1. United States
2. Colo.
3. Letter

Colorado lawmakers keep saying they want to protect the public, but too many of you are building a system that does the opposite. You are reducing the public’s ability to protect itself from abuse by government, from federal overreach, and from the kind of institutional mission creep that always arrives dressed up as safety, urgency, and compassion. In a hostile national climate defined by lawless posturing, bully tactics, selective enforcement, and open contempt for constitutional limits, that is reckless. Good intentions do not erase bad incentives. They do not erase foreseeable abuse. They do not erase the damage that follows when power is centralized, expedited, and handed fewer obstacles. HB26-1255 is a perfect example. A law that forces social media companies to maintain a 24 hour law enforcement contact path, acknowledge search warrants within 8 hours, and comply within 24 hours unless a court grants an extension does not exist in a vacuum. It pressures companies to move fast, lawyer less, narrow less, and challenge less. The practical result is weaker due diligence and more routine disclosure. That matters when the current federal environment gives every reason to expect aggressive requests, stretched emergency claims, and political misuse of systems that were supposedly built for public safety. The same blindness shows up in other areas. When Colorado restricts access to commonly owned semiautomatic firearms, it reduces the ability of ordinary residents to defend themselves while asking them to place more trust in institutions that have done nothing to earn it. SB25-003 imposes major new restrictions beginning August 1, 2026. You may call that public safety. Many Coloradans will correctly experience it as the state narrowing a constitutional right during a period of growing instability and declining trust. Denver adds another warning sign. The mayor’s administration moved forward with Flock Safety and Skydio arrangements without proper notice to City Council or the surveillance task force, and the Denver Auditor later refused to sign the Flock contract because of liability tied to improper data sharing risks. That is not thoughtful governance. That is institutional deference to surveillance expansion when government should be facing harder questions, not easier approvals. Enough with the “think of the children” panic script. Think it through. Every shortcut you create today becomes a weapon in the hands of people you do not control tomorrow.