A federal judge will extend his temporary restraining order that prevents certain new gun safety regulations in the town of Superior from taking effect, while the parties to the legal challenge prepare to make arguments on recently-issued precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Court Judge Raymond P. Moore agreed on July 22 to halt Superior’s ban on “assault weapons” for 14 days in response to a lawsuit from pro-gun groups Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the National Association for Gun Rights. The plaintiffs argue Superior’s ordinance requiring registration of currently-owned assault weapons and prohibiting the possession of future such firearms violates the Second Amendment.

Originally, Moore scheduled a hearing for Aug. 4 to determine whether he would issue a preliminary injunction against the challenged portions of the ordinance while the lawsuit plays out in the trial court. But the town and the plaintiffs agreed this week to delay the hearing and extend the temporary restraining order, so as to prepare their legal arguments.

“I do think there are historical matters that need to be gone into,” Moore told the parties on Friday during a brief conference. He warned the litigants to avoid political commentary in their briefs.

“Such things have as much impact on me as a spitball on an elephant’s butt,” the judge said.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in early July, days after the conservative-majority Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, striking down a concealed carry regulation in New York. The opinion recognized the Second Amendment provides individuals the right to carry a firearm outside the home, and decided gun safety laws must be consistent with a “historical tradition” of firearm regulation — narrowing the scope of acceptable gun restrictions.

Relevant to the lawsuit, Superior’s Ordinance 0-9 requires anyone who owns an assault weapon as of July 1 to obtain a “certificate of ownership” from the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office by the end of 2022. Possession of assault weapons purchased after July 1 is not allowed, nor may someone transfer their certified firearm. The ordinance defines assault weapons to mean semi-automatic, center-fire rifles with the ability to have detachable magazines.

The new regulations also bar “illegal weapons,” which include assault weapons as well as non-firearms, and generally prohibit the open carry of firearms in public. Based on the Bruen decision, Moore found the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their challenges to the bans on assault weapons and illegal weapons.

Moore acknowledged the town had enacted Ordinance 0-9 to address mass shootings, which repeatedly involve assault weapons. However, “the Court is unaware of a historical precedent that would permit the Town of Superior to impose such a regulation that would, in reality, eventually ban all assault weapons,” he wrote in granting the temporary restraining order.

The judge declined to block the restrictions on the open carry of firearms in public.

Since then, several developments have occurred in the litigation. Superior has retained New York-based attorney David B. Toscano, who has worked on behalf of the gun safety group Everytown, and his colleague Christopher Philip Lynch. The plaintiffs also filed an amended version of their complaint removing Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle as a defendant.

On Thursday, the same attorneys who brought suit against Superior filed an additional lawsuit in federal court seeking to block enforcement of a state law enacted in the wake of the 2012 Aurora movie theater massacre that bans the possession of “large-capacity magazines.” The term refers to magazines capable of accepting more than 15 rounds of ammunition.

“The Magazine Ban infringes on Plaintiffs’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment by generally prohibiting the possession of arms that are commonly possessed by millions of Americans for lawful purposes,” wrote Barry K. Arrington and Shaun Pearman on behalf of the National Foundation for Gun Rights, Inc. and two individual plaintiffs.

Although the newest lawsuit employs similar arguments to the litigation against Superior and also relies on the Bruen decision, it is unclear whether it will also be assigned to Moore or potentially be consolidated with the Superior lawsuit.

Prior to Friday’s hearing, the town indicated it intends to defend Ordinance 0-9 by providing materials from experts as well as the type of historical perspective on gun regulations the Bruen decision calls for.

“While it is unfortunate that the Court was constrained in considering Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO without the benefit of the historical precedent and other information that the Town expects to bring to bear in this dispute, the Town looks forward to a robust submission and evidentiary showing,” wrote attorney Gordon L. Vaughan for Superior.

Moore indicated the hearing for a preliminary injunction will now take place on Nov. 8-9. He will extend the temporary restraining order, while narrowing it to exclude Pelle and to also exclude the non-firearm illegal weapons covered under the ordinance.

“While all cases are important, even for the smallest dollar amount for the litigants involved,” Moore said, “I don’t think it is a surprising statement to have me say: This is an important matter and should be handled in a way that permits each side to fully inform the court and the court to be fully informed in making its decision.”

The case is Rocky Mountain Gun Owners et al. v. The Town of Superior.