Update: House Bill 1165 has now won preliminary approval from the House with a final vote likely on Wednesday.

The first gun control bill to reach the full House, which would allow counties to bar discharging weapons on private properties, drew a two-hour debate that, as it turns out, isn’t quite over yet.

House Bill 1165 won a short-lived preliminary approval from the House Monday – approval that was later rescinded on a motion from House Majority Leader Monica Duran, D-Wheat Ridge, because the bill’s opponents had accidentally been cut off from the debate.

Duran agreed to bring the bill back the next day to finish out the debate, as well as tackle one last amendment from House Republicans, according to sources.

HB 1165 would lift the state preemption that keeps a county from passing an ordinance to prohibit the discharge of a firearm on private property and in unincorporated parts of a county.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Judy Amabile, D-Boulder, and Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont, who chairs the House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee. In the Senate, the bill is sponsored by Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Eagle, who chairs the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, as well as by Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis, D-Longmont.

The bill is a response to complaints in her district, Amabile told the House Transportation and Local Government Committee last week. Residents in the St. Mary’s Glacier neighborhood in Clear Creek County have complained their neighbors are discharging firearms in a manner they believe is unsafe or that creates a nuisance, she said. 

Current law already allows county commissioners to adopt ordinances on the discharge of firearms for areas with at least 100 residents per square mile. Under the bill, as amended, the definition of a “designated area” is 35 dwellings per square mile.

In effect, however, the change is fairly minimal.

Federal standards define residences per dwelling at 2.6 people per unit; 35 dwellings would be 91 people. So, the bill only reduces by nine the number of people per square mile under which a county could adopt a new ordinance.

An Amabile amendment added in the House also exempts people who are “lawfully” hunting or managing livestock or wildlife on their private property. That won a “thank you” from Rep. Richard Holtorf, R-Akron, who said the amendment would help bridge the division between urban and rural Coloradans. The amendment passed with no opposition.

Only one commissioner, from Clear Creek County, testified in favor of the bill in its committee hearing. It did not draw any support from law enforcement, including county sheriffs, although Amabile claimed the county sheriffs association is officially neutral but that “they like the bill” or at least aren’t opposing it.

Rural Colorado lawmakers, however, point to the bill as an example of the rural-urban divide permeating the state Capitol.

People are panicking in rural Colorado, said Rep. Marc Catlin, R-Montrose. People who are moving from another state or city to rural Colorado think they can decide what everyone is comfortable with, he said.

“This is one or two neighborhoods who brought the idea. Statewide, this is a concern,” he said.

“Are we doing countywide policy on neighborhood-to-neighborhood basis?” he said, adding that, under the proposal, it would be “okay to own a gun. Just not to shoot it.”

McCormick said the bill is permissive, giving it to counties the decision whether to adopt a weapon discharge ban.

Counties that aren’t having these issues need not do anything, nor is it even likely to be a countywide issue, she said. Counties can decide where it needs to be done, and with citizen input, she added.

This bill only caters to the “upper class” in two counties, claimed Rep. Don Wilson, R-Monument.

Rep. Rick Taggart, R-Grand Junction, pointed out that one square mile is 640 acres. Divided by 35 dwelling units, the law would apply to lots of 18 acres.

The request came from people who live on a third or quarter of an acre, he said.

Rep. Meg Froelich, D-Englewood, noted testimony in committee was not about the sounds of gunshots, and most who testified in favor are veterans and lawful gun owners.

“This bill does not restrict a single thing,” she said.

In some counties, nothing will happen, she said, adding that, in others, there is a need to match the density that rivals towns, where residents are already banned from discharging their weapons. 

Although Republican lawmakers opposes the measure, they succeeded in pushing for an amendment that requires the consultation of county sheriffs, along with their recommendation, on any county ordinances on the matter.

Tuesday’s brief debate on the bill included another Republican-sponsored amendment, which was approved by the House, to restore language on the Constitutional right “to bear arms,” which removed original bill language on a Constitutional right “to own or possess arms.”

Duran and Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie won praise from Republicans for granting them permission for additional debate and amendments on Tuesday. The House then gave HB 1165 a preliminary voice vote of approval.