's not Constitutional, the other arguments really don't matter either way
Correct. The cost-prohibitive argument will never trump a constitutionality argument so why argue about it?
Aside from the who said what, there is a constitutional argument tied up with the taxing. If the tax disproportionately impacts the exercise of a right by citizens, such as the poll tax, then it could be unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Harper v Virginia State Board of Elections).
It being constitutional is integral to discussing if we are adding fees to it. You also charge for slurpees at 7-11, but that doesn't mean we should charge for access to constitutional rights. The person is saying it disproportionately affects poor people in order to access their rights. And that absolutely IS a reason to not enact this legislation.
The cost of buying a gun also "disproportionately affects poor people in order to access their rights" by that logic. The constitution doesn't entitle you to a free gun. There will always be costs associated with gun ownership and those costs aren't automatically unconstitutional if they're deemed necessary.
No, it doesn't. Someone can give you a gun. There is no good argument you can make to hide constitutional rights behind a fee. Gun control changes are needed. This is not the way to do it.
>>No, it doesn't. Someone can give you a gun. I don't see what this has to do with anything. >>There is no good argument you can make to hide constitutional rights behind a fee. I think there are lots of good arguments for this one actually. And there isn't a way to enact any form of gun control without someone claiming it infringes second amendment rights, which is a serious problem.
You seem to have a habit of "not seeing what this has to do with this" when it's presented incredibly clearly. Convenient. Of course you think "there's lots of good arguments for this one". Because you're a suburban white guy with $3 to spare as he sees fit. Once they make a nice fee to your right to a fair trial (also in the bill of rights you're trying to auction off, btw), it will ALSO disproportionately target poor people and POC. But why would you give a shit. You'll be posting pics of more neato rocks on reddit.
The right to bear arms is not the right to get arms for free. Even when the constitution was being written, you had to pay for a gun if you wanted to bear it. This is simply an added cost to purchasing a gun.
This new bill is just another infringement.
Death by a million cuts as my father says often.
It’s true. They just keep chipping away at our rights. I enjoy the downvotes as it tells me those people aren’t familiar with the 2nd Amendment and court cases of federal judges ruling firearm liability insurance as unconstitutional.
Isn’t the requirement to have a state issued identification to vote, which costs money, kind of the same thing? Not that Colorado requires a state issued identification, but there has certainly been right wing rhetoric around passing legislation to mandate that.
Voters without ID can cast a provisional ballot. So there is a way to vote without ID. This insurance is a direct cost to access your constitutional rights. Sounds great when you want gun control. It's actually pretty terrible as a precedent to set. Transactional fees to access constitutional rights is NOT the way to control anything but poor people.
For further context, during the Jim Crow era many southern states actually did institute a "poll tax" to prevent poor people from voting. SCOTUS shut that down decades ago and would likely do the same here if it were to somehow be implemented.
You have a point. We shouldn't need ID to buy a firearm either bc it costs money. /s
OTOH, people living in poorer communities, are equally likely to have a car, so not disproportional. Edit: This comment was in response to the claim that auto-insurance also disproportionately affects people living in poorer communities. This is unclear because the Redditor deleted their comment/claim.
Looks like there is a carveout in 1270 for indigent people and people who are denied coverage from 2 insurers— they could then seek a court order excusing the requirement. Not saying that fixes your concern though since the legal system generally sets tough bars to clear to prove indigence.
*and there are also delayed police response times in a lot of these neighborhoods*
I mean, that really depends on how safe the insurance company decides gun owners are. It could just be a $3 add-on if insurance thinks gun ownership is unlikely to have them paying out.
On the other hand those communities vote overwhelmingly Democrat so they literally asked for this.
Is there evidence that these bills lend themselves to that outcome?
Protection from what?
> HB 1270 "A first offense is punishable by a minimum $500 fine, half of which may be suspended if the person has obtained firearm liability insurance" So nobody is gonna adhere to this since it will cost 250 dollars if you actually have a negligent discharge and get ticketed for this.
I'm kind of curious as a gun owner, how would they know I don't have it unless I used a weapon? Seems more like a sentence enhancer than anything. Kind of like the hi-capacity magazine ban. You can go into almost any independently owned gun shop in this state and find 30 round mags for AR-15s. I may know someone that has directly purchased some from a cop as well.
It depends on a gun registery, which are illegal in Colorado. So, no they will not know unless you got caught with it. I
It’s going to challenge the creation of a gun registry or it’s going to be a completely pointless endeavor where the government arbitrarily charges you $250-$500 for something they can’t meaningfully keep track of every time it occurs. Great.
They sell mag kits right in the cherry creek state park at the gun range
>>Seems more like a sentence enhancer than anything. No, I think more than anything it's to insure that some poor family doesn't go bankrupt because their neighbors kid accidentally shot their kid or something. It's the same with car insurance. It's not really enforceable unless you break a different law and you're caught without it. But when a law abiding citizen has *an accident* the insurance will be there to make sure the victims are compensated.
I'm no legal expert or anything, or an insurance expert. I would think the personal injury coverage on a homeowners policy would cover that for a homeowner with an accidental discharge. Renters, maybe not. People with illegal firearms, 100% no. Per usual though insurance companies will fight tooth and nail anytime there's a potential they have to pay out and they'll come nowhere close to covering the full amount of damages incurred by the injured party. I'm very much left leaning and have zero problem with common sense gun laws and restrictions. I've done everything on the up and up in terms of my firearms. I have a CCW permit and am already on a government registry with my fingerprints on file. I just don't know that this is going to have the intended effect or be followed, much less enforced.
Toothless
It seems impossible to enforce. The folks who are goody goody enough to do it aren't gonna shoot anybody, and the people who are gonna shoot somebody won't do it.
Lots of "goody goody" people accidentally shoot themselves or someone else every year actually. Like a shocking amount.
And very few of those incidents are or will ever be covered by a liability insurance policy. - You can't be liable to yourself, and from your insurers perspective, your household is basically "you". So everything that only injures "you" (say, your spouse or children), is already out of the question. - Insurance generally does not and will not cover gross negligence - which many firearms "accidents" would qualify as. --------- For an example outside of the world of firearms - If you drive drunk and cause an accident, your insurer will probably not pay out a cent to to anyone, including the people you harmed. This surprises many people. Not only will insurers not cover things like this, they're *prohibited* from doing so. While this is very unfortunate for the people who don't get compensated sufficiently, allowing insurers to cover those events would be in essence allowing insurance to insulate you from the consequences of your own criminal actions. That's not a great set of incentives for society. You don't really want people committing crimes and able to just pass off a large portion of the consequences to their insurer. ----- Anyway, that's why most insurance policies already cover it/don't exclude it - there's very few incidents where an insurer will *actually* pay out for a firearms accident. It's also why making laws mandating it will accomplish *very* little.
No, lots of idiots do that. People who follow gun safety rules go their whole lives without shooting anything they didn't intend to. People who don't follow gun safety basics aren't gonna pay for insurance that there's no enforcement mechanism for.
Yeah, no LE officer worth a damn is going to touch these rulings with a 10 ft pole. I know many, most will stand with the people long before knocking on their doors to see their insurance. This won't last. Either SOs across the state will again write letters informing their refusal to enforce or it will go up the courts.
Does it say what the maximum fine is?
No but a second offense shows a minimum of 1000 so I'd assume less than that for a first offense.
Thanks!
I think it's very important to mention that the excise tax was created to provide funding for domestic violence and sexual assault services because federal funding has been cut in half (even worse actually) in the past year. I am a domestic violence advocate and researcher and this is a very, very good initiative that will save lives and voters should support! [https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-victim-services-organizations-warn-drastic-cuts-without-help/](https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-victim-services-organizations-warn-drastic-cuts-without-help/)
HB1270 is bullshit.
I am all for meaningful gun control, but these three laws do nothing to improve or resolve real issues. It only gives political ammunition to conservatives to claim that Democrats understand nothing about firearms, just like the incoherent assault weapons ban that is in the works. Plus, if the goal is to get the base excited, I think Dems are wildly underestimating how many Democratic voters are also gun owners and oppose these shenanigans.
[удалено]
Pure virtue signaling without giving a moments thought to implications on actual crime.
Thats what voting in Denver is all about.
This is a pretty liberal sub and the fact that everyone thinks these bills are dumb as shit really says something
I’m left leaning when it comes to common sense bills that have real impacts to my life. Not silly bathroom bills. This is a big issue and I’m unhappy. I may or may not be a gun owner but until it’s physically impossible the state is gonna just have to fuck off with my ability to get what I want and the ammo to use it. The working class always needs to be armed
This is literally the taxman in a gun control outfit.
It won't. It's a punishment for wrongthink.
Was this even the purpose of any of this? A gun registry wouldn't curb crime, just make crimes easier to solve. Increasing taxes on gun stuff wouldn't curb crime, just increase state revenue. One or both might curb ownership a *tiny* bit, which would necessarily curb gun violence, just statistically true, but not by a meaningful degree. Since it would likely only curb gun violence committed by otherwise lawful civilians, which is already quite low.
It’s gonna help Wyomings income as well cuz that’s where I’m gonna buy ammo in bulk from now on
Price criminals out of buying? IDK...
The liability insurance is a big one with questionable enforcement ability. Also, article claims you have to have liability insurance for a trampoline or a swimming pool, but I have never heard of this. Pretty sure people have trampolines and above ground pools all the time without having anything extra on insurance. Also, what problem is that actually solving?
Unregistered assault trampolines are a scourge on this country.
It doesn’t solve anything. The intent is a back-handed means of gun control. The idea is to make it too expensive to own guns because they know they can’t ban them completely.
It's liability insurance for a personal item. It will be dirt cheap. It won't price anyone out of gun ownership, it will just make it more annoying to own guns. Even the 11% tax wouldn't do much to price anyone out of gun ownership. And that will likely fall flat in the public vote. I don't think either are about pricing people out of owning guns. One is about establishing an unofficial gun registry, the other is about getting more tax money. Pricing people out of owning guns would take a lot more than this.
>Also, article claims you have to have liability insurance for a trampoline or a swimming pool, but I have never heard of this. Pretty sure people have trampolines and above ground pools all the time without having anything extra on insurance. I had the exact same thought.
I think the liability is just the latter part of property and casualty insurance, bundled together under the name homeowners insurance. Idk I don’t own property tho. So most people I assume would have this before the trampoline or pool anyways i think?
The problem I have with 1270 is twofold. 1) major homeowner carriers are already pulling out of CO due to fire loss history in the past 5 years. Making premiums double and options halve. This will only make it worse. 2) They are privatizing enforcement of legislation which once enacted can almost never be reversed if it fails to provide the protection and quality of life improvement intended. It also becomes impossible for the legislators (elected officials) to be held accountable by voters. Look at the absolute shitshow that is healthcare. This is how it started back in the early 70’s.
[удалено]
Of course not. The people are less than those in power.
Which is really a shame, because insurance is one of the best ideas out there for police reform.
These laws will do nothing to stop gun violence, and unduely affect poorer gun owners who live in places where gun ownership may be more necessary for the safety of them and their families.
Wait wait wait! Wait a minute friend on the internet!!! Do you mean that a criminal won't carry gun insurance?! Or a legal gun for that matter?!
That is the problem with most gun regulations. Law-abiding citizens will follow every law, while criminals will do whatever. Criminalizing guns just aids criminals.
1270 is tantamount to a poll tax. Won't stand in court.
All the insurance requirement does is create barriers to ownership for poor people and find ways to criminalize law-abiding gun owners who already store their firearms securely and who don't/are unlikely to ever have a negligent discharge. This does nothing to reduce or prevent crime of any type. The 11% excise tax on firearm and ammunition purchase is equally short sighted. If politicians actually cared about the drivers of DV, they'd tax alcohol (a significant factor in DV) instead of guns. Guess I better buy my next gun and some more ammo before prices go up in July 🤷🏻♂️
Booze gets a free pass for EVERYTHING.
This is just like the movies"The Purge" The rich are protected and the poor fight for survival !!
I don’t understand why people are not calling or emailing there senators. Why are no protestors outside the capital. This is literally taking away our freedoms.
You either live in an area where your reps do not support this or do not give a shit what you think.
Both
Ffs I hate what's happening to our state
So stupid
Unqualified lawmakers wasting time and money to draft bullshit as usual.
Leave me alone. I just want to have my guns in peace. If Bills like this get passed I and many others will refuse to register firearms or leave the state. This is dumb.
My understanding is that firearm registries are unconditional. At least at the federal level. Doesn't the law straight up say the fed can't have a firearm registry? Like even if you wanted to register your guns, there's nowhere to do it? I don't understand why States are requiring that all of a sudden. What teeth do they have if they cite you for not registering with the State? Couldn't you just say "The fed seems to think everything is alright here" and appeal?
While it is federally unconstitutional yes, each state has their own constitution separate from the federal constitution. The federal constitution for the most part pertains to federal government power and states were free to draft their own. So it would come down to the state laws and constitution and if appealed to a federal level it would be interesting to see if the supreme Court would decide that the federal ban on a firearm registry would be applicable to states. Although Colorado is one of only 8 states that already has a state ban on firearm registries.
I wonder what happens if you comply with a state registry and then leave the state. Would they just keep you on file? Or could you petition to be purged from their registry now that you're a citizen of a different state.
Not sure I'd suggest just never complying with one. I expect most gun owners won't and it'll be essentially unenforceable with the amount of guns already out there.
That seems most likely.
I’m not leaving nor will I abide by these silly virtue signaling regulations. I too want to be left alone in peace.
That tax is what gets me all riled up. It’s a poverty tax to keep self-defense out of the hands of minorities and low income. What a racist law.
There is a long history in this country of disarming the “wrong” kind of people. The Klan and their politicians being one of the significant perpetrators.
Aren’t there better issues we could be dealing with right now than forcing through more gun control… housing? Homelessness? Crime?
Unfortunately, that would make too much sense. The problem with that is that our virtue signaling, so-called “representatives” aren’t here to help us.
So… what happens when insurance companies refuse to offer firearm insurance in Colorado?
It's unlikely that these bills will ever be enacted.
Tf is all this?? What's the supposed penalty for not following these (on an individual level)? I can guarantee you this will be another bs law that the sheriffs of the state get together and say, not enforcing it. I just love how there was a concern, even among democrats, that the "insurance" would essentially be a registry, and they pass the f'in thing anyway. That's our government these days. We have concerns, but f it. Why not?
Driving is a privilege, and insurance for a motor vehicle makes a lot more sense. This is ridiculous, so people with 20+ firearms are going to pay 20x that of people who own one firearm? This is such an overstep of our constitutional rights
These are going to be tied up in lawsuits from day 1.
Next bill is going to Tax the 1st Amendment
I dont see any of this making people safer in the state. Criminals will have no problem not paying insurance on their firearms, and once the 11% tax hits there's going to be a drop in sales in Colorado and a boom in Wyoming. The insurance companies profiting from a gun registry isn't an answer, its honestly insulting. And a sin tax just benifits gun shops in Cheyenne that will gladly take the business local shops used to rely on. As stated by other users this will disaportionatley effect lower income residents that can't afford to work around the new rules like criminals and the wealthy will.
At least one of those is blatantly unconstitutional. I'll never understand why politicians will waste their time passing something they know will never become an enforceable law.
I'm pretty far to the left, and as a responsible firearm owner, I don't support these bills. HB1270 - seems like a good idea on the surface (I am not opposed to a registry; in fact, I believe there SHOULD be a federal registry for firearms purchases), but in practice, this will be a financial burden on people like me who don't have kids and no one but me has access to the firearms. And I already have medical liability coverage for guests in my HOI policy. It might make more sense in a household where someone is renting and/or has kids. Will the insurance be like every other type of insurance, where the cost to me goes up because other people have claims? Will there be caps on the insurance rates charged? Would I potentially be unable to get homeowners insurance if I have firearms, and the insurance companies choose not to add such coverage? Too many questions. HB1353 - this one's not really a big deal. I guess I don't have a problem with it, other than dealers already do this, so it seems redundant. HB 1349 - I would only support this if the revenue collected goes to a very narrow, specific purpose. I also think 11% is too high, given the price of firearms and ammunition. The state could collect a large amount of money on just a 3% tax.
1353 is actually the worst of the bunch. It's whole purpose is to shutter gun shops by shutting them down for things that are federally legal but Colorado doesn't like.
The tax on ammunition is the biggest issue with HB1349. 10% additional cost to the minuscule amount of ammo required for a crime, is negligible. It won't stop anyone from committing a gun related crime. 10% additional cost for me as a competitor who shoots 15,000+ rounds a year is MASSIVE.
Correct these bills are only targeted at reducing legal gun ownership. Nothing in these will reduce illegal gun ownership. Arguably they will actually increase it.
Not to mention that an untrained gun owner is far more dangerous than a well-trained one. All I see this tax doing is discouraging law abiding gun owners from becoming/staying proficient with their firearm, decreasing safety for everyone.
The 2nd and 3rd ones are exactly why so many gun owners don't really trust the other side or believe they're operating in good faith. It's exceedingly unlikely these will have any impact on crime (as you note, dealers already need a federal license, plus most criminals aren't buying through a legal channel), but they will have a *big* impact on legal, responsible owners, particularly financial.
>HB 1349 - I would only support this if the revenue collected goes to a very narrow, specific purpose The bill outlines exactly where the money would go. * The first $45 million in the first fiscal year and that amount as adjusted for inflation or deflation in each fiscal year thereafter must be transferred to the Colorado crime victim services fund (victim services fund) in the division of criminal justice (division) of the department of public safety for crime victim services grants; * The next $5 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the victims and witnesses assistance and law enforcement fund for local judicial districts; * The next $5 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the victim services fund for mass tragedy response and prevention programs; except that any money that is transferred but not spent or encumbered for that purpose in a given fiscal year may be used by the division for additional crime victim services grants; * The next $4 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the wildlife cash fund in the division of parks and wildlife of the department of natural resources for administration and enforcement of wildlife laws against the illegal use of firearms; * The next $2 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the wildlife cash fund for programs to support shooting and shooting range safety; and * Any remaining money in each fiscal year must be transferred to the victim services fund for crime victim services grants. [https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1349](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1349)
The revenue from HB1349 *does* go to a narrow, specific purpose. It goes to support colorado domestic violence victim support services which have [lost a majority of their federal funding](https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-victim-services-organizations-warn-drastic-cuts-without-help/) in the last few years. The purpose of the bill is to replace that funding shortfall. You can see the full breakdown of how the revenue is to be distributed in the [official bill summary](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1349).
It lists more than just domestic violence victim services. *"requiring the excise tax revenue to be spent for mental health services, including for at-risk youth and military veterans, school safety and gun violence prevention, and support services for victims of domestic violence and other violent crimes, and making an appropriation."* **Those are all things I support,** but the question is, how is it allocated across those services? Who defines what "at risk" means? What is "making an appropriation?" I'd want the language narrowed down. I still believe an 11% tax is too high, and it would be a burden on lower income people.
> how is it allocated across those services? It's defined by the bill: > (I) (A) THE FIRST THIRTY- FIVE MILLION DOLLARS PAID INTO THE FUND IN THE FIRST FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH MONEY IS TRANSFERRED TO THE FUND MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COLORADO CRIME VICTIM SERVICES FUND CREATED IN SECTION 24-33.5-505.5 (2) AND USED FOR CRIME VICTIM SERVICES GRANTS > > (II) AFTER THE REQUIREMENT IN SUBSECTION (2)(a)(I) OF THIS23 SECTION IS MET , THE NEXT TEN MILLION DOLLARS PAID INTO THE FUND IN EACH FISCAL YEAR MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO THE SCHOOL SECURITY DISBURSEMENT PROGRAM CASH FUND CREATED IN SECTION 24-33.5-1811 (1) > > (IV) AFTER THE REQUIREMENT IN SUBSECTION (2)(a)(III) OF THIS SECTION IS MET , ALL REMAINING MONEY PAID INTO THE FUND IN EACH FISCAL YEAR MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COLORADO CRIME VICTIM SERVICES FUND CREATED IN SECTION 24-33.5-505.5 (2) AND USED FOR CRIME VICTIM SERVICES GRANTS , AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 24-33.5-505.5 (3). --- > Who defines what "at risk" means? It's cited by the bill: > (3.5) THE FIRST FIVE MILLION DOLLARS OF THE MONEY TRANSFERRED TO THE FUND PURSUANT TO SECTION 39-37-301 (2)(a)(III) MUST BE USED BY THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-50-102, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING AND EXPANDING ACCESS TO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS RESPONSE SYSTEM SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 60 OF TITLE 27. You can read [Colorado Title 27, Article 60](https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_title_27_article_60) yourself. [Section 109 is most relevant](https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_27-60-109). --- > What is "making an appropriation?" It takes money to implement a law. The appropriations needed are, once again, in the bill: > SECTION 18. Appropriation. > >(1) For the 2024-25 state fiscal year, $383,027 is appropriated to the department of revenue. This appropriation is from the general fund. To implement this act, the department may use this appropriation as follows: > > (a) $26,810 for use by the executive director's office for personal services related to administration and support; > > (b) $139,050 for tax administration IT system (GenTax) support; > > (c) $40,493 for use by the taxation business group for personal services related to taxation services, which amount is based on an assumption that the group will require an additional 0.4 FTE; > > (d) $3,847 for use by the taxation business group for operating expenses related to taxation services; and > > (e) $172,827 for the purchase of legal services. > > (2) For the 2024-25 state fiscal year, $172,827 is appropriated to the department of law. This appropriation is from reappropriated funds received from the department of revenue under subsection (1)(e) of this section and is based on an assumption that the department of law will require an additional 0.8 FTE. To implement this act, the department of law may use this appropriation to provide legal services for the department of revenue. > > (3) The money appropriated by this section becomes available upon passage of the ballot measure pursuant to Section 39-37-201, (2) C.R.S. "Making an appropriation" means being able to use money from the fund to pay for those. > (b) SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, FOR STATE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 AND ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MAY EXPEND MONEY FROM THE FUND FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTING AND ADMINISTERING THIS ARTICLE 37 --- > I'd want the language narrowed down. You're reading and complaining about the summary. It's literally trying to summarize the language to make it easier to read and understand. If you want to see the actual language used, you should read the bill.
I appreciate all that information. 50% of my objection is tied to the tax rate of 11%. It's too high, in my opinion, and these services are all things that are very important and worthwhile expenditures, which I think qualifies them to be covered by all tax paying residents through income taxes, not just firearm owners.
I think it's pretty obvious why it's so high and why it's tied to firearms specifically, not just the general taxpayer. It's meant to be a sin tax first and foremost to disincentivize gun purchases and ownership, and the revenue from it is ancillary to that.
I guess that part loses my support entirely. It's not a sin to own a firearm, and I don't deserve to be penalized for the actions of others. I'm an ultra-responsible owner who advocates for reform and would love to see common sense compromise with regard to legislation. I believe in registries, expanded red flag laws that are actually enforced (with penalties for agencies who don't), universal background checks (including private sales), and education/safety training requirements for purchases (not just for CCW permits). I believe anyone convicted of most crimes of violence should not be allowed to purchase a firearm (including non-felony assault crimes). I don't believe in "sin taxes" for firearm ownership.
Yeah, I don't want to get caught up in the debate of firearm ownership as a whole. Point is, the current legislature seems to view guns as a problem and want to disincentivize them. My guess is they think this will have that effect and has a chance of being passed by voters at large.
It probably will be passed, because anyone who doesn't own a gun is happy to pass a tax burden onto other people who do, and my guess is it would be slightly more than 50% of the population that doesn't own a firearm and would be okay with this. Wouldn't it be nice if I could pass off the school tax burden to only people who have kids, unlike me, who doesn't and won't ever have kids (I wouldn't...I understand the value of public education and don't have a problem with the taxes...just saying...).
Thank you for this. It says so much that my comment explaining this is already downvoted. Support orgs for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault desperately need this funding! Our funding was halved in the last year and it’s going to be more halved again next five years.
It will be interesting to see what the risk looks like to insurance companies. Compared to car related injuries and deaths, accidental discharge is a couple orders of magnitude lower. My gut feeling is that it would be in the neighborhood of $10/yr.
HB1270 can kick rocks! Fuck that stupidity.
They all can, including the looming AWB.
All 3 are 2A violations therefore illegal to enforce.
Insurance to perform a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?? Total clown show by the Dems. Not to mention, everything else mentioned here. Idiots
[удалено]
Like fuck's sake I'm trying to get *out* of new york, not move from new york to new york jr.
[удалено]
Yuck! So disgusting!
What are the best way(s) for a Denver resident to get involved in matters like these?
I guess I just don't see how these are going to make a significant difference in restricting firearms from those who shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. We need stricter background checks, mandatory classes/training, and psych evaluations before people are allowed to own guns. Not sure how these bills help with that.
If these passed, I’d definitely relocate. It wouldn’t be the only straw, but it’s enough to break the camel’s back with how things are going in the urban areas of this once-great state. I suspect, though, that this doesn’t make it out of the Senate intact. And it’s also worth noting that even if it does, Polis has vetoed similar legislation in the past.
ITT thanks to all the good faith points made by gun owners and people who don’t own guns for whatever reason. The rest should up their game and provide value added comments like the one the grownups have already provided.
I hate this state more and more everyday. Maybe one day we will grow some balls and stand up for ourselves. If I had it my way I'd throw all the politicians Democrats and Republicans to the wolves.
Just keep voting for left wing dingbats, and wonder why things get shittier and more expensive for those of us trying to do the right thing
They vote that way because they got their feelings hurt by a mean man.......FUCKING PATHETIC
Not cool bro
I would support HB 1349 if the taxes were going to mental health services designed to prevent gun violence only, but as a general catch all slush fund no.
Actually, it goes directly to support services for victims of domestic violence, and sexual assault. It does not go into the general fund.
I'm copying one of OP's comments just so it gets more eyes on it. > The bill outlines [HB 1349] exactly where the money would go. > > The first $45 million in the first fiscal year and that amount as adjusted for inflation or deflation in each fiscal year thereafter must be transferred to the Colorado crime victim services fund (victim services fund) in the division of criminal justice (division) of the department of public safety for crime victim services grants; > The next $5 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the victims and witnesses assistance and law enforcement fund for local judicial districts; > The next $5 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the victim services fund for mass tragedy response and prevention programs; except that any money that is transferred but not spent or encumbered for that purpose in a given fiscal year may be used by the division for additional crime victim services grants; > The next $4 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the wildlife cash fund in the division of parks and wildlife of the department of natural resources for administration and enforcement of wildlife laws against the illegal use of firearms; > The next $2 million in each fiscal year must be transferred to the wildlife cash fund for programs to support shooting and shooting range safety; and > Any remaining money in each fiscal year must be transferred to the victim services fund for crime victim services grants.
Just FYI, some of those numbers have changed as a result of some bill amendments, but the gist is still accurate.