House committee advances bill to restrict retail ammunition sales to buyers 21 and older; opponents cite constitutional and economic concerns

The House Business Affairs & Labor Committee voted 7‑6 to advance House Bill 11‑33, a measure that would raise the minimum age to purchase ammunition to 21 in Colorado and impose new store‑security and delivery requirements, after several hours of testimony Wednesday.

Supporters, led on the floor by Majority Leader Patrick Duran and co‑sponsor Representative Barb Gilchrist, said the proposal is intended to align ammunition rules with the state’s existing 21‑year age limit for buying firearms and to reduce theft and unlawful diversion. “In the state of Colorado, we did pass a law that states you have to be 21 to purchase a long gun or a handgun,” Duran said during committee discussion, adding that amending ammunition rules to match firearm law is “consistent.” Gilchrist told the committee that “it is the ammunition that causes grievous injuries to shooting survivors and is equally responsible for so many deaths as the firearms used to propel them.”

The bill as amended would: raise the minimum retail age to purchase ammunition to 21; require ammunition sold at retail to be inaccessible without employee assistance (for example, behind a counter or in an enclosed display case); prohibit the sale of ammunition via unattended vending machines; and impose additional requirements for delivery of online purchases, including verifying the recipient’s age. Sponsors also offered an amendment to delay the bill’s effective date to July 1, 2026 to give retailers time to comply; that change was adopted in committee.

Proponents included survivors and family members of past mass shootings, public‑safety groups and national gun‑safety organizations. Jane Doherty, who said she lost a sister at Sandy Hook, testified: “Technically speaking, guns don’t kill people. Bullets do.” Students and youth organizers filled multiple panels; Carter Farris, a student volunteer with Students Demand Action, told lawmakers, “This bill can do so little harm, but could save so many lives.” Witnesses from Brady, Everytown and the Giffords‑affiliated Gun Owners for Safety also urged passage, citing both theft concerns and the role ammunition availability plays in shootings and suicides.

Opponents — including small retailers, shooting‑range operators, industry groups and several county and state officials — argued the bill would punish lawful owners, raise costs for small businesses, restrict hunting and training, and prompt legal challenges. Teller County Commissioner Eric Stone told the committee the proposal would impose “a tremendous burden upon the retailer for the labor that they would need in order to do that.” Kellen Lanier of the National Shooting Sports Foundation warned of inconsistent requirements across retailers and said the bill, as drafted, “criminalizes the UPS guy.” Several witnesses and attorneys cited recent court decisions and constitutional questions; one opponent referenced the U.S. Supreme Court decisions Heller and Bruen and recent federal cases challenging age‑based restrictions.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife provided a formal request for amendment, saying HB 11‑33 could unintentionally restrict access to rifle and shotgun ammunition for legally licensed young hunters and asking that ranges and youth who hold hunter‑education certificates be exempted or specifically accommodated so that programs and hunting traditions are not disrupted. The committee accepted two sponsor amendments during the hearing: one pushed the bill’s effective date to 07/01/2026; the other clarified that the bill would not prohibit compliance with federal Department of Transportation shipping label requirements for hazardous materials.

Committee members split largely along familiar lines. Lawmakers who supported the bill said it was a modest, common‑sense safety step that aligns ammunition purchase rules with existing firearm age limits and addresses new vending‑machine technology and retail theft. Opponents said age‑based restrictions are unconstitutional, pointed to recent appellate rulings that have blocked similar measures elsewhere, and warned the bill would hurt small rural dealers, hunting programs and lawful self‑defense and training.

After debate and votes on amendments, Representative Linstead moved the bill to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation; Representative English seconded. The roll call on the motion to advance was: Armagas — no; Brooks — no; English — yes; Linstead — yes; Marshall — no; Morrow — yes; Richardson — no; Bryden/Bridal — yes; Stewart — yes; Zukla — no; Woodrow — yes; (chair) Ricks — yes. The motion passed 7‑6.

The committee record shows dozens of witnesses on both sides. Supporters asked lawmakers to view the bill as a targeted step that could reduce accessibility of a lethal component that is used repeatedly and that can be purchased in bulk or stolen when left unsecured. Opponents urged lawmakers to focus on enforcement against criminal actors, better resourcing for law enforcement and prevention programs, and training and youth education rather than broad retail restrictions.

If the bill leaves committee and reaches the full House, it is likely to face additional amendments and legal analysis; opponents indicated they expect litigation if it becomes law. Supporters said they plan further changes before floor debate to address specific hunting‑and‑training concerns raised during testimony.

The committee hearing produced no final statutory text beyond the amendments adopted in committee; sponsors said additional changes were possible on the House floor. The committee record and oral testimony will be part of the legislative file if the bill continues through the legislative process.