If Supreme Court decisions were sentient, I'm pretty sure the Bruen decision would be looking around right now asking, "Am I a joke to you people?"

It's pretty clear that no one who favors gun control bothered to actually understand the decision, because they keep passing laws that they have to know have a great shot at getting shot down sooner or later.

A great example of this is what just happened in Colorado, where their latest attempt at gun control just cleared the House.

After a grueling debate that stretched deep into the evening, the Colorado House approved a measure Friday night that would ban most rifles with detachable magazines.

The proposal would make Colorado’s gun laws among the tightest in the nation. It has already cleared the state Senate, and Gov. Jared Polis has indicated he’s prepared to sign it if it passes.

House lawmakers approved the measure just before 10 p.m., more than 12 hours after taking it up. Republicans worked throughout the day to slow the measure but never had the votes to defeat it or to make substantive amendments.

Senate Bill 25-003 bans the manufacture and sale of guns with detachable magazines, unless a potential buyer completes training and gets approval from their local sheriff. It exempts nearly three dozen firearms popular for hunting, but gun store owners say so many models would be illegal that it would be hard for them to stay in business.

Republicans made a variety of arguments against the measure, ranging from questioning its constitutionality to warning of retribution from the federal government and possibly violence if it is implemented. State Rep. Ron Weinberg, R-Loveland, said the proposal is even more restrictive than it appears on paper — with so many hoops to jump through that very few Coloradans would be able to purchase a rifle in the future.

"It is a poll tax on the Second Amendment," he said. "It is a paywall around a fundamental liberty."

Polis previously vetoed actual bans, and would have this time around. Instead, he can still pretend to be a libertarian-leaning Democrat and claim he didn't support any gun bans.

But the requirements in place are most definitely burdensome and prohibit some of the most popular firearms in the country.

Yet when you look at the guidelines for constitutionality in the Bruen decision, it clearly says there needs to be some historical analog in place. While the Rahimi decision said it doesn't have to be a one-to-one analog, I still don't see any way this passes the history, text, and tradition test. 

What's more, it's clear no lawmaker in Colorado even bothered to look and see if it would pass the test. They completely ignored Bruen in the process of passing this monstrosity.

While this isn't technically a ban, the fact is that they're treating these rifles in a way that's even more restrictive than NFA items is some ways. The cost of the training and such will likely meet that $200 threshold all by itself, and you have to get law enforcement approval, much like an NFA item. The big difference is that instead of waiting for the ATF to approve you, you have to take time out of your life for that training class, which may well involve a loss of time from work, which could hurt financially.

And for what? Do they think criminals are suddenly going to be unable to acquire these rifles if they want them? Do they think mass murders aren't going to happen now?

The worst school shooting in modern American history was Virginia Tech, where the killer used a couple of handguns. Nothing changes with this except the infringement on the rights of ordinary people.