Colorado’s new law makes semiautomatic rifle purchases subject to a sheriff-issued eligibility card and state-mandated safety classes, creating steep cost and time barriers that critics say function as a permit-to-purchase ban on most modern rifles.

Colorado’s SB 25-003 took effect on August 1 and immediately changed how residents can buy semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines. The law requires an eligibility card from a local sheriff and completion of mandatory safety training before a purchase can proceed. That combination turns a routine sale into a permission process controlled by government officials.

On its face, supporters call this a safety measure, but the practical impact falls heaviest on ordinary citizens. The requirements add expense and time that many people simply cannot absorb. For those struggling to pay bills or juggling multiple jobs, the new hurdles are effectively a denial of the ability to exercise a constitutional right.

Politically, this is how modern gun control works: officials pass layers of requirements instead of an outright ban and call it regulation. The result is the same for everyday Americans who lawfully seek a rifle for sport, defense, or collection. That’s why critics warn the law operates like a ban by another name, privileging those with money and flexible schedules.

The post reads, in part:

https://x.com/RallyRights/status/2082870251239481559?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Nearly every firearm that accepts a detachable magazine is now banned from purchase in Colorado. A handful of historic long guns are exempt. Recoil-operated pistols are exempt. Bolt-action rifles are exempt. Everything else is banned unless the government gives you permission to buy one.

No matter what politicians call it, at the core of every permit-to-purchase scheme is a gun ban. The guns are banned first and foremost. And they stay banned for all but the most privileged.

They are banned for people who can’t afford hundreds of dollars to purchase their rights back. They are banned for people who can’t take multiple days off work to satisfy government requirements. They are banned for people whose local sheriff decides they shouldn’t have a permit based on subjective criteria, personal bias, or arbitrary judgment.

That argument is blunt and alarming on purpose, because the mechanics of the law are blunt and restrictive. A permit-to-purchase system hands discretionary power to local officials, and discretion is where constitutional rights go to die. The more checkpoints you insert between a person and their right, the less meaningful that right becomes.

Opponents also challenge the substance of the training requirement, saying it’s not about real safety skill development. The mandated curriculum emphasizes topics like victim awareness, empathy, and extreme risk protection orders in a way that critics say shifts focus away from practical handling. That raises the question: who benefits when mandated classes displace the hands-on training owners choose?

“The class must include things like victim awareness and empathy, extreme risk protection orders (red flag orders), firearm deaths associated with mental illness, along with basic education on safe handling and safe storage. It could even be argued that this law will lead to less real firearms training, not more, as gun owners will now be forced to spend that same time and money completing a state-mandated course instead of choosing the training that actually fits their needs,” Rally for Our Rights posted.

It’s no surprise critics have labeled this “the most egregious gun law in the country.” The concern is not merely academic. Across the state, instructors and small business owners who teach firearms safety now face the cost and scheduling chaos of a forced curriculum. Those same instructors warn the one-size-fits-all approach will turn training into a bureaucratic task rather than an ongoing commitment to competence.

Alicia Garcia, Director of the Colorado Federal Firearms Licensees Association, has publicly questioned the requirement and how it will be implemented. She and others worry the mandate will make safety training feel like a box to check, not a practice to uphold. Small instructors say they prefer voluntary, targeted training and even suggested state-funded programs as a better option.

Here’s more from that:

On the training side, firearm instructor Alicia Garcia said she and her partner at Concealed Carry Classes of Denver have been trying to rejigger their schedule to account for the normal groups looking for ongoing training or for concealed carry permits and the people who now need these new classes.

And, despite potentially reaping financial benefits from the extra work, she has philosophical problems with the requirement. Garcia has previously sued the state over its three-day waiting period for firearms.

She worried the new class requirement will make people think of firearm training as a box to check, not a part of responsible gun ownership. She would rather the state fund free gun safety and de-escalation training.

The prescribed curriculum also limits instructors and locks them into some “archaic” thinking around gun safety, she said. As one example, she disagreed with the mandated characterization of “accidental discharges.” There are no accidents with guns, Garcia said, only negligence around the tool and its use — a subtle but important reframing to her.

Legal action is already underway, and a lawsuit filed last year targets this exact framework as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argue the law violates the Second Amendment and improperly delegates authority to local officials. Given the stakes and precedent, this dispute could travel to the highest court.

At the end of the day, what this law accomplishes is predictable: it restricts access by raising the price of legal ownership in money, time, and permission. That’s a policy choice with real consequences for citizens who want to defend their homes, enjoy shooting sports, or preserve family heirlooms. The debate now moves from theory to implementation, and the courts will have to decide whether those added barriers are permissible under the Constitution.