A lawsuit over gun laws pending in Washington, D.C. is being closely watched by the Denver-based Independence Institute to determine how it could affect the rights of private citizens to carry concealed guns.

The Independence Institute is a libertarian public policy group whose advocacy work for personal and economic freedom includes support for laws granting some private citizens rights to carry concealed guns.

The organization is planning legal action to bring gun rights back to the forefront in Colorado politics.

The dispute in the District of Columbia that led to the current appeals case is essentially the same as the controversy in Colorado that prompted state lawmakers to reform gun laws in 2003, said David Kopel, an Independence Institute attorney.

“Colorado has what the plaintiffs in D.C. are seeking,” Kopel said.

He was one of several attorneys who participated in a friend-of-the-court brief last year in the case of Wrenn v. D.C. pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The plaintiffs argue that a District of Columbia law violates the Second Amendment by requiring anyone who wants to carry a concealed gun to prove to the police they have a “good reason” before they will be granted permits. The good reason normally refers to security guards or law-abiding citizens who can prove they face an imminent threat of injury or death.

The appeals court heard oral arguments from attorneys in the case late last month. The three-judge panel’s decision is expected within weeks.

Kopel’s friend-of-the-court brief argued that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms should not include extensive requirements to prove the need for a gun permit.

Fewer than 100 of the permits have been granted by the District of Columbia since the law took effect in 2013. The city has more than 600,000 residents.

Before state lawmakers changed their law in 2003, anyone in Colorado who wanted to carry a concealed gun needed a permit from a local police chief or sheriff, who had broad discretion on whether to grant them.

The law resulted in a patchwork of gun permits, Kopel said. In Denver, very few permits were granted. In most other counties, residents experienced little difficulty in convincing a sheriff they should get a gun permit.

The 2003 reforms meant nearly anyone with a clean record, safety training and a background check showing they represent no danger to themselves or other persons could win a concealed gun permit.

“It’s not subject to arbitrary denial,” Kopel said.

Gun rights are close to emerging as a political issue once again in Colorado.

Kopel was the attorney for a group of sheriffs who sued the state unsuccessfully to overturn a law restricting the size of ammunition magazines and expanding background checks for gun purchases. The sheriffs from 54 of Colorado’s 64 counties sought an injunction against the law.

State lawmakers imposed the new restrictions after a 2012 shooting rampage at a Denver-area movie theater in which a gunman killed 12 people and injured dozens.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled in March that the sheriffs failed to prove they would suffer any harm by the new gun law, meaning they lacked standing to sue.

The sheriffs argued that the Second Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act should take precedence over the state law restrictions. They also said the law could subject them to unnecessary liability if they loan a gun to someone.

The 10th Circuit ruling called the sheriffs’ concerns too speculative to give them a right to sue.

“Such ‘some day’ speculations are insufficient to establish an injury-in-fact for purposes of … standing,” the court’s ruling said.

But Kopel said the ruling in March will not be the end of the legal remedies sought by the sheriffs.

He is planning a new lawsuit that he said addresses the court’s ruling on “standing.”

“We have plans to come back,” Kopel said. “We are working on a new case.”

He declined to give details until the lawsuit is filed.

Several members of Colorado’s congressional delegation weighed in on gun permit laws in response to questions from The Colorado Statesman.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Windsor) showed the strongest support for gun laws favored by the sheriffs.

“I don’t think citizens should have to apply to the government for permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights any more than they should have to apply to exercise any other constitutional right,” he said. “Furthermore, Colorado’s magazine limits don’t actually improve public safety, especially because the vast majority of gun deaths are caused by handguns. More gun deaths each year are caused by fists and knives than by rifles.”

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Golden)  said he seeks “common sense gun violence prevention measures” to reduce the risk guns might fall into the hands of dangerous persons.

“I support background checks for those who wish to purchase a firearm and I support permits for carrying a concealed weapon,” he said.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Denver) supported similar ideas when she said, “I’ve been advocating for bipartisan measures on the national level to strengthen and expand background checks and eliminate assault weapons.”