Key vote likely on ‘assault’ weapons ban

Ban skeptic Sen. Tom Sullivan is on committee

The proposed ban on the sale, transfer and manufacturing of many high-powered, semi-automatic guns in Colorado will face an uphill fight in the state Senate after clearing the House for the first time.

The measure, House Bill 1292, would ban guns referred to as “assault” weapons by its Democratic sponsors. It now heads to a Senate committee that includes one of the most vocal gun violence prevention advocates in the state — who happens to be a longtime skeptic of the effectiveness of blanket prohibitions like the one proposed.

Sen. Tom Sullivan is also the father of a victim of one of the state’s most high-profile mass shootings, and the committee’s tight partisan makeup looks likely to position him as the key vote.

The bill, titled “Prohibit Certain Weapons Used in Mass Shootings,” would define “assault weapons” as certain semi-automatic rifles and firearms, based on whether and where they take detachable magazines and have other characteristics, such as offhand grips or collapsible stocks. It would not ban the possession of the weapons, meaning firearms covered under the bill but already owned would remain legal to keep.

The bill would also prohibit the possession of rapid-fire trigger activators.

In a historic first for the policy, the bill passed the full House on Sunday. On Thursday, it was assigned to the Senate’s State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, which will vote by early May on whether to send the measure to the full Senate.

Democrats hold a 3-2 advantage on the committee. Two of its Democratic members, Sens. James Coleman and Chris Hansen, both of Denver, expressed general support for the concept Thursday morning, though they added that they hadn’t yet read the bill in detail.

The third Democrat — and possible deciding vote, given universal Republican opposition — is Sullivan, who lives in Centennial.

He’s been a proponent of firearm regulation since his son, Alex, was murdered in the Aurora movie theater shooting in 2012, and he’s backed several gun regulation bills in the past year alone.

But he consistently has stopped short of supporting a ban on socalled assault weapons.

He worries the policy would spur a rush to buy the newly banned firearms, inadvertently increasing the number in circulation while not addressing the leading causes of gun violence. Other policies, he has argued, would do more to stem the tide.

Sullivan did not commit to a firm yes or no vote on Thursday. He reiterated his past skepticism and said he would be “crystal clear with everybody where I am” when the committee voted.

“If I had thought (an assault weapons ban) was the way to go, I would have done it the day after Alex was murdered with one,” Sullivan said.

“This is a gut-check issue”

Coleman, who chairs the committee, said he was leaning toward supporting the bill because “I don’t understand why folks need” the weapons. But he said he’s also keeping Sullivan’s perspective in mind. “If the (desired) outcome is to save lives and keep people from getting access to stuff that can cause more harm … then we should be talking about modifications to firearms, and we should be talking about much more than just one particular type,” Coleman said.

Sen. Julie Gonzales, a Denver Democrat who’s the prime sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said she was in active conversation with Sullivan. But she wouldn’t say how she thought his skepticism could be overcome.

“It’s a hard thing to do, when he’s also seen, firsthand, the devastation that those weapons of war have on families and communities,” she said of Sullivan’s position as a potential make-or-break vote on the bill.

Gonzales said she was still working on gauging broader support among Senate Democrats.

“This is a gut-check issue for members of the Senate caucus,” she said. “… At the end of the day, no matter what happens on this bill, I think that our voters across the state are incred