These are all of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Marijuana bills proposed in the 2020 session. Each bill has its own bill number, please use your browser search feature to find the bill you are interested in. Return to the Colorado home page to pick a different bill category.
None of the text is the opinion of Engage. Each bill's description, arguments for, and arguments against are our best effort at describing what each bill does, arguments for, and arguments against the bill. The long description is hidden by design, you can click on it to expand it if you want to read more detail about the bill. If you believe we are missing something, please contact us with your suggestion. Some of these bills have the notation that they have been sent to the chamber's "kill" committee. This means that the leadership has decided to send the bill to the State committee even though it does not belong there based on its subject matter. This committee, in both chambers, is stacked with members from "safe" districts and the idea is to kill the bill without forcing any less safe members to take a hard vote. It is possible for a bill to survive the kill committee, but it is very rare.
Prime sponsors are given after each bill, with Senate sponsors in () and House sponsors in . They are color-coded by party.
Some bills will have text highlighted in pink or highlighted in orange or highlighted in yellow. Pink highlights mean House amendments to the original bill; orange mean Senate amendments; yellow highlights mean conference committee amendments. The bill will say under the header if it has been amended.
Each bill has been given a "magnitude" category: Mega, Major, Medium, Minor, and Technical. This is a combination of the change the bill would create and the "controversy" level of the bill. Some minor bills that are extending current programs would be major changes if they were introducing something new, but the entire goal here is to allow you to better curate your time. Something uncontroversial likely to pass nearly unanimously that continues a past program may not be worth your time (and please remember, you can still read all of the minor bills!). Technical bills are here to round out the list. They are non-substantive changes.
Click on the House bill title to jump to its section:
Click on the Senate bill title to jump to its section:
HB20-1040 Concealed Handguns On School Grounds [Neville (R)]
Fiscal Impact: None
Goal: Allow people with valid permits to carry concealed handguns on school grounds.
Removes the limitation on carrying concealed handguns (by people with valid permits to do so) on school grounds.
Additional Information: n/a
The elimination of the ability to have concealed guns at schools means the only people with guns at schools are bad guys, which leads to the unfortunate shootings that have become all too common being worse as there is no one the scene to intervene. A good guy with a gun on the scene could nip many of these situations in the bud, as we have seen several times in the last year where the death toll could have been higher but for the immediate intervention of a bystander who had a gun. Someone has to have a valid permit in order to do this, so they have already been vetted by the state, to carry a gun around in public situations. There are also many teachers with concealed carry permits that would like to protect their students if the need ever arose. We already trust folks with these permits, let’s let them help protect our kids.
Introducing guns into schools is a recipe for disaster. Civilians are not trained to assess and react to active shooter situations and may be just as likely to shoot innocent bystanders as the gunman. In addition, this lack of training may result in a tragedy where a concealed carry individual believes someone has a gun when in fact they do not. It is also nearly impossible for police reacting to the scene to suss out who the good guys and the bad guys are, which can (and has) led to police shooting a bystander who was trying to help. This happens far too often with trained police officers already. Since Columbine, police training to react to these mass shooter incidents has improved greatly and they are more likely to resolve any active shooter situation in the best manner possible. Civilians are also more likely to be sloppy with their guns, leaving them in bathrooms or classrooms for others to find (this has happened in other states). In addition, while it is true that permit holders are vetted, we don’t allow them in the state capitol, where the legislators work, so let’s keep them out of schools.
HB20-1080 Remove Residency Requirement For Marijuana License (Gonzales (D), Marble (R)) [Gray (D), Van Winkle (R)]
Fiscal Impact: None
Goal: Repeal residency requirement for licensure application for managers and employees with day-to-day operational control of marijuana businesses.
Repeals requirement that all managers and employees of a medical or retail marijuana business with day-to-day operational control must be Colorado residents when they apply for licensure.
Additional Information: n/a
We have already recognized that this is a bit silly by creating an exemption for people in a marijuana-based workforce development or training program (which this bill also removes since it would no longer be necessary). Someone working day-to-day in a business in Colorado lives in Colorado. We don’t need to require them to be a resident the moment they are applying for licensure.
The residency requirement helps us ensure that residents from states where marijuana is illegal are not participating in our legal marijuana businesses.
This is yet another step toward making marijuana businesses like any other Colorado business. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level and although the federal government is turning a blind eye for now, that may not last.