Delay on implementation of SB23-169 18-20 Age Restriction Bill?

So what does this translate into? It's at the end of the latest version of the bill.

Quote:

---

SECTION 4. Act subject to petition - effective date. This act takes effect at 12:01 a.m. on the day following the expiration of the ninety-day period after final adjournment of the general assembly; except that, if a referendum petition is filed pursuant to section 1 of article V of the state constitution against this act or an item, section, or part of this act within such period, then the act, item, section, or part will not take effect unless approved by the people at the general election to be held in November 2024 and, in such case, will take effect on the date of the official declaration of the vote thereon by the governor.

---

Can its implementation be truly delayed until Nov 2024 by somebody simply filling a ballot initiative?

Why would the D's have authorized this addition?

To squelch opposition from within their own party?

And, they think they could win that election?

If there is a referendum petition, there will be a vote in the general election to allow the people to vote on it. I noted the same thing an another thread.

If it passes, they will re-write it to include the date it is enacted, likely when the bill is signed into law, or an arbitrary date like January 1, 2025.

Yes, if there are enough signatures it will go to the general. 124,238 if my math is correct.

They have to include that, constitutionally.

https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/ele...Petitions.html
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/inf...VSection1.html


A referendum petition is a petition circulated to gather the signatures of registered Colorado voters in an attempt to have a bill that was passed by the legislature placed on the ballot as a statewide ballot issue. The right of referendum can be found in Article V, Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution. Referendum proponents are required to gather signatures equal to 5% of the total votes cast in the previous secretary of state general election contest. The signatures must be submitted to the Secretary of State's Office within 90 days of the adjournment of the general assembly in which the bill passed. The right of referendum does not extend to any bills passed by the legislature with a "Safety Clause", which is placed at the end of a bill.

I am shocked the safety clause was not included in this bill. I do wonder if 5% is an attainable goal in 90 days. Given the state's current demographics, I am sure the ban would pass on the ballot, but would give another 15 months worth of teens to become exempt (I am definitely somebody with a stake in the game, as my son turns 18 in February).

Well, a judge in Minnesota of all places just overturned a law in Minnesota that restricted concealed carry to 21 and up so I have a feeling that all of these age restriction laws are going to disappear soon whether they want them to or not..

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...ision-98329133

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .455_Hunter

I am shocked the safety clause was not included in this bill. I do wonder if 5% is an attainable goal in 90 days. Given the state's current demographics, I am sure the ban would pass on the ballot, but would give another 15 months worth of teens to become exempt (I am definitely somebody with a stake in the game, as my son turns 18 in February).

---

It's the "opposite" language of the Safety Clause as you point out..........thats all.

But as Def points out, these "age" bills/laws are being struck down.

The Minnesota law different. That was about concealed carry age, not purchase age.

There, you can purchase a handgun at 18. Not allowing a lawful owner to carry because of age is what was deemed unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddiememphis

The Minnesota law different. That was about concealed carry age, not purchase age.

There, you can purchase a handgun at 18. Not allowing a lawful owner to carry because of age is what was deemed unconstitutional.

---

Purchase ages are also in the courts.

I hope the dominoes keep falling and these silly restrictions cease.

Looks like the signed final version is just a dealer purchase or dealer private transfer restriction.

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/defau...3a_169_enr.pdf


The arcane possession rules appear to have been eliminated, and as far as I can tell, direct family gifting has not been impacted.

Of course, none of this is in effect at the earliest until 90 days after the legislative session ends (pending no initiative) and the RMGO lawsuit was filed before Polis's ink was dry.