Tag: gun-control

News

Colorado’s New Tax: A Costly Infringement on Second Amendment Rights

Mark Schneider

Starting on April 1, 2025, Colorado will implement a 6.5% excise tax on firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition. While lawmakers are touting this as a measure to generate funding for crime victim services, mental health initiatives, and school safety programs, this new tax is raising serious concerns about its constitutionality and impact on gun owners’ rights.

Approved by voters through Proposition KK in November 2024, the tax aims to raise an estimated $39 million annually. However, critics argue that it is a direct infringement on Second Amendment rights. The measure places a financial burden on law-abiding gun owners, making it more expensive to exercise a constitutionally protected right. By taxing firearms and ammunition, the state is essentially penalizing citizens for owning and using guns legally.

Supporters of the Second Amendment contend that this is a backdoor attempt to limit access to firearms and ammo by making them more expensive, especially for lower-income individuals who rely on firearms for personal protection. Gun control advocates may claim that the money will fund public safety programs, but many see this as a disguised attack on gun rights that unfairly targets those who are simply exercising their legal rights.

Moreover, this new tax could have a chilling effect on citizens’ ability to protect themselves, particularly for those in high-crime areas or in professions where carrying a firearm is necessary for personal safety. The idea that gun ownership should come with an added financial burden is, at its core, unconstitutional. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, and imposing taxes or fees that disproportionately affect gun owners and shooters seems to go against the very principles this country was founded on.

As with any tax, the financial burden will likely fall heaviest on those who need it least—law-abiding gun owners who are already required to undergo training, background checks, and follow strict regulations. In effect, this tax could price out responsible gun owners while doing little to curb criminal activity. After all, criminals don’t purchase their weapons legally—they acquire them on the black market, untouched by such taxes.

The Colorado Firearms Excise Tax is yet another step in the long line of government overreach, chipping away at Second Amendment protections. For those who truly believe in the rights of American citizens to bear arms, this tax is not just an inconvenience, but a clear violation of the very freedoms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

It’s time for lawmakers to recognize that the right to bear arms should not come with a hefty price tag—the cost of freedom should not be measured in taxes. If the government is truly interested in reducing crime and making communities safer, they should focus on real solutions, not on penalizing gun owners for exercising their rights. This new tax is not only a burden but also a direct assault on constitutional freedoms.

News

Colorado Senate Bill 25-003: New Permit-to-Purchase Requirement for Semiautomatic Firearms

Mark Schneider

Colorado is set to implement a significant change in firearm regulations with the passage of Senate Bill 25-003, which introduces a “permit-to-purchase” system for certain semiautomatic firearms. This bill has passed both the Senate and the House of Representatives and is now awaiting the governor’s signature. If signed into law, the new requirements will take effect on August 1, 2026.

Key Provisions of Senate Bill 25-003

  1. Permit-to-Purchase System:
    • Individuals seeking to purchase specific semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines must first obtain a permit-to-purchase.
  2. Vetting by Local Sheriff:
    • Similar to the process for obtaining a concealed carry permit, applicants must be vetted by their local sheriff before receiving a purchase permit.
    • The sheriff has discretion to deny a permit if they determine the applicant’s past behavior suggests they may present a danger to themselves or others.
  3. Firearm Safety Training Requirement:
    • Applicants must complete a firearm safety course, which could include a 12-hour training program or a combination of a hunter safety course with additional training.
  4. Background Check:
    • A background check will be mandatory for all permit applicants as part of the vetting process.
  5. Scope of Affected Firearms:
    • The law targets gas-powered semiautomatic firearms that accept detachable magazines.
    • It does not apply to firearms already owned by Coloradans.
    • Exceptions exist for certain semiautomatic rifles commonly used for hunting and for firearms with fixed magazines.
  6. Permit Validity and Renewal:
    • The permit will be valid for five years and may be renewed upon meeting the necessary criteria.

Implications for Gun Owners and Sellers

This legislation does not ban the sale or possession of these firearms outright but introduces additional regulatory steps before purchase. Gun owners will need to ensure compliance with the new permit system before making any purchases after the law takes effect.

Firearm dealers will also need to verify that buyers have a valid permit-to-purchase before completing transactions for affected firearms.

What Happens Next?

With the bill now heading to the governor’s desk, it is widely expected to be signed into law. If enacted, the Colorado permit-to-purchase system will be one of the more restrictive measures on semiautomatic firearm sales in the country.

For those affected, early preparation will be key. Prospective buyers should begin familiarizing themselves with the permitting process, and firearm safety instructors may see an increase in demand for qualifying training courses.

We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as the implementation date approaches.

News

Judge VanDyke Stands Strong for Second Amendment Rights

Mark Schneider

In a courageous and unapologetic defense of the Second Amendment, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently posted a video in which he gave a powerful demonstration on firearms. In this video, VanDyke disassembled several handguns from his office to shed light on a vital issue—the flawed California ban on large-capacity magazines—and to help educate the public and his colleagues on the importance of understanding firearms before making life-altering legal decisions.

Judge VanDyke’s message was clear: In the case of Duncan vs. Bonta, the court’s ruling to uphold California’s ban was based on a lack of real understanding of firearms. He felt it was necessary to step up and show that those making decisions on gun laws should have firsthand knowledge of the items they seek to regulate. His decision to post the video was not an act of rebellion, but an effort to foster greater transparency, knowledge, and responsibility when it comes to critical constitutional matters.

While his colleagues quickly criticized the video, calling it “improper,” VanDyke’s action can be seen as an attempt to bridge a gap—ensuring that judges and lawmakers involved in gun law cases have a genuine understanding of firearms and their function. How can anyone reasonably make decisions on matters like magazine capacity if they lack even the basic understanding of how these tools work?

The ruling in this case, which upheld California’s ban, ignores a fundamental principle: California’s magazine restrictions infringe on Americans’ rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. VanDyke’s dissenting stance serves as a reminder that laws should protect individual rights, not undermine them, and that the legal system must account for real-world implications when deciding on constitutional freedoms.

Attorney General Rob Bonta, who celebrated the ruling, claimed that the ban is essential to combat gun violence. However, many argue that such laws do little to deter criminals and only limit the rights of law-abiding citizens who wish to protect themselves. The Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege, and as such, it should not be subjected to arbitrary restrictions.

VanDyke’s actions, though controversial to some, stand as a powerful reminder that judges must truly understand the issues at hand, especially when they relate to fundamental constitutional rights like those in the Second Amendment. It is refreshing to see a judge stand up and demand a better understanding of firearms before making rulings that affect the very rights that define this country.