Protection Of Business From Unlawful Entry
If enacted, HB1050 would amend several sections of the Colorado Revised Statutes to grant a broader immunity for using deadly physical force under specified conditions. This includes an individual’s belief that an unlawful entry has occurred and that the intruder presents a threat to occupants within the business. The proposed law suggests that individuals acting within these guidelines would be shielded from criminal prosecution or civil liability for any injuries or death resulting from their use of such force during these incidents.
House Bill 1050 proposes significant changes to existing laws regarding the use of deadly physical force against intruders in places of business. This bill extends the right to use deadly force to business owners, managers, employees, and anyone in lawful possession of a firearm at a business when facing an intruder. The intent of the bill is to bolster security for business premises by aligning rights traditionally reserved for homeowners to those overseeing businesses, thereby enhancing their ability to protect their properties from unlawful entry and potential crime.
As with many bills related to the use of deadly force, HB1050 has generated a range of opinions among lawmakers and the public. Proponents argue that the legislation is essential for ensuring that business owners are empowered to protect themselves and their properties effectively. Conversely, opponents express concerns about the potential for misuse of this law, arguing it could lead to unnecessary violence and escalation in what should be resolved without the use of deadly force. There are fears that this expansion could contribute to a 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality, which could put bystanders at risk.
The bill was discussed during a session of the Colorado General Assembly and received mixed reactions. In a voting session held on February 6, 2023, it faced significant opposition, garnering only 2 votes in favor while 7 members voted against it. This outcome highlights the contentious nature of the bill and suggests ongoing debates regarding the implications of expanding the use of deadly force in business environments.