A federal judge last week dismissed a Colorado Springs man’s lawsuit that sought to declare multiple gun safety laws unconstitutional in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding gun rights.

Delbert Elmer Sgaggio Jr. sued to halt enforcement of Colorado’s law prohibiting those who are subject to protection orders, also known as restraining orders, from possessing guns. He also challenged the requirement for most gun buyers to undergo background checks and, finally, Colorado’s “red flag” law, which enables law enforcement to temporarily confiscate guns from people who pose a danger to themselves or others.

On July 6, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer found Sgaggio had no standing to challenge any of those laws.

“Mr. Sgaggio’s complaint does not state when he intends to purchase firearms or provide any other details indicating that he has concrete plans to purchase firearms,” Brimmer wrote. “Accordingly, Mr. Sgaggio has failed to describe his plans in sufficient detail to establish that he is likely to suffer actual or imminent injury.”

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office suggested Sgaggio had filed the lawsuit in retaliation for the state’s handling of another one of Sgaggio’s complaints. Sgaggio, who has filed multiple lawsuits himself against government officials, maintained gun safety regulations are akin to “slavery” and Colorado is engaged in “a scheme to disarm the public.”

Saggio filed his constitutional challenge earlier this year, citing the the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The court’s conservative majority laid down a new legal framework for analyzing the constitutionality of gun regulations broadly, requiring the government to show a restriction is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

In his lawsuit, Sgaggio claimed he was not allowed to take possession of his stepson’s semiautomatic rifles because Colorado law prohibits people who are subject to protection orders from surrendering their firearms to those living in the same household. Sgaggio’s stepson, Zain Aguilera-Valdez, is facing attempted murder and domestic violence charges and lives with Sgaggio while he is on bond.

Sgaggio also likened background checks, and the accompanying small-dollar fee, as “a defacto gun registration.” Finally, he alleged that because he is a “Spiritual Guide, Journalist and Civil rights Activist,” he faces a credible threat of the government taking away his guns under the red flag law.

The defendants, Fourth Judicial District Attorney Michael Allen and Gov. Jared Polis, responded that Sgaggio failed to show his prosecution was imminent. As for his inability to take possession of his stepson’s guns, Sgaggio’s Second Amendment rights “are not implicated in this situation,” they argued.

“He can purchase them, acquire them from someone not under a court order, or – if he prefers these specific firearms – take possession of them from his son, while asking his son to reside elsewhere while awaiting trial,” wrote the attorney general’s office. “The Second Amendment does not establish a right to obtain a specific firearm from someone under court order to relinquish it.”

The defendants added that the Supreme Court in Bruen did not question the constitutionality of background checks, and the red flag law has “procedural safeguards” that render it constitutional.

“I seem to be confused,” Sgaggio responded, because “in 2019 Defendant Michael Allen, states that the red flag law is unconstitutional. However now he chooses to defend it.” Sgaggio attached a screenshot of Allen condemning the law as unconstitutional in a tweet.

However, Brimmer agreed with the defendants that Sgaggio’s allegations did not amount to a viable challenge.

“Mr. Sgaggio offers no support for the proposition that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to receive particular firearms from an individual who has been ordered to relinquish them pursuant to an otherwise valid law, and the Court is aware of none,” Brimmer wrote in addressing the protection order law.

As for the background check law, Sgaggio provided no details about future firearm purchases, making it unclear whether he would suffer any harm from having to pay the fee. Similarly, there was nothing to suggest Sgaggio would be subject to firearm confiscation under the red flag law.

Although Sgaggio is currently facing a misdemeanor charge from Allen’s office for possessing a prohibited large-capacity magazine, Sgaggio did not challenge the constitutionality of that law. The attorney general’s office suggested to Brimmer that Sgaggio only filed his lawsuit because he perceived “disrespectful energy” – in Sgaggio’s words – from the government in one of his previous cases.

Days before Brimmer’s order, the Supreme Court announced it would hear a challenge to a federal law that, like Colorado’s, prohibits firearm possession by those subject to protection orders.

The case is Sgaggio v. Polis et al.