Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Irpo Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances bill to broaden who can seek Colorado extreme‑risk protection orders
Summary
A Colorado Senate committee heard hours of testimony for and against SB 26‑004, which would add institutions and co‑responders to the list of authorized petitioners for extreme risk protection orders; amendments L007 and L008 passed without objection and the sponsor moved the bill to the Committee of the Whole.
Senate Bill 26‑004, sponsored by Senator Sullivan, was presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee and drew extended testimony from public‑health experts, law enforcement trainers, parents, gun‑rights groups and survivors. The bill would expand who may petition for Colorado’s extreme risk protection orders (IRPOs), adding institutional petitioners and co‑responder teams to the existing list.
Senator Tom Sullivan introduced the measure as an implementation and clarifying change to existing law, saying the expansion reflects input from frontline professionals and stakeholders. “I present today Senate Bill 26,004, expanding of the list of petitioners for protection orders,” he told the committee. Sullivan said Colorado’s IRPO law, enacted in 2019, has been used for six years and that the Office of Gun Violence Prevention publishes data on petitions and outcomes.
Supporters — including attorneys who help implement IRPO programs, public‑health researchers and the Colorado PTA — said the bill will let institutions act more swiftly and consistently to prevent suicide and mass violence. Chris Kanapke, a clinical social worker and researcher, cited implementation figures for Colorado, saying the state sees “roughly 170 petitions across the state” and that “roughly 30% of those get denied at the initial ex parte phase,” which he presented as evidence the existing legal safeguards are being used. Kelly Sampson of the Brady Campaign pointed to research linking ERPO laws to reductions in gun suicide and emphasized that Colorado’s IRPO process provides judicial oversight and state‑funded legal representation for respondents.
Opponents, including the Colorado State Shooting Association, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and dozens of private citizens, warned the expansion would widen the set of actors who can seek orders, risk anonymous or retaliatory filings by institutions, and erode privacy protections. “This bill is dangerous and unconstitutional,” said Teddy Collins of the Colorado State Shooting Association, urging committee members to vote no. Witnesses from the firearm industry also described practical costs, including storage and transfer fees when firearms are surrendered under an order.
Committee members questioned sponsors and witnesses about due process, the role of judges, whether institutional petitions would reveal the identity of the staff member who brought concerns forward, and the potential for false or spiteful filings. Sponsor Sullivan repeatedly noted that temporary orders are followed by judicial hearings and that the courts have been adjudicating false filings when they occur.
Two technical amendments were offered and adopted without objection. Amendment L007 clarified age and possession definitions and other drafting consistency, and Amendment L008 clarified the statutory definition of co‑responder models that pair behavioral‑health professionals with law enforcement. After closing remarks, the sponsor moved the bill, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole.
The bill’s next procedural step is consideration in the Committee of the Whole; no committee roll‑call vote was recorded in the hearing transcript. The committee hearing included extended public testimony from both survivors and opponents, reflecting the policy’s intersection of public‑health aims, privacy, and constitutional concerns.
