He worries the policy would spur a rush to buy the newly banned firearms, inadvertently increasing the number in circulation while not addressing the leading causes of gun violence. Other policies, he has argued, would do more to stem the tide.

Sullivan did not commit to a firm yes or no vote on Thursday. He reiterated his past skepticism and said he would be “crystal clear with everybody where I am” when the committee voted.

“If I had thought (an assault weapons ban) was the way to go, I would have done it the day after Alex was murdered with one,” Sullivan said.

“This is a gut-check issue”

Coleman, who chairs the committee, said he was leaning toward supporting the bill because “I don’t understand why folks need” the weapons. But he said he’s also keeping Sullivan’s perspective in mind.

“If the (desired) outcome is to save lives and keep people from getting access to stuff that can cause more harm … then we should be talking about modifications to firearms, and we should be talking about much more than just one particular type,” Coleman said.

Sen. Julie Gonzales, a Denver Democrat who’s the prime sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said she was in active conversation with Sullivan. But she wouldn’t say how she thought his skepticism could be overcome.

“It’s a hard thing to do, when he’s also seen, firsthand, the devastation that those weapons of war have on families and communities,” she said of Sullivan’s position as a potential make-or-break vote on the bill.

Gonzales said she was still working on gauging broader support among Senate Democrats.

“This is a gut-check issue for members of the Senate caucus,” she said. “… At the end of the day, no matter what happens on this bill, I think that our voters across the state are incredibly clear about their position on the issue, and I look forward to the next step of this process, which is the Senate committee hearing.”

...continued

©2024 MediaNews Group, Inc. Visit at denverpost.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.