By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Eager to get around the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in the Bruen case upholding the right to bear arms, lawmakers in several states created so-called “sensitive places” to restrict where licensed gun owners could carry, and now Democrats in Colorado are trying the same ploy, according to Reason.
State Senators Sonya Jaquez Lewis of Longmont and Chris Kolker of Centennial have introduced Senate Bill 24-131, a nine-page measure to essentially make legal concealed carry as restrictive as possible. The Centennial State already has a “shall issue” concealed carry law, but the Reason article explains how “sensitive places” bills are designed to make it difficult.
A synopsis of the bill reads, “The bill prohibits a person from carrying a firearm, both openly and concealed, in public locations specified in the bill. A violation is an unclassified misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum $250 fine; except that a second or subsequent offense is punishable by a maximum $1,000 fine. The bill includes exceptions for law enforcement officers, members of the United States armed forces or Colorado National Guard, security personnel, firearms stored in locked containers in vehicles, and possession for instruction in conjunction with an organized class, extracurricular activity, or athletic team authorized by a college or university.
“Existing law prohibits openly carrying a firearm within any polling location or central count facility,” the summary continues, “or within 100 feet of a ballot drop box or any building in which a polling location or central count facility is located, while an election or any related ongoing election administration activity is in progress. The bill prohibits carrying a firearm in any manner at those locations.”
Reason also notes in its lengthy report about the legislation that David Kopel, a widely-recognized firearms policy expert, author and historian, offered detailed written opposition to SB 24-131. Chief among his criticisms is the revelation that the overwhelming majority of “mass shootings” occur in so-called “gun-free zones.” His testimony is posted online by Complete Colorado.
In a footnote, Kopel provides support for his argument from a Washington Post fact-checker:
“A Washington Post fact-check examined claims about mass public shootings in ‘gun-free zones.’ According to the Post, “we found that about 86 percent of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones from 2009 to 2016.”[1]
“Because 5 out of 6 mass public shooters prefer ‘gun-free zones,’ it is almost inevitable that the drastic expansion of ‘gun-free zones’ in SB24-131 will result in more mass public shootings.
“[1] Meg Kelly, Do 98 percent of mass public shootings happen in gun-free zones?, Washington Post, May 10, 2018. As the article explains, the 86% figure is based on the following definitions: a ‘mass shooting’ involves four or people, other than the attacker, being killed; ‘public’ does not include private residences; shootings that are part of drug or gang activity or some other crime (e.g., a robbery) are excluded; “gun-free zone” means a place where ordinary citizens are forbidden to carry.”
Kopel’s written testimony in Complete Colorado offers several devastating bullet points:
- Five out of six mass shooters choose “gun-free zones,” and the bill creates many more of them.
- Even the leading anti-gun expert witness nationally states that the 2003 Concealed Carry Act reduced violent crime in Colorado by 1.2%. The bill creates many safe zones where criminals can attack without risk of armed citizens being able to fight back.
- The bill is ridiculously overbroad. For example, it bans licensed carry from the entire parking lot of a shopping mall, if the mall contains one small branch bank.
- The bill does not advance public safety but instead is an expression of culture war malice.
- Coloradans with licensed carry permits are far more law-abiding than the general population. They are 39 times less likely to be arrested than someone without a carry permit.
- Data from other states are similar: persons with a license to carry are very highly law-abiding compared to persons without permits.
- The Violence Policy Center’s claims against licensed carry are bogus.
Reason magazine’s Jacob Sullum notes, “Since Democrats frequently criticize Republicans who oppose stricter gun control for offering nothing but ‘thoughts and prayers’ after mass shootings, the implication is that S.B. 24-131 would help prevent such crimes. But that expectation is highly implausible, since mass murderers are unlikely to be deterred by laws that notionally create gun-free zones. School shootings, for example, happen in settings where firearms already are prohibited under state and federal law.”
