Colorado did not become one of the country’s most restrictive states for gun ownership overnight. The transformation happened incrementally, one bill at a time, often under the banner of “common sense” reform, with each new regulation layered atop the last.  

Taken individually, many of these laws were presented to the public as modest or technical adjustments.  

Viewed collectively, they reveal something more significant: the steady construction of a comprehensive regulatory regime chilling nearly every aspect of lawful firearms ownership and commerce. 

That evolution deserves a sober and detailed examination, particularly now that Colorado has entered a new phase of firearms regulation under Senate Bill 25-003, a law enacted last year that fundamentally changes how ordinary Coloradans may acquire some of the most common firearms in America. 

The practical consequences of this shift extend far beyond abstract debates. They affect ordinary people navigating increasingly complex compliance requirements, retailers attempting to remain operational under mounting regulatory burdens, and lawful gun owners trying to understand what is legal from one jurisdiction to the next. 

Slippery slope 

Colorado’s modern firearms regulatory era effectively began in 2013. In the aftermath of the Aurora theater shooting, the Colorado General Assembly enacted two landmark gun-control policies: universal background checks for most private firearm transfers and the prohibition on magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds. 

At the time, proponents argued these were targeted reforms. In practice, they marked the beginning of a much broader transformation. 

The private transfer law fundamentally altered the nature of lawful firearms transactions in Colorado. Prior to its enactment, transfers between friends, neighbors, or family members could occur privately under both federal and state law. House Bill 13-1229 converted those ordinary transactions into regulated events requiring dealer involvement, state-administered background checks, fees, paperwork, and record keeping. 

The magazine ban imposed a different type of burden. Colorado prohibited the sale and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds, despite the fact that magazines exceeding that threshold are standard equipment for common rifles and handguns nationwide. The law created immediate confusion regarding grandfathered ownership, interstate travel, enforcement standards, and the legality of replacement components. 

That confusion persists more than a decade later. 

By itself, a magazine capacity limit might be viewed by some as a narrow restriction. But Colorado did not stop there. 

In 2019, the state enacted its “red flag” law, authorizing courts to issue Extreme Risk Protection Orders permitting temporary firearm confiscation through civil proceedings. Whatever one’s philosophical position on the concept may be, the law introduced an entirely new category of firearms restriction untethered from criminal conviction. 

From a practical perspective, the process placed substantial burdens on respondents. Individuals could suddenly find themselves navigating emergency court proceedings, attorney costs, confiscation of their firearms without a hearing, and the possibility of extended prohibitions. Importantly, all of this occurs on a compressed timeline under civil rather than criminal evidentiary standards. 

The state then expanded those provisions in subsequent years, broadening the categories of individuals and institutions eligible to initiate ERPO petitions. 

The pace accelerated dramatically beginning in 2021. 

That year, Colorado enacted mandatory gun-storage requirements in the home, imposing criminal liability for non-compliance. The law effectively placed the state at the center of decisions historically left to individual households: how firearms are stored, how quickly they may be accessed, and what security measures are sufficient under varying circumstances.  

The same legislative cycle also imposed mandatory lost-and-stolen firearm reporting requirements and, perhaps most significantly, dismantled much of Colorado’s longstanding firearms preemption framework. 

Going local 

That change cannot be overstated. 

For decades, preemption laws existed largely to ensure consistency. A lawful gun owner traveling across Colorado could generally expect state law, not an unpredictable patchwork of municipal ordinances, to govern firearm possession and carry. Once preemption weakened, cities and counties rapidly began adopting their own restrictions. 

Boulder enacted sweeping local prohibitions targeting semi-automatic firearms and magazines. Denver and Boulder counties both passed ordinances banning carry on collectively more than 60,000 acres of mountain parks. The result was precisely the fragmented regulatory environment that preemption laws were originally designed to prevent. 

A lawful firearm owner traveling from Colorado Springs to Denver, then through Boulder County, could now encounter materially different legal standards governing possession, transportation, magazine capacity, or carry rights, often separated only by invisible municipal boundaries. 

By 2023, Colorado had entered an entirely new phase of firearms regulation. 

That year, the legislature imposed a mandatory waiting period for firearm purchases, even after a background check was successfully completed. Again, the practical implications matter more than the rhetoric. For the ordinary consumer, the law means additional trips to retailers, additional scheduling complications, delayed transfers, and reduced flexibility for lawful purchasers. For retailers, it increases storage obligations, inventory complications, staffing demands, and transaction inefficiencies. 

Colorado also raised the minimum purchase age for all firearms to 21 years old, extending the age requirement beyond handguns to long guns commonly used for hunting, sport shooting, and home defense. 

At the same time, lawmakers enacted legislation targeting the firearms industry itself. Colorado repealed substantial protections against certain forms of civil litigation aimed at firearm manufacturers and dealers. This shifted additional legal risk onto lawful businesses already operating within one of the country’s most heavily regulated commercial sectors. 

The state also prohibited the home manufacture of unserialized firearms and components, significantly affecting hobbyists, collectors, and home gunsmiths. 

In 2024, Colorado continued layering operational burdens onto both lawful gun owners and the firearms industry. 

The state expanded concealed handgun permit training requirements, increasing costs and logistical barriers associated with lawful concealed carry. Concealed carry in Colorado had already required permitting, fingerprinting, and training. The revised standards imposed additional mandates regarding instructors, coursework, and live-fire qualifications. Initial applicants must complete a minimum of eight hours of instruction, achieving a passing score on a written exam and in a live-fire exercise. Renewal applicants must complete at least two hours of instruction in a “refresher course,” also including a written exam and a live-fire exercise, every five years.  

Piling on 

Again, the issue is cumulative burden. Each new requirement may appear manageable in isolation.  

Collectively, they significantly increase the time, expense, and complexity associated with exercising lawful gun rights. 

Colorado also imposed new firearm storage mandates for unattended vehicles. Gun owners now face increasingly technical legal standards governing how firearms may be left in vehicles, including requirements involving locking mechanisms, concealment, and container specifications. 

Meanwhile, the state adopted a new 6.5% excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and precursor parts. The practical reality of such a tax is straightforward: It targets lawful firearm transactions, arbitrarily raising costs and punishing the exercise of a constitutional right. The burden falls disproportionately on lower-income Coloradans, first-time gun owners, and working families. 

The legislature also created a state firearms-dealer permitting regime layered atop existing federal licensing requirements. Dealers now face expanding compliance obligations involving inspections, permitting standards, administrative procedures, and regulatory oversight. In an industry already operating under immense federal scrutiny, Colorado added another substantial layer of bureaucracy. 

All of this set the stage for Senate Bill 25-003, which the legislature passed and Gov. Jared Polis signed into law in 2025. 

SB25-003 represents a major escalation in Colorado firearms regulation because it moves beyond regulating transactions and accessories into the regulation of broad categories of commonly owned firearms themselves. 

The law targets semi-automatic firearms capable of accepting detachable magazines, which constitute a major share of the modern American firearms market. These are not obscure or exotic weapons. They include the most commonly purchased rifles, shotguns, and handguns in the United States. 

But the most significant aspect of SB25-003 is not merely the swath of firearms affected. It is the permitting structure the law creates around acquisition. 

Cumulative effect 

The practical consequences are extensive. 

Starting Aug. 1, Coloradans will no longer have the legal ability to walk into their local gun store and purchase an AR-15 (America’s most popular rifle) or a wide array of other commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, including many handguns. 

Instead, prospective buyers will be forced by a complex permitting regime to make an appointment with their sheriff, submit to a background check, and obtain an ID card granting them permission to participate in a 12-hour firearms safety class over the course of at least two days. 

After obtaining an ID card, paying numerous fees, submitting personal information to a state database, securing approval to take the required safety course and completing that course, prospective purchasers of semi-automatic firearms must pass a written exam with a minimum score of 90% to purchase their Second Amendment rights back from the state. 

The law’s required training infrastructure also raises serious implementation questions. The state must ensure sufficient instructor availability, course accessibility, scheduling capacity, administrative processing systems, and compliance oversight. In rural Colorado, access to qualifying instruction may become particularly difficult, and many Coloradans are likely to face significant delays in regaining the freedom to purchase constitutionally protected firearms. 

Another concern is the rather significant operational burden on firearms dealers, who must now ensure compliance with a more complicated matrix of state requirements involving eligibility documentation, firearm classifications, training qualifications, and record-keeping obligations. Compliance failures expose businesses to potential liability and enforcement actions. 

Small retailers are particularly vulnerable in this environment. Large national chains may absorb additional compliance costs through scale. Smaller independent dealers, already operating under extensive state and federal regulation, will face increasing difficulty remaining viable. 

There is also the issue of definitional complexity. 

SB25-003 relies on detailed classifications involving gas-operated systems and other firearm characteristics unfamiliar to the average consumer. Compliance increasingly depends not simply on understanding broad legal principles, but on navigating highly technical statutory definitions. 

That environment creates uncertainty not only for consumers, but for retailers, instructors, attorneys, and law enforcement agencies tasked with enforcing the policy. 

The result is a regulatory framework in which lawful gun ownership increasingly resembles participation in a heavily licensed and bureaucratic activity. 

Colorado’s gun laws now go far beyond governing the criminal misuse of weapons. We are witnessing the death of our Second Amendment rights by 1,000 cuts. 

Each year has brought another layer. Another requirement. Another permitting structure. Another category of conduct is regulated. 

And because the changes accumulated gradually, many Coloradans may not fully appreciate how fundamentally the regulatory environment has shifted. 

A first-time firearm purchaser in Colorado today encounters a vastly different legal landscape than a purchaser did just 15 years ago. Dealers operate in a fundamentally different commercial ecosystem. Concealed carriers navigate more restrictions. Travelers move through a fragmented patchwork of local ordinances. Manufacturers and retailers face growing litigation exposure and compliance burdens. 

Colorado has steadily constructed one of the country’s most convoluted and restrictive regulatory systems governing lawful firearms ownership and commerce. And with SB25-003, the state has entered a new phase: one in which acquiring common firearms depends on navigating a state-administered permitting scheme layered atop an already extensive body of firearms regulation. 

Whether one supports or opposes these policies philosophically, it is difficult to deny their trajectory. Setting aside their profound constitutional implications, their practical effect is to make it ever harder for our state’s law-abiding simply to exercise their right to arms. 

Is that where Colorado really wants to be? 

Huey Laugesen is the executive director for the Colorado State Shooting Association and the youngest-ever board member for the National Rifle Association. Learn more at CSSA.org