Concerning information related to the automated protection order notification system.
Summary
SB 26-124 makes targeted changes to Colorado’s automated protection order notification system. The bill updates the list of information that may be included in the system by removing one firearm-related data point and clarifying how the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Program must share relevant information with the division that administers notifications. The system is used to provide information to protected persons, their immediate family, and other interested persons about protection-order-related events.
The bill’s stated purpose is to refine the information available through the notification system rather than expand the underlying protection order laws themselves. It amends Colorado Revised Statutes section 24-33.5-539 to adjust what firearm and protection-order information is tracked and made available, and it preserves the existing framework for notifying protected persons about restrained persons and related firearm restrictions. The act takes effect after the referendum period unless referred to the voters.
Impact
The bill amends Colorado’s statutes governing the automated protection order notification system, specifically C.R.S. 24-33.5-539. It removes subsection (3)(f), which had required information about whether a restrained person completed and submitted a firearm purchase or transfer application indicating ineligibility to possess a firearm, while retaining and clarifying other data elements such as extreme risk protection orders and firearm purchase denials. It also updates the statutory language describing which state entities must make the information available for notification purposes. The bill primarily affects the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Program, and the division responsible for providing protection-order notifications to protected persons and related parties.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was noncontroversial and administrative in nature. It moved through the Judiciary committees and was ultimately signed by the Governor, with no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts indicating opposition. The lack of documented debate suggests general support for refining the notification system and improving how protection-order information is handled.
Contention
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided materials. Because the bill narrows one firearm-related reporting item while leaving the broader protection-order notification framework intact, any disagreement would likely have centered on privacy, firearm-record reporting, or the scope of information shared through the system. However, the record provided does not show any formal opposition, amendments in dispute, or competing stakeholder positions.