admin
Colorado just shoved a new law called SB25-003 into the books, and now a growing number of county sheriffs are saying, “Nope.” The law creates a state-run training certificate system for buying certain semiautomatic firearms. That sounds important until you read the fine print and realize counties are supposed to run the program, pay for it, and act like cheerleaders for a law many sheriffs think is unconstitutional.
Sheriffs push back — Montezuma leads the way
Montezuma County Sheriff Steven Nowlin didn’t wring his hands. He announced his office will not participate in managing or issuing the training certificate required by Colorado Parks and Wildlife under SB25-003. He made it plain: his oath is to the Constitution, not to becoming a state clerk for a program that the county will have to run with county money and county staff.
What sheriffs are saying, in plain language
Sheriffs across rural Colorado are raising the same practical flags. The state expected county offices to be ready to handle permitting and training logistics. Instead, sheriffs say there’s no funding, no clear system, and no legal certainty the program will last after court challenges. In short: why should county taxpayers foot the bill for a program that may be struck down as unconstitutional?
Why this matters for the Second Amendment and courts
Supporters of SB25-003 call it a safety measure. Opponents see a clever way to limit sales by adding hoops and fees that chill lawful purchases. In the post-Bruen legal world, laws that effectively block access to common arms face a rough ride in federal courts. Sheriffs who refuse to implement the scheme are betting the law won’t survive legal scrutiny — and they’re backing their oath rather than the political theater of the moment.
Practical chaos and political theater
Beyond the constitutional fight, SB25-003 creates real headaches. Who trains the trainers? Who pays for instructors, background checks, scheduling and record-keeping? Counties already stretched thin won’t welcome the extra workload. Meanwhile, state lawmakers pat themselves on the back for “doing something” while leaving the messy work to local law enforcement. That’s a classic example of policy kabuki: big applause for show, small detail of who pays the bill.
What comes next — lawsuits, delays, and politics
Expect lawsuits and delays. Sheriffs’ refusals could slow or even block implementation in parts of Colorado until courts decide the law’s fate. That’s the right path if you care about constitutional checks and local control. Conservatives should support sheriffs who choose the Constitution over busywork. In the meantime, color the state’s gun-control push as a costly plan that relies on county cooperation it didn’t bother to secure.
