All three La Plata County commissioners voiced opposition to a proposed gun law that, despite being in its infancy, has raised ire among some rural residents across the state.

Under current law, boards of county commissioners may outlaw the discharge of firearms in certain rural areas of a county. The right to enact these restrictions is currently limited to areas that have a population density of 100 people or more per square mile. However, county governments cannot outlaw the discharge of firearms on private property or at gun ranges in those areas.

If enacted, House Bill 23-1165 would have two significant impacts.

First, it would change the areas in which county governments have these restrictive powers from those with a population density of 100 people or more per square mile to areas with 30 dwellings or more per square mile.

Second, the law would repeal the private property exception, giving county governments the power to ban the discharge of firearms on private property in rural areas that meet the density criteria.

The bill is currently under consideration in the House.

The Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee of Colorado Counties Incorporated, an organization that unites counties to offer collective input on a variety of issues affecting Colorado residents, voted to oppose the bill on Thursday.

Commissioner Matt Salka represents La Plata County on that committee and was among the “nay” votes.

Salka did not mince words in discussing the proposed law at Wednesday’s Board of County Commissioners discussion time, calling it “a nonsense bill.”

He and the two other members of the BoCC say the bill is unnecessary given existing laws and would only sow division and incite anxiety within the county. Three of the bill’s four prime sponsors represent Boulder County and outlying regions.

“It’s a contentious concern for private landowners that want to be able to have safe gun practices on their own property,” Salka said in an interview with the The Durango Herald. “This additional tool is a threat to private landowners.”

Commissioners Marsha Porter-Norton and Clyde Church both agreed with Salka’s characterization, saying existing laws that regulate noise and reckless behavior already provide sufficient authority to ensure firearm discharges in rural parts of the county occur in a safe, neighborly manner.

“I don’t think what’s being proposed is necessary and I think it creates a lot of division,” Porter-Norton said. “Frankly, I think we have many other bigger issues that we should be working on in the Legislature.”

The law would only offer counties the option to enforce stricter regulations; it would not enact such regulations upon being signed into law. Commissioners say that just the possibility of stricter regulation can be damaging to the fragile unity of the county’s rural and nonrural residents.

“It is something that is a part of rural culture in some cases,” Porter-Norton said. “... To develop statewide policy around this, I think it creates a lot of division and dissension.”

Some legislators want to offer counties the option to enact stricter firearm discharge regulations and don’t see any harm in doing so. Rep. Barbara McLachlan, who represents Colorado’s 59th House District, is not one of them. She voted against the bill in all three early votes.

While some may question the harm in offering counties the option of enacting further restrictions, Salka said that query can be flipped the other way on proponents of the bill.

“We already have the tools – why don’t you just use what you got?” he asked.

rschafir@durangoherald.com