Who Are We?

"Supporters claim applying the four-digit “merchant category code” to firearm-related purchases will help banks and payment companies alert law enforcement of potentially dangerous purchasing patterns." Fox31, May 1, 2024

6-27-203. Merchant acquirer - merchant category. EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 2025, A MERCHANT ACQUIRER SHALL ASSIGN THE MERCHANT CATEGORY CODE FOR FIREARMS TO EACH FIREARMS MERCHANT TO WHICH THE MERCHANT ACQUIRER PROVIDES SERVICES.

"This is how we Colorado." @News9mm

I ought to write a book...

With much fanfare, and little apparent effect, the Colorado Legislature has passed, and Governor Polis has signed, a bill that...what? It isn't what the proponents say it is.

Aside from a lot of stilted and confusing labels and definitions, the legislature basically enacted a law that says that if you buy a firearm with a credit card, the merchant code has to note that it was a firearm. In the past (or present - the law really doesn't take effect for a year) there was no specific code for firearms. Apparently, guns were often labeled "sporting good" or some such. That changes next year.

What does "firearm-related" mean, as used in the Fox31 story? Nothing. A firearm under Colorado law is:

“Firearm” means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.

The only reference in the law to "firearm-related" is to accessories and ammunition for the purpose of qualifying who has to ensure that the coding takes place. It is possible (given that I'm not all that conversant on retail sales) that a "firearms merchant" must code everything they sell as "firearms." A cleaning kit? Firearm. A Smith and Wesson baseball hat? Firearm. A hunting jacket? Firearm. One might run up a considerable bill on stuff, never buying a gun or ammunition.

If all of this is confusing, imagine how it might look to the credit card companies upon whom the politicians have suggested some oversight responsibility. Not only does the legislature give them zero guidance about what constitutes "dangerous purchasing patterns," this part of the apparent intent of the law isn't mentioned at all. What Colorado lawmakers have done is announce an oversight burden in the press that does not exist in the law.

What happens if a credit card company decides to "alert the authorities?" The legislature not only has given zero guidance or legal authority to the cops, it has (in other areas of the law) pointed out how certain kinds of immunity no longer apply in Colorado. Absent anything to the contrary, a police officer, deputy sheriff or state trooper showing up at someone's home inquiring about a "dangerous purchase" is just asking to be sued for infringing on a citizen's 2nd and 4th Amendment rights.

Let's play copper. An intelligent agency would not ignore the call from Mastercard (for example, only). on the well-grounded notion that the purchaser (it could happen) was planning something nefarious. But, they would be reluctant to send an actual officer, for fear that one thing would lead to another, and then you've got SWAT out there hoping no one got hurt. How about a card, sent to the purchaser's credit card address, with return postage applied?

"Hello _______. The Friendly Police Department has been advised you recently purchased __ firearms. Please indicate the reason(s) for purchase. 1) I wanted a gun. 2) I'm a homicidal maniac - how did you figure me out? 3) None of your business. Eff off."

I guess this is how we Colorado. Pass a law, congratulate ourselves and then watch as nothing at all happens. I have an idea for Colorado politicians hoping to have an impact on crime.

Provide money and training to officers so they can be more competent and capable, then back them when they act in good faith. That would be a change from what we've endured recently.