Since August 1, Colorado sheriffs have continued criticizing SB25-003. That kind of opposition tends to produce two reactions: relief if it comes from your sheriff, or curiosity about whether buying in that county would avoid the new process.

Both reactions assume that a sheriff declining to administer or enforce the law means the purchase rules no longer function in that county. The statute is not built that way. The eligibility-card application involves a sheriff, but the purchase restriction, dealer verification, prosecution, and other consequences do not all depend on the sheriff where a dealer happens to be located.

What sheriffs have actually said

It is important to distinguish opposition to the law from a promise that buyers and sellers can ignore it.

The Montezuma County Sheriff’s Office announced that it would not process eligibility-card applications, citing constitutional objections and the cost of administering the program. Its announcement also warned that the decision did not create a local exception to state law. Residents would still need to obtain a card through another participating sheriff before completing the required training and purchase process.

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams publicly opposed SB25-003 before it took effect, but the Weld County Sheriff’s Office explained that refusing to perform the administrative duties assigned to the office would create another impediment for Weld County residents. The office therefore opposed the policy without treating that opposition as a local exemption.

These examples concern administration of the eligibility-card system. We have not found a Colorado sheriff publicly telling dealers or buyers that they may complete an otherwise prohibited SSF transaction without satisfying the state requirements.

Buying in another county does not change the transaction rules

C.R.S. 18-12-116 makes it unlawful for a person to manufacture, distribute, transfer, sell, or purchase a specified semiautomatic firearm unless an exception applies. The statute does not make ordinary possession of an SSF an offense. The relevant event here is the purchase or transfer—not simply owning the firearm afterward.

Nothing in that restriction changes because a dealer is located in a county whose sheriff opposes the law. A buyer who travels to another Colorado county is still making a Colorado purchase, and the dealer is still making a Colorado sale or transfer.

The dealer checks a statewide system

The state’s official purchase process directs the dealer to confirm the buyer’s eligibility through the Firearms Safety System before proceeding. C.R.S. 33-9-115(3)(d) authorizes a federally licensed firearms dealer to query the system to determine whether the prospective buyer completed the courses required for the purchase.

That verification does not depend on the policy position of the sheriff where the store is located. The dealer has independent exposure under the state transaction restriction and must also consider the federal requirement that licensed dealers comply with applicable state-law conditions on firearm sales. A sheriff’s political assurance would not amend either body of law or guarantee protection for the dealer.

That is why the relevant question for the seller is not “What does this county’s sheriff think of SB25-003?” It is whether the transaction complies with the requirements the state system is designed to verify.

Most private transfers do not avoid the dealer checkpoint

Colorado’s existing private-transfer law, C.R.S. 18-12-112, generally requires private parties to arrange for a licensed dealer to conduct the background-check portion of a firearm transfer. That routes most private transactions through a dealer even before SB25-003 is considered.

The private-transfer statute contains its own exceptions, including some family transfers. But an exception from the background-check procedure is not automatically an exception from SB25-003. The newer law has its own list of permitted transactions. A transfer must comply with every statute that applies to it; avoiding one dealer-background-check requirement does not, by itself, authorize an SSF transfer prohibited somewhere else.

A sheriff does not control every enforcement path

A sheriff can decide how their office prioritizes investigations and can decline to perform an administrative function until compelled otherwise. That discretion has practical consequences, but it does not repeal a state statute.

District attorneys make charging decisions independently. Other law-enforcement agencies may encounter evidence of a transaction. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation administers the firearm background-check consequences that may follow a conviction, and the Department of Revenue regulates state firearm-dealer permits. None of those actors is bound by another county sheriff’s promise about enforcement priorities.

There is another practical limit: a sheriff cannot promise away the legal exposure of the other people involved. Even if a sheriff said their own deputies would not initiate cases under this provision, that would not provide a defense written into the statute for a buyer, private seller, or dealer.

What Montezuma County actually demonstrates

Montezuma County provides a real example of a sheriff withdrawing from the administrative side of the program. The result is not that county residents may skip the process. It is that they must find another participating sheriff, potentially pay a nonresident fee, and complete the same statewide training and dealer-verification steps before purchasing an SSF.

In other words, declining to process cards can make compliance harder for local residents. It does not open a county-level path around the purchase restriction.

Bottom line

Buying from a dealer in a different Colorado county does not avoid SB25-003. The purchase and sale remain subject to state law, and the dealer’s verification uses a statewide system. Most private transfers already involve a licensed dealer, and an exception from the private-background-check law is not necessarily an exception from the SSF transaction rules.

A sheriff’s enforcement priorities may affect whether that particular agency initiates an investigation. They do not change the statutory requirements, bind prosecutors or other agencies, or eliminate the independent risk carried by the seller and dealer.

For the ordinary compliant route, see our step-by-step SSF purchase guide. Questions about a particular transfer or exception should go to a qualified Colorado attorney rather than a dealer-counter rumor or a sheriff’s political statement.

As always, we are not lawyers — just Colorado citizens trying to understand the law and share what we learn. The information on this website is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney/client relationship. The accuracy, completeness, or currency of the content is not warranted. Your use of content on this website is at your own risk. Consult an attorney about your specific circumstances.