We've unfortunately watched Colorado's slow descent into madness over the years. From a relatively pro-gun state, they've been on an anti-gun jihad ever since the Aurora theater shooting.
I get that people were upset by the shooting. They should have been, because it was disturbing that the killer not just shot people during a Batman movie, but did it while trying to look like The Joker. It's a little on the nose, but horrifying just the same.
Since then, it seems there's literally no gun control law they're not interested in pursuing, but later this year, their new semi-auto restrictions kick into effect, and not everyone is fond of them.
Especially at least one person who knows a thing or two about fighting for your life.
John "Tig" Tiegen was one of the men on a rooftop in Benghazi, one of those immortalized in 13 Hours. He's been in bad situations the likes of which I hope none of us ever have to experience.
Just the same, he's got a perspective that we should keep in mind, especially considering he's running for mayor of Colorado Springs, and he posted that perspective on X.
Colorado is implementing SB25 003 starting August 1 2026.
— John “TIG” Tiegen (@TigTiegen) January 11, 2026
It requires state approved firearms safety training before a law abiding citizen can purchase or transfer certain semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines.
That places a government gate in front of a… https://t.co/2hZ5Zm2c8r
The post is long, but it continues:
Colorado is implementing SB25 003 starting August 1 2026.
It requires state approved firearms safety training before a law abiding citizen can purchase or transfer certain semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines.
That places a government gate in front of a constitutional right.
The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. Not the right to keep and bear arms after completing state mandated training.
The moment the government says you may only exercise a right after meeting conditions it sets in advance, the right is no longer presumed. It is granted.
That is the definition of a privilege.
Punishing negligent storage, reckless handling, or criminal misuse after the fact regulates conduct.
Requiring training before possession is prior restraint.
Prior restraint is exactly what “shall not be infringed” was written to prevent.
Calling it “education” does not change the legal reality.
The effect of this law is simple:
• You must pay
• You must find a state approved course
• You must wait
• You must comply with state discretion
If the state controls access, timing, cost, and approval, then the state controls the right.
That is not safety policy.
That is gatekeeping.
I have not seen the current mayor publicly address SB25 003 or speak out against this new permit and training requirement imposed on lawful gun owners.
Mayors cannot erase state law with a pen. Anyone saying otherwise is not being honest.
But mayors are not powerless.
As mayor of Colorado Springs, I will use every lawful tool available to stand up for our residents when their rights are burdened or infringed.
I will oppose turning Colorado Springs into an enforcement arm that treats law abiding citizens as problems to be managed.
I will limit city involvement to the minimum required by law, refuse to add local barriers on top of state mandates, support constitutional challenges, protect local businesses and residents from secondary harm, and speak plainly and consistently when rights are being eroded.
That is exactly what I will do, because that is what should be expected of a mayor.
Leadership is not staying quiet when it is uncomfortable.
Leadership is standing up for the people you serve.
That is the standard I will meet.
Now, yes, this is a campaign tweet, which means we need to take some of it with a grain of salt. I don't know Tiegen personally, so it's possible he's saying what he thinks he needs to say.
But I doubt it, because too much of this shows that he gets it.
I say that because he said, "If the state controls access, timing, cost, and approval, then the state controls the right."
That's it in a nutshell. If the state has the authority to control every aspect of a permitting process and ultimately reserves the authority for approval, then the right is not a right. It's the epitome of a privilege.
They have the authority to change the training standards whenever they want. Since the bill doesn't expressly outline those standards, it means the bureaucracy will decide what they are, which means they can essentially be changed on a whim. In other words, you can take a training class that they decide the next day doesn't meet the standard, and you're slap outta luck.
Controlling access to certain kinds of firearms isn't going to stop criminals, who won't be going to gun stores in the first place. It won't stop mass killings, most of which involve handguns. It won't stop anything except ordinary citizens exercising their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
They've tried to turn it into a privilege.
If there's a silver lining here, it's not in the law itself, but the fact that the Bruen decision laid down some pretty hard and fast requirements for gun control laws. This isn't a carry permit or something like that, which the decision said could have rules about getting them, but the purchase of a very popular type of gun that is neither uniquely dangerous nor uncommon, another standard the Court set for such restrictions. There's no way this should survive a challenge.
Some will try to claim it will, but it won't.
It just needs to get to the point that the Supreme Court takes the case to kill it, because I doubt every lower court will read this one correctly.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member