Colorado flood victims have enough on their minds right now, and the last thing they need to worry about is being turned into a criminal simply because of a ridiculous gun law that was passed in the state earlier this year.
But because of HB1229, flood victims who had had to let their friends and family hold onto their firearms while they work on the cleanup and rebuilding of their homes are technically breaking the law.
The law mandates that any transfer of a firearm for more than 72 hours include a background check and it criminalizes the private transfer of any firearm. But this latest development proves the point for gun rights advocates that this law is overreaching and only serves as an extra burden on law abiding citizens.
At least one Colorado state senator is now pushing for the suspension of the new law. Colorado State Sen. Greg Brophy is calling on the current governor, John Hickenlooper, to issue an executive order to override the gun law.
Brophy, who is running for Colorado governor next year, said that gun owners who are flood victims should not be penalized for safely storing their firearms with friends and family while they get their lives back together.
“Because of the extreme nature of (HB) 1229, the same Coloradan that was a good neighbor by helping store furniture, clothes and other house necessities became a criminal by storing his neighbor’s gun without a background check. Many people will have their home items in storage for months,” he said.
So a law that was advertised to make everyone safer is really just turning flood victims into criminals and law abiding gun owners into law breakers.
Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck has said he will not enforce the law in cases where temporary gun storage resulted from the flood, but more people are pushing for this to be a statewide case, in which the law is rendered null and void.
Buck said in a press release that he will not prosecute anyone who has to transfer their firearms to a friend or family member because of the hardships of the flooding.
“It would be unconscionable to require those affected by the floodwaters to obtain a background check… And it would be equally unconscionable to prosecute them under these circumstances. This is an example of the consequences of laws that are overbroad and not well thought out and illustrates how such laws can harm residents’ rights,” Buck said.