A version of this article was first published in Complete Colorado.

The “progressive” clown show that runs Colorado entertains us from time to time by stumbling over obstacles—little obstacles, like the Constitution of the United States and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The madcaps are entertaining us again. They passed Senate Bill 3, which regulates firearms and their owners in ways that directly violate the Second Amendment. Some legislative wags are sponsoring House Bill 1312, which not only tramples on the First Amendment, but breaches parental rights protected by the Fourteenth.

The language of both SB 3 and HB 1312 apparently was designed to play Supreme Court justices for fools. But the justices are on to their tricks.

You see, Colorado’s “progressive” Bozos already have a rap sheet. In 2018, the justices gave them a pen-lashing for flagrant bias against the Christianity of a Colorado baker. In 2022, the justices intervened to prevent the Colorado Clarabels from stomping on the free speech rights of a Christian web designer. Earlier this year, the court decided to take up the case of a counselor threatened by a Colorado statute preventing her from helping children affirm their biological genders.

But now our legislative Krusties have decided to get clever. Or, what in Clownland passes for clever.

Senate Bill 3: Gun Rights

First, let’s consider SB 3, the gun ban our “libertarian” (yuck-yuck!) governor just signed into law.

The Supreme Court tells us that under the Second Amendment, states cannot ban the purchase, transfer, or possession of firearms commonly used for sporting or self-defense.

The court says states may impose permit requirements, but the permits must be “shall issue” instead of “may issue.” That means the official authorizing the permit must be guided by firm criteria and not have a lot of discretion.

So here’s the methodology of HB 1312:

First, it bans guns the court says it can’t ban.

Next, it offers an exception for buyers who go through a lot of bureaucratic rigmarole and acquire a “firearms safety course eligibility card” from their county sheriff and then take a course. This card is essentially an official permit.

Next, it says the sheriff “shall issue” the eligibility card.

But then it adds that “the sheriff may deny an application if the sheriff has a reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will present a danger to themself [sic] or others if the applicant holds a firearms safety course eligibility card.”

SB 3 does not explain what “documented” means. Or what is a “reasonable belief.” Or how one can present a danger to “themself” or others merely by holding a card.

In other words, HB 1312 gives the sheriff almost total discretion. Which is exactly what the Supreme Court says the state may not do!

Do these legislative pagliacci really think this can fool Supreme Court justices?

Personally, I think we’d be better off if we imposed some conditions on the First Amendment instead of the Second. Here’s my proposal: Before anyone can run for the legislature, he, she or “themself” has to apply for and obtain a “Constitution safety course eligibility card.”

We could deny the eligibility card on the ground that “progressive” delusions justify a “reasonable belief” that one’s political participation presents a danger to others. But if we allowed lefties to take the course, they might learn something about the document they take an oath to support.

And while I’m on a roll: We also might require a course in correct English grammar. “Themself” indeed!

HB 1312: Violating the First Amendment

And now for our next act of legislative comedy: HB 1312.

The bill’s title says it’s about protecting transgender individuals. Actually, it’s a buffo-like effort to evade the Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Admittedly, some of of HB 1312 is not unconstitutional—just plain silly: For example, there’s the part that forces government schools to let kids wear the clothes of whatever gender they want. I look forward to seeing how the kids have fun with that. I also look forward to the resulting increase in the number of home and private schoolers.

HB 1312 also some fun verbal selzer-spray. Throughout all recorded history—until, maybe, last week—it was an essential part of parenting to guide your child toward living with, and fulfilling the responsibilities of, that child’s biological sex. But in HB 1312, that’s called “coercive control” and it’s somehow bad.

Also, under HB 1312, if you describe a gender-denier by the sex fixed in the chromosomes that give him life—you are guilty of “deadnaming.” And if you call a gender-denier by pronouns that identify with his real sex, then you are “misgendering.”

However, this is Orwellian as well as funny, and HB 1312 tries to give its Orwellian language serious consequences. Thus, HB 1312 would make it illegal, “with intent to discriminate” (whatever that means) to “publish materials that deadname or misgender an individual.”

So if I write an op-ed calling a biological male “he” when the person wants to be called “she” or “xe” or “themself” or “Her Majesty,” then the bill says I’m guilty of a crime.

But Attention, Ye Legislative Jesters! This part of the bill is void! We have freedom of the press in this country. It’s a well-known fact. Look it up.

HB 1312: Violating the Constitutional Rights of Parents

There’s more: HB 1312 allows a judge to deprive a parent of custody of his or her child for “coercive control,” including “misgendering” and “deadnaming.”

So if my little boy Johnny says his name is now “Joanie” and I insist it’s “Johnny,” that counts against my continued custody. If Johnny says he’s a “she,” and I tell him he’s a he, that also counts against my custody.

Is that a scream or what?

Whether or not it is, it is screamingly unconstitutional. A century ago, SCOTUS decided two cases sustaining the “liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of chidren under their control.” The cases were Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925).

The court reaffirmed their continued force in 2022.

According to the court, laws that unduly infringe the right of parents to direct the rearing of their children violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying protected liberty.

The court said something in the Pierce case the jokers in the Colorado legislature might take to heart:

“The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

Notice, also, Honorable Lawmakers, the court’s usage of the correct generic pronouns.