Element 5/Unsplash
Colorado Ceasefire usually doesn’t offer recommendations on non-gun-violence-related measures, but in this case we feel it is important for our friends and allies to know we are urging a NO vote on the ballot initiative Amendment 83.
This proposed constitutional amendment would add a constitutional ‘right’ to hunt, fish and trap into our state’s Constitution. That may seem straightforward, but its true intent and impact are far more complex.
Critically, Amendment 83 would impose a much-heightened judicial review requirement on any gun violence prevention or gun safety laws that could possibly be argued to impact hunting rights. While state statutes can be amended or revised fairly easily in response to changing conditions or societal developments, a Constitutional Amendment would be very difficult to overcome.
Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado and carefully regulated under existing state and federal laws.
Amendment 83 is funded by wealthy out-of-state special interests with a national agenda.Amendment 83 is only the latest in a long line of similar measures promoted around the country by the National Rifle Association (NRA), Safari Club International, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and the International Order of T. Roosevelt. Here in Colorado, Advance Colorado is deeply tied to Amendment 83’s infrastructure.
Amendment 83 also:
- Would change the rules for who gets to make wildlife policy in Colorado, misleading voters into thinking they are protecting the right to hunt and fish, when it actually takes away their voice in future wildlife decisions.
- It would make it harder for Colorado voters and policymakers to adopt new wildlife rules, effectively hamstringing not only Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), but also future decisions by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and the Colorado General Assembly. These decisions might relate to other public interests, including habitat restoration, biodiversity, or ecosystem health.
- Amendment 83 uses intentionally vague and undefined terms like “traditional methods,” “preferred means,” and “necessary,” which means courts—not voters or legislators—will end up defining them through costly litigation.
Amendment 83 is dangerous not just for Colorado wildlife, but for Colorado Ceasefire’s and our allies’ ongoing efforts to fight gun violence in our state. We urge a NO vote.
Mark Harris, Chair
Colorado Ceasefire Legislative Action