Colorado Assault Weapons Lawsuit Filed as SCOTUS Steps In
Colorado's gun laws are suddenly getting hit from two directions at once.
On June 30, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Colorado State Shooting Association (CSSA) filed a new Colorado assault weapons lawsuit, Elliott v. Denver, challenging Denver's ban on so-called “assault weapons” along with Denver's and Colorado's bans on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. The timing wasn't an accident. That same day, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the core question sitting underneath all of it.
What FPC and CSSA Actually Filed
Elliott v. Denver landed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on June 30, 2026. The plaintiffs are FPC, CSSA, and individual FPC members, represented by David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and William Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk.
The complaint goes after two things: Denver's ordinance banning common semi-automatic rifles, and the magazine limits at both the city and state level. The argument is the straightforward one. These laws prohibit peaceable people from owning firearms and magazines that are in common use across the country, which is exactly the kind of ban the Second Amendment is supposed to forbid.
Worth saying plainly: this is a filed complaint, not a ruling. Nobody has won anything yet.
The DOJ Got There First
If this feels familiar, it should. Back in May, the Department of Justice filed its own back-to-back suits over the same laws, United States v. Denver (the “assault weapons” ordinance) and United States v. Colorado (the state magazine ban). We covered those when they dropped.
The interesting part is that the DOJ isn't running the same legal theory. Instead of private citizens asserting their own rights, the federal government sued under 34 U.S.C. 12601, the “pattern or practice” statute normally aimed at police misconduct. That's an aggressive, unusual move, and it means Denver and Colorado are now defending these bans against the executive branch and a private-plaintiff coalition at the same time. CSSA's leadership said the overlap was no coincidence, and it's hard to read it any other way.
The Supreme Court Angle
Here's what makes June 30 more than just another filing date. That same day, the Supreme Court granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County, the challenge to Cook County, Illinois's “assault weapons” ban, and consolidated it with a Connecticut case, Grant v. Higgins.
The Court limited the question to one thing: whether the Second Amendment protects AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles in common use. Argument is expected this fall. Two points of precision matter here. A cert grant is not a decision, so nothing is settled yet. And the grant covers the rifle question, not magazines, so the magazine claims in Elliott aren't riding on this particular case.
What It Means If You Carry in Colorado
None of this changes the law today. Denver's rifle ban and Colorado's 15-round magazine limit are still on the books and still enforceable while these cases work through the courts.
What's changed is the pressure. You've got a private coalition, the federal government, and the Supreme Court all circling the same category of laws in the same narrow window. That's worth watching closely, but it isn't a reason to get ahead of what's actually legal right now. If you own or carry in Colorado, the smart move is knowing exactly where the current lines sit before any of this shakes out.
There is a lot going on with regards to gun rights in Colorado right now so one other clarification worth making is that none of this has anything to do with the new SB003 law going into effect on August 1st.
Are 2nd amendment is to be govern by the government not to take our rights away from the people. As time passes you have the. The other way of what American stand for and now it is a joke, even to take our guns that protects our homes and families. You have no right to do so since forefathers built Americans with the mind to let us have our amendment rights to bear arms. If you cannot protect the citizens that falls onto the government and police force not on its citizens. To weaken American by taking more rights from us, is an attack on our rights as a americans.
None of this will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. All Colorado is trying to do is follow California and keeping law abiding citizens from owning firearms. The Democrats and liberals and far left do not want law abiding citizens to own firearms. They will spend taxpayer money on private security to protect themselves but they don’t care about our protection. They would rather give more rights to criminals and illegals that come here and pray on our dollars and get away with more than a law abiding citizen. If you look at state by state democratic held States have more crime than Republican states. States that have tougher laws to prosecute criminals are safer. Democrats do not want a safe state. They want everyone to depend on them for money protection medical Care and whatever else they can figure out to give us at the cost of those who are working. This used to be a good state to live in. It has got to the point where it’s one of the most expensive states to live in in the nation. Blame that on the Democrats for wanting to support illegals and give the hard-working people’s money to those who don’t want to contribute. Look up the statistics on how much it cost to live here and the laws that they are shoving down law abiding citizens throats to compensate for their own inability to actually do something to fix the state and the problems.
Absolutely
shall not be infringed, loosely translated to i shall not vote for you!!!! you dont obey and enforce the UNIZTED SZTATES CONSTITUION then you dont get my vote!!! that should take care of the problem…. LOLOLOLO that would also solve term limits…WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! I LOVE MY COUNTRY, I FEAR MY GOVERNMENT!!!!
We must win this
What happens if you order one or more of these restricted firearms online?
After Aug 1st 2026 when the law has gone into effect; your local FFL will just refuse to transfer them to you until you have completed the required steps.
Does this law affect parts? Specifically standard triggers (I know it will affect binary, etc) but I can’t find anything specifically saying if it will involve all triggers or specific ones.
I assume you are asking about SB003, which this article you commented on has nothing to do with. Assuming I am right, the answer is that law has no impact on traditional or standard triggers.
Great post Jacob, keep it up!