Colorado House Republicans sent a letter this week to request immediate intervention from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and her office’s new 2nd Amendment Task Force to oppose the state’s sweeping new gun-control law.
But legal experts told The Denver Post that Bondi doesn’t have authority to nullify Senate Bill 3. Though the Justice Department could later file a lawsuit challenging it, the feds couldn’t unilaterally declare the measure unconstitutional in any binding manner — meaning the Republican state lawmakers’ request is unlikely to lead to its reversal anytime soon, if at all.
One expert, constitutional law professor Doug Spencer at the University of Colorado Law School, said the letter, sent Monday, mostly amounted to political posturing. The state House’s top Democrat, Speaker Julie McCluskie, called it a “cowardly” attempt to challenge legislation passed by a majority of lawmakers.
But the Republican members see their letter as an appeal to uphold gun rights as they and other opponents try to thwart the most restrictive gun-control law passed in the state. It will require people to pass a background check and a training course before they can purchase certain semiautomatic weapons, like the AR-15.
“Because of the unconstitutionality as well as the imminent risk posed to Coloradans by eliminating their right to firearms as a means for self-defense, it is our belief that the passage of SB25-003 constitutes an emergency for our state and calls for federal intervention,” House Republicans wrote to Bondi.
SB-3 — which was signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis last week — doesn’t go into effect until August 2026, further pushing out potential legal avenues to block it.
The bill was backed by most of the legislature’s Democratic lawmakers, who are at near-supermajority strength in the Capitol, in response to the state’s steady drumbeat of mass shootings and to improve enforcement of an existing ban on high-capacity magazines.
Republicans opposed the measure but lacked the numbers to stop it, prompting their turn to President Donald Trump’s administration.
In their letter, they said they wanted the Justice Department’s 2nd Amendment Task Force to review the bill. Bondi established the task force last week to “combine department-wide policy and litigation resources to advance President Trump’s pro-gun agenda and protect gun owners from overreach.”
It’s unclear if Bondi or her task force will take up the Republican lawmakers’ request. A Justice Department spokeswoman said Wednesday that the agency had no record that it had received the letter yet. A House Republican spokeswoman said it was sent to a staff member in Bondi’s office.
SB-3 does not apply to most handguns or shotguns, nor does it prohibit the possession of any weapon. Several other states have similar permitting requirements, and the U.S. Supreme Court has thus far not ruled them unconstitutional.
The letter comes amid the Trump administration’s unprecedented efforts to withhold funding and pursue legal action against cities, states and universities that run afoul of its agenda. That’s sparked a mix of fear, defiance and confusion in Colorado as legislators and policymakers simultaneously seek to respond to Trump’s efforts while defending crucial federal funding.
If the Justice Department examines the law and believes it to be unconstitutional, that would do little to hamper that law’s enforceability, two legal experts told The Post.
“The Department of Justice doesn’t get to decide the constitutionality,” said Spencer, from the CU Law School. “As of today, our Supreme Court sticks to its longstanding precedent that the Supreme Court gets to decide, ultimately, the constitutionality of legislatively enacted bills. This is as fundamental as it could be.”
Still, he continued, “there could be implications” from an agency review.
The DOJ could file a lawsuit on its own against the state, said Spencer and Jason Dunn, the former U.S. attorney for Colorado during Trump’s first administration. It could also issue a report saying it believes the law is unconstitutional or — should someone else sue to block it — the agency could submit a statement of interest supporting the litigation.
The Justice Department recently took a similar step in support of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who’s incarcerated for violating election security laws.
A DOJ statement that the law is unconstitutional and its filing of a statement of interest could add heft to a lawsuit challenging it, Spencer said. Those documents could also provide political cover for district attorneys or county sheriffs who don’t want to enforce the law, he said.
County sheriffs play a key part in SB-3: They are charged with providing the background checks and clearing people to purchase the regulated firearms that fall under its restrictions. Three sheriffs — representing Weld, Douglas and Teller counties — were present for House Republicans’ press conference Wednesday morning.
Afterward, McCluskie criticized Republicans’ efforts to draw the nation’s top law enforcement officer into intervening.
“Having to get help from someone outside of this state because you’re not willing to deal directly with the legislation that has been passed by the majority of the General Assembly that was elected by the people of this state, (that) feels like a cowardly approach,” she said. “If there’s a question about this legislation and its constitutionality, great: Let’s talk to the courts about that. That’s the appropriate next step.”
Asked why Republicans were seeking an agency — rather than judicial — review of the law, Minority Leader Rose Pugliese said the lawmakers had wanted to ask the Colorado Supreme Court to determine whether SB-3 was constitutional before it passed, but their request was blocked by Senate Democrats.
Senate President James Coleman, a Denver Democrat, denied that allegation Wednesday.
After House Republicans’ press conference, Pugliese and other Republican lawmakers pushed back against a McCluskie-backed bill that would set aside $4 million to defend Colorado against federal lawsuits and investigations or further losses of federal funding. The bill passed a final House vote and now goes to the Senate.
Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.
Originally Published:
