Colorado committee advances bill to require in‑person transfers of firearm barrels; opponents call it unenforceable

An unnamed sponsor opened a Senate committee hearing by reading hostile constituent messages and introduced Senate Bill 26043, saying the proposal would require that "a firearm barrel be sold or transferred in person by a federally licensed firearm dealer," prohibit non‑FFL transfers with intent to sell as a misdemeanor, require buyers to be at least 18 and require dealers to keep records for five years.

Supporters, including Mark Harris of Colorado Ceasefire, representatives of Bridal United and the youth‑led Team ENOUGH chapter, said the measure targets a growing problem: components used to complete 3D‑printed "ghost guns." "This bill specifically addresses that loophole, and it requires an in‑person purchase," Harris testified. Michael Linderman, who said he leads the Bridal United Colorado chapter, cited ATF and law‑enforcement reports on rapidly rising numbers of untraceable firearms and urged lawmakers to "modernize Colorado's firearm safety laws in light of evolving technology." Rhiannon Danborn, a student and Team ENOUGH member, told the committee that manufactured barrels remain widely available without checks and that regulating those sales would create a "practical and nonburdensome barrier" to illegal manufacture.

Opponents included trade groups, local FFL owners and gun‑rights organizations. "A barrel is not a gun and cannot be made into a gun unless paired with a lower receiver," said Huey Logosin of the Colorado State Shooting Association. Multiple FFLs and industry witnesses warned the bill would create direct conflicts with federal rules governing background checks. "If I run a NICS check outside of that scope, I violate federal policy and then I risk my FFL," Justin Green, owner of SDS Guns, testified, noting existing federal limits on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Industry witnesses also argued the bill's broad definition could sweep in unfinished metal tubing and muzzleloader parts, that barrels typically lack serial numbers and that the legislation imposes recordkeeping burdens without a workable way to trace a barrel to a crime.

Committee members pressed both sides on costs and enforceability. Several witnesses and a county commissioner said the measure would impose an unfunded mandate on local governments and FFLs because the bill requires CBI to create a new form but does not supply an identity‑verification system. Cybersecurity concerns were raised about any state system that would have to store personally identifiable information for five years.

The hearing closed with the sponsor urging lawmakers to act on gun violence as a public‑health problem and with a committee motion to advance the bill. The motion to send SB 26043 to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation passed, 3–2.

What happens next: SB 26043 will be considered by the committee of the whole; proponents and opponents said implementation mechanics (whether the state builds a verification system, how CBI will administer records, and the fiscal impact) will determine whether the bill achieves its stated aim of reducing access to untraceable firearms sold through component parts.