The “Right Delayed Further” act
CLICK HERE TO READ THE CURRENT BILL TEXT
Sponsors: Rep. Andrew Boesenecker and Rep. Anthony Hartsook
Status: Introduced, assigned to House State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs
Hearing: Monday, March 23, 2026 at 1:30 PM, LSB A
What it does:
This bill strips the existing statutory requirement that CBI’s InstaCheck Unit must be open at least 12 hours per day, every day of the year (except Christmas and Thanksgiving), and replaces it with a vague standard allowing the CBI Director to set whatever hours “best meet the business needs of the bureau.”
What makes it so awful:
1. Uses the waiting period to justify itself — a compounding infringement.
The bill’s own legislative declaration (Section 1(c)) states that the 3-day waiting period (HB 23-1219) “reduced CBI’s need to provide immediate background check services.” This is the anti-gun ratchet in action: the legislature passes a waiting period, then uses that waiting period as justification to cut background check availability, which further delays transfers. Each restriction becomes the foundation for the next.
2. This is directly relevant to my case, Garcia v. Polis.
Alongside RMGO, I am challenging the 3-day waiting period in federal court right now, with summary judgment motions pending before Judge Kane. The legislature citing that same waiting period as justification for further restricting CBI hours is essentially the state building policy on top of a law whose constitutionality is actively in dispute. If the waiting period is struck down, the entire premise of this bill collapses — but the reduced hours would still be in effect unless separately challenged.
3. The Tenth Circuit is already signaling waiting periods are unconstitutional.
In Ortega v. Grisham (10th Cir., Aug. 2025), the Tenth Circuit held that New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period likely violates the Second Amendment, finding no historical analogue supporting cooling-off periods. Colorado is in the Tenth Circuit. The legislature is now building further restrictions on a legal framework the appellate court above them has signaled is unconstitutional.
4. No floor or ceiling on hours — complete agency discretion.
The bill removes the hard minimum of 12 hours/day and replaces it with zero binding requirements. The phrase “hours that best meet the business needs of the bureau” gives the CBI Director unilateral discretion to cut hours to whatever they want — 4 hours a day, weekdays only, etc. There is no minimum hours requirement, no weekend requirement, and no legislative oversight mechanism.
5. “Business needs” is the wrong standard — this is a rights function, not a business.
CBI’s InstaCheck Unit isn’t a retail operation; it’s the sole state gateway through which every legal firearm transfer in Colorado must pass. Framing its operating hours around “business needs” rather than around citizen access to a constitutional right is telling. The appropriate standard should be public need and rights access, not bureaucratic convenience.
6. Reduced hours means longer delays on top of the existing 3-day wait.
If CBI shortens its operating hours, background checks submitted late in the day may not be processed until the next business day, which pushes the start of the 3-day waiting period later, which pushes actual transfer dates further out. For someone who needs a firearm for self-defense — the exact scenario in your case — every additional hour of delay is an additional hour of vulnerability.
7. No accountability or transparency requirements.
The bill says the CBI Director “shall continuously review the business needs statistics” but there is no requirement to publish those statistics, report to the legislature, hold public comment, or justify the chosen hours. This is a blank check to a law enforcement agency with zero public accountability built in.
8. Disparate impact on rural and working Coloradans.
People who work non-traditional hours, live in rural areas and must drive significant distances to reach an FFL, or can only shop on evenings and weekends will be disproportionately affected if CBI reduces weekend or evening availability. This concentrates practical firearms access among those with flexible schedules
FINAL SUMMARY
This bill is a second-order consequence of the waiting period law you’re already fighting. The legislature passed a waiting period, then uses that waiting period to argue CBI doesn’t need to be available as much, which will functionally extend transfer delays further. It’s a ratchet: restrict → use the restriction to justify more restrictions → repeat.
The hearing is this Monday, March 23 at 1:30 PM.
Sign up to testify AGAINST this bill here.
THIS BILL WAS CREATED BY A REPUBLICAN WHO IS SAYING HE IS ‘PRO 2A’. Contact Representative Anthony Hartsook here
Leave a Reply