Defending the Second Amendment While the Legislature Expands Government Seizure Power

This week at the Colorado General Assembly, I opposed the expansion of Colorado’s red flag firearm seizure authority because it represents another step away from the constitutional structure that protects the rights of every Coloradan.

SB26-004 has now passed the legislature and is headed to Jared Polis. The bill expands who may petition courts to remove firearms from citizens who have not been convicted of a crime. It adds institutional actors such as certain health care facilities, behavioral health treatment facilities, K-12 schools, and colleges and universities. That change increases the number of pathways through which the state can suspend a constitutional right based on allegation rather than adjudication.

That is not a technical adjustment. It is an erosion of due process protections.

The Second Amendment exists to limit government authority. It does not exist to make firearm ownership conditional on whether institutions believe a citizen should retain that right. When the legislature expands seizure authority before conviction, it shifts the presumption away from liberty and toward administrative control. That reverses the relationship between citizen and government that the Constitution was designed to preserve.

During debate in the well, I raised another important point. Under the current approach of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, the office has publicly been described as having carried out zero red flag confiscations during this period. That matters. It demonstrates that local law enforcement leadership in one of the fastest-growing counties in Colorado has not relied on this authority as a routine public safety tool. Yet instead of examining whether expansion is justified, the legislature expanded the authority anyway.

Public safety policy should be evidence-driven. This expansion was not.

I also opposed three additional firearm bills debated this week because they reflect the same governing instinct. HB26-1126 increases regulatory pressure on firearms dealers. SB26-043 expands restrictions related to firearm barrel components. HB26-1144 targets the regulation of certain 3D-printed firearm activity. Each bill differs in mechanism, but each moves authority away from citizens and toward the state.

Rights rarely disappear all at once. They weaken through incremental change. They narrow through exceptions. They become conditional through procedure. Over time, a constitutional guarantee becomes something closer to a managed privilege. That is the trajectory I see developing in Colorado law.

During the floor debate, inaccurate insinuations were raised by the Representative from Highlands Ranch, connecting the tragic death of Douglas County Sheriff's Deputy Zackari Spurlock Parrish III to arguments supporting further expansion of seizure authority. There is no public evidence establishing a family relationship between Deputy Parrish and former Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock. Serious constitutional questions should never be decided through confusion or emotional implication. They should be addressed with facts and discipline.

What concerns me most is not only the substance of these bills. It is the process behind them.

The majority can pass major constitutional policy changes on party-line votes with little incentive for restraint and little requirement to engage seriously with due process concerns. A legislature should not treat the Bill of Rights as a flexible policy framework. It is the supreme law that binds and restricts us.

Public safety matters deeply to me. But safety does not require weakening constitutional protections. It does not require expanding seizure authority where local experience shows limited reliance on existing tools. And it does not require shifting power away from citizens and toward institutions without a clear justification.

I will continue to defend the Second Amendment. I will continue to defend due process. And I will continue to insist that Colorado law respect the constitutional limits placed on government authority.