Today is March 20, 2024, and here’s what you need to know:

A bill banning 13 types of “assault weapons” won a party-line 7-3 vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

The panel began reviewing House Bill 1292 Tuesday morning, a hearing that lasted until just after midnight Wednesday, some 14 hours after it started. About 600 witnesses signed up to testify.

As expected, the testimony fell along expected lines. Supporters insisted that “assault” weapons, designed for the battlefield, are meant to kill as many people as quickly as possible and it doesn’t make sense for non-combatants to have access to them.

Critics countered that America faces a moral problem – not a gun problem – and that such a ban would perpetuate “soft targets,” such as schools and grocery stores, where criminals, who don’t care about gun laws, know they can simply overpower people.

Sponsored by Democratic Reps. Elisabeth Epps and Tim Hernandez, both from Denver, the measure defines the term “assault weapon” and prohibits manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, offering to sell – or transferring ownership of an assault weapon. The bill also bans a person from possessing a “rapid-fire trigger activator.”

Republican Jeff Crank became the first candidate to qualify for the primary ballot in Colorado’s 5th Congressional District after turning in a sufficient number of petition signatures, state election officials said Monday.

Crank, a podcaster and executive with the Koch network-backed Americans for Prosperity organization, is one of five Republicans seeking the nomination in the GOP-leaning district, whose boundaries nearly coincide with El Paso County. The seat is currently represented by Republican U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, who announced in January that he wouldn’t seek a 10th term in Congress.

According to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office, 2,839 of the 3,887 signatures submitted by Crank were deemed valid – well over the 1,500 signatures from fellow party members required for Colorado congressional candidates to make the June 25 primary ballot.

One member of Colorado’s second-highest court has mounted an unusual effort in recent weeks to broadcast his dissatisfaction with a state Supreme Court decision that resulted in scores of financial restitution orders to crime victims being overturned on appeal.

In Colorado, when a convicted defendant is required to pay restitution, prosecutors typically must provide the requested amount by the time of sentencing or within 91 days of sentencing. Judges must also impose the restitution amount within 91 days of sentencing. If judges need to extend either deadline, they must find good cause exists.

In a major decision, People v. Weeks, the Supreme Court ruled in November 2021 that judges’ typical process of awarding compensation to crime victims did not comply with state law. The justices noted a lackadaisical approach had taken hold in the trial courts that neglected the clear deadlines and procedural requirements. Consequently, if trial judges fail to follow the law, they lose authority to issue a restitution order.

Since then, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office has argued the Supreme Court did not necessarily mean what it said. The government has tried to persuade the Court of Appeals, largely unsuccessfully, that non-compliant restitution orders should not be vacated outright, but evaluated instead for any harm to the defendant.

House Speaker Julie McCluskie has the final say on whether to introduce a resolution sought by the House GOP caucus that would attempt to impeach Secretary of State Jena Griswold, Attorney General Phil Weiser said.

McCluskie, in a statement to Colorado Politics, said she appreciates “the Attorney General’s analysis of what may constitute malfeasance in office and what precedents, statutes and rules exist that may guide our actions on this proposed resolution, and I am taking it under advisement.”

“I continue to consider what is in the best interests of the House and this institution, and I will communicate next steps to my caucus and the Minority as soon as I have decided how we will proceed,” she said.

McCluskie added she believes the resolution is an “unwarranted waste of time.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed Texas to implement a law that allows state police to arrest immigrants on state – not federal – charges if they illegally entered the United States from Mexico.

The high court’s 6-3 decision comes just one day after the high court ruled to continue a temporary hold that was initially issued on March 4. Justice Samuel Alito, who covers matters stemming from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, led the order.

The legal fight will return to a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit on April 3, which is hearing Texas’ appeal on the merits. The losing party could then appeal the case back to the Supreme Court after that panel reaches a decision.

The order’s effect on interior cities, such as Denver, that have also borne the brunt of America’s illegal immigration crisis is not immediately clear. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has been transporting immigrants who illegally crossed the southern border to “sanctuary” cities in Democratic strongholds across the country – notably to Denver, Chicago and New York.

Generally speaking, a sanctuary city is a designation given to municipalities and counties that establish policies to discourage local law enforcement from reporting an individual’s immigration status to federal authorities. Denver has openly embraced that designation, while surrounding communities have avoided that label.