Democrats advance gun barrel regulation bill on party line vote

By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

Gun barrels are not serialized. They are not a regulated “firearm” under federal law. But Colorado lawmakers are preparing to vote on whether they should be treated more like one.

The bill sponsored by Sen. Tom Sullivan of Centennial, would require barrels to be sold through a federally licensed dealer instead of privately. Dealers would keep purchase records for five years. Violations could carry fines — and up to 30 days in county jail.

The proposal advanced out of committee on a narrow vote and now heads to the full Senate.

Supporters describe it as the next step after last year’s ghost gun legislation. Critics argue it regulates a part that cannot be traced.

At the center of the debate: whether regulating barrels meaningfully reduces crime — or simply adds paperwork.

The bill is short. The debate around it is not.

At its core, SB26-043 deals with how barrels are transferred. That’s it. No ban. No confiscation language. But once you move into definitions — and penalties — the details get more complicated.

What SB26-043 Would Do

Under SB26-043, firearm barrels could no longer be sold or transferred privately. The transaction would have to occur in person through a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL). Dealers would be required to record purchaser information on a Colorado Bureau of Investigation form and retain those records for five years.

The bill defines a “firearm barrel” broadly, including unfinished items that may be “readily completed” into one.

If someone violates the law, the penalty starts at a $500 fine and can include as much as 30 days in jail. Notably, the bill does not require barrels themselves to be serialized.

That detail became central during committee testimony.

Supporters: “Closing the Loophole”

Sullivan argued the bill responds to advances in 3D printing technology.

“Most parts needed to build a fully functional firearm can now be produced with a 3D printer, with one notable exception, the firearm barrel,” Sullivan told the committee.

Supporters said ghost guns are increasing in Colorado and that regulating industrially manufactured barrels “will create a practical and non-burdensome barrier to the illegal manufacturing of 3D printed firearms.”

Sullivan closed debate by saying, “The people in the state of Colorado have decided we need to do something about this gun violence… And I ask today for a yes vote on 26043.”

Support for the bill was registered by national advocacy organizations like the Brady Campaign, Giffords, and Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund. Boulder County joined the cause as well.

To supporters, the bill is not a ban. It is a safeguard — a final layer.

Opponents: “Too Broad. Unenforceable.”

Opponents told lawmakers the bill regulates a component federal law does not treat as the controlled firearm part.

Matt Alexander, a small business owner from Cañon City, testified, “Under this bill, a barrel includes any forging, casting, printed body extrusion, or machined article that can readily be completed into a barrel. When a law cannot clearly distinguish a gun barrel from a metal tube, it becomes impossible to enforce fairly.”

Another witness argued, “They’re not firearms, and they aren’t firearms until they’re attached to a receiver. And those are the regulated parts, and they should stay that way.”

Nephi Cole of the National Shooting Sports Foundation told lawmakers, “There’s no background check component in this bill… there’s no component of this bill that ties any of this information back to CBI. So it becomes a pile of paperwork that doesn’t do anything.”

Opponents also noted the lack of serialization.

“Without a manufacturer’s mark or unique code, there is no way to specifically match a specific barrel to a specific record,” Alexander said.

Republican Sen. Byron Pelton summarized his concerns before voting no: “This bill is too broad. This bill is unenforceable. We heard that many times. This bill is an unfunded mandate to our counties and also our small business owners.”

Pelton also questioned the jail provision in the bill.

“On page 3 of the bill… talks about 30 days in county jail. Who will pay that? Because right now, just as this states, it looks like it’s going to be an unfunded mandate to counties.”

Sullivan responded, “Well, I think when there’s a law being broken, the community has to pay for it.”

Weld County, Douglas County, and El Paso County have all registered opposition through lobbyists. The National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation are also opposing the bill.

The Colorado District Attorneys’ Council is listed as monitoring.

Legal Questions Loom

During testimony, one opponent warned, “There’s no really comparable legislation ever like this… I don’t think there is any historical tradition that would justify this under a Bruen analysis.”

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, firearm regulations must align with historical tradition.

Potential challenges would focus on whether regulating a core firearm component satisfies constitutional standards, whether the “readily completed” language is too vague, and whether recordkeeping provisions function as de facto registration.

Supporters maintain the bill regulates commercial transactions — not possession — and represents a measured update, not an expansion.

Public Reaction Reflects the Divide

Online commentary mirrors the hearing.

“Barrels don’t have serial numbers. They are just iron tubes… How does this affect crime rates?” one user wrote.

Barrels don't have serial numbers. They are just iron tubes.

This is nuts.

How does this affect crime rates?

— Morska (@Morska78) February 10, 2026

Another posted, “Wyoming and South Dakota to our north… Buying a gun barrel will not be a problem. Untraceable and indistinguishable from the original barrel once installed. This bill is a big nothing burger.”

Wyoming and South Dakota to our north. Oklahoma and Kansas to the east. Utah is west, New Mexico is to our south. Buying a gun barrel will not be a problem. Untraceable and indistiquishable from the original barrel once installed. This bill is a big nothing burger.

— The Colorado Blog (@TheColoradoBlog) February 11, 2026

Supporters offered a different view: “3D-printed ghost guns are proliferating… This bill will make that harder by requiring a background check on gun barrels. Very simple.

3D-printed ghost guns are proliferating. You can print a lower receiver and buy the rest of the weapon without a background check. This bill will make that harder by requiring a background check on gun barrels. Very simple. #copolitics

Gun nuts know exactly why this bill is…

— 𝖠𝗅𝖺𝗇 𝖥𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗄𝗅𝗂𝗇 (@alanfranklin) February 10, 2026

The arguments are not new. The vote, however, is.

This Wednesday at Second Reading, we might see attempts to amend the bill—probably to narrow what it covers or soften how it’s enforced. 

With Democrats holding the Senate majority, SB26-043 is still expected to move forward.

Whether it holds up in court may ultimately determine how far Colorado can go in regulating parts instead of guns.