The plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s decade-old ban on large capacity gun magazines have withdrawn their request for a judge to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the law.

Last week, the National Foundation for Gun Rights and two Colorado residents abandoned their attempt to obtain near-term relief from the magazine ban, which the state legislature enacted in the wake of the 2012 Aurora movie theater massacre. Barry K. Arrington, the attorney for the plaintiffs, wrote on Oct. 20 that he would instead “focus on developing a more detailed factual and legal record in the context of Plaintiffs’ request for permanent injunctive relief.”

As a result, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang, who is overseeing the case, vacated a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for November.

The lawsuit is one of a handful filed in Colorado’s federal trial court soon after the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court this year made it easier to strike down gun safety laws under the Second Amendment. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the court ruled that such regulations are acceptable only when they are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Because of Bruen, judges have temporarily blocked enforcement of local bans on “assault weapons” and large capacity magazines enacted in Boulder County. That litigation is ongoing.

While the statewide ban on large capacity magazines will remain in force, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office has provided a preview of its arguments in defense of the law’s constitutionality. The government’s primary argument relies upon the premise that large capacity magazines are not “arms” that fall under the Second Amendment’s protections.

Instead, they are “accessories.”

“Although LCMs can be used with certain firearms, LCMs cannot, by themselves, be used offensively or – more importantly for Second Amendment purposes – defensively. They are accessories, not arms,” wrote the attorney general’s office in a brief filed one week before the plaintiffs withdrew their preliminary injunction request.

The government argued that the ban on large capacity magazines – meaning those capable of accepting more than 15 rounds of ammunition – is not technically a regulation on firearms. Instead, it limits access to the “accessories of war” that have been used in mass murders in Aurora, Newtown, Las Vegas, Parkland, Boulder, Uvalde and elsewhere.

“And the evidence will show that the LCM Ban, on the one hand, imposes no burden on the right of armed self-defense and, on the other, reduces mass shooting fatalities by giving potential casualties the chance to flee, hide, or fight for their lives when the shooter pauses to reload,” the attorney general’s office added.

The government outlined further justifications for upholding the law, including its beliefs that a ban on large capacity gun magazines is consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, that large capacity magazines are rarely used in self-defense, and that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue.

The case is Gates et al. v. Polis.