“Apologize to the Constitution”: House rejects amendment on 3D gun bill

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

The debate over 3D-printed firearms took an unexpected turn Friday when Rep. Scott Bottoms stepped forward with a constitutional warning.

House Bill 26-1144 would ban the 3D printing of firearms and certain gun parts. Bottoms said if it violates the Constitution, it should fall.

His amendment would have required the entire measure to rise or fall as one.

The amendment failed after a standing division vote.

“I would like to apologize to the Constitution for what we just did to it,” Bottoms said.

The vote marked the most dramatic moment in a lengthy second reading debate over a bill that would make it illegal to 3D print firearms and certain gun parts, and restrict the sharing of digital files used to produce them.

Rep. Lindsay Gilchrist, one of the bill’s prime sponsors, described the measure as a necessary update to Colorado’s existing ghost gun laws, arguing that 3D printing technology has moved faster than statute.

Minority lawmakers saw something different—a bill that “punishes intent,” as Rep. Carlos Barron put it, and one Bottoms warned could erode constitutional protections.

A fight over constitutional limits

Bottoms’ amendment, known as L33, would have made the bill nonseverable. In plain terms, if any portion of the law were later struck down as unconstitutional, the entire act would fall.

“If any part of this bill is found to be unconstitutional, then the entire bill goes away,” Bottoms said.

“If you believe that this bill’s legit and it does not go against the Constitution, then let’s just vote this amendment in.”

Minority Leader Jarvis Caldwell warned that Colorado has increasingly faced lawsuits over legislation passed in recent years.

“Colorado is continually getting sued for the bills that are passed by this body right here, and frankly costing the state a lot of money,” Caldwell said. “If something gets found invalid, then why would we not just repeal the whole thing?”

Rep. Brandi Bradley said the amendment was about accountability and consistency.

“Why wouldn’t we be in support of this amendment?” she asked. “If it’s determined that this bill is unconstitutional, the bill should go away.”

Bradley added that the safeguard would protect both taxpayers and citizens if courts later struck down any portion of the law.

Rep. Rebecca Keltie framed the vote as a test of confidence.

“If you’re not afraid that your bill has anything that’s unconstitutional, then this amendment should have no impact on your bill,” Keltie said.

Speaker Pro Tem Andrew Boesenecker urged a no vote. After members were counted in a standing division, the amendment failed.

“Punishing intent” 

Opposition to the bill extended beyond severability.

“This is punishing intent,” Barron said. “We cannot read minds.”

“This is still the land of the free,” he added, arguing lawmakers should not make it a crime to possess or share design files.

Republicans pushed back hard on the idea that the bill only targets criminals. On the floor, they talked about hunters and competitive shooters, people who use 3D printers to customize lawful parts and even Coloradans who build prop replicas for events and cosplay.

Caldwell reminded colleagues that unserialized firearms are already illegal in Colorado. He asked colleagues why they were writing new laws instead of relying on the statutes the state already has.

Bradley said the proposal shifts the burden onto people who are already following the law.

“We are tired of the piecemeal legislation,” Bradley said. “I am tired of having to ask you for permission to protect my family.”

Several lawmakers also raised First Amendment concerns, arguing that restricting digital design files amounts to regulating information itself.

Bottoms said the bill “takes away First Amendment right for people to express themselves through 3D printing,” warning against expanding government authority over digital files and ideas.

Minority lawmakers had also proposed requiring a study to determine how often 3D-printed firearms are used in Colorado crimes.

Supporters rejected that approach.

“We don’t need a study to find out that this is a problem,” Gilchrist said, citing law enforcement recoveries of 3D-printed firearms and conversion devices in Colorado and nationally. “This is a growing threat.”

Boesenecker described the legislation as a common-sense update to laws already prohibiting un-serialized firearms in Colorado.

Dispute over the data

Rep. Ava Flanell and other Republican lawmakers argued the bill responds to a problem they say has not shown up in Colorado’s own numbers.

Flanell pointed to the bill’s fiscal note and said it reflects only one conviction in recent years under a comparable statute.

“If there is in fact one person that has committed this crime, I don’t see the reason for this bill,” Flanell said.

A highlighted section of the bill’s fiscal note shows one conviction under a similar statute over three fiscal years. (Colorado Legislative Council Staff)

Supporters countered that firearm recoveries do not always translate into separate convictions under existing law and that the broader trend is what concerns them.

Safety clause and referendum fight

After the nonseverability amendment failed, Bottoms introduced another amendment to remove the bill’s safety clause.

Removing the clause would have allowed voters to gather signatures and potentially send the law to the ballot.

“Let’s give one more shot at this and see if we can actually bring this back to the people,” Bottoms said. “Let’s let the people rectify the trodding upon our Constitution that we have just done.”

Keltie rose in support of the amendment and expanded on that argument.

“The safety clause is used when there’s an emergency or something of great safety and concern. That is not this bill,” she said.

She warned that overusing the clause prevents voters from petitioning legislation they oppose. “We’re here to represent the people of Colorado. We’re not here to shove our will on them.”

That amendment also failed, leaving the safety clause intact and closing off a referendum path.

Minority amendments turned back

Lawmakers worked through 21 amendments during second reading. Three were adopted—all sponsored by Boesenecker.

Those changes narrowed the bill to “potentially functional” firearms, added an exemption for accredited gunsmithing programs and revised language related to possession and distribution.

No minority-sponsored amendments were adopted. Those proposals sought to reduce penalties, require a study by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, limit the bill’s reach to individuals already prohibited from possessing firearms, tie enforcement to federal authorization, remove the safety clause and make the act nonseverable.

After the House rose from Committee of the Whole, minority lawmakers attempted to amend the report to revive several defeated amendments, including the nonseverability proposal. Each motion failed on recorded votes.

The House approved the bill on second reading. One more vote stands between the measure and the Senate.

The amendment was defeated. The constitutional debate was not.