A federal judge on Thursday permitted firearm owners and two gun-rights organizations to proceed with their constitutional challenge to certain provisions of gun safety ordinances enacted by Boulder County and three of its municipalities.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the National Association for Gun Rights and five individual Coloradans filed suit in 2022 over local firearms ordinances that generally prohibited the sale, transfer and possession of large-capacity magazines and semi-automatic guns deemed “assault weapons,” with some variation.

The lawsuit ran into a roadblock last fall, when U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang expressed doubts that the plaintiffs demonstrated their standing to sue in the first place. She ordered the challengers to explain why she should not terminate the case.

After hearing from the plaintiffs and evaluating their claims of how the various local regulations would affect them, Wang issued a July 17 order surgically defining which plaintiffs could challenge which elements of which government’s policy. 

She concluded no plaintiff had established their standing to challenge the prohibition on the pre-2022 possession of assault weapons. However, certain plaintiffs could challenge the prohibition on the future possession of assault weapons. Further, certain plaintiffs could also challenge the prohibition on current and future possession of large-capacity magazines.

Wang, an appointee of Joe Biden, directed the plaintiffs to file a clean version of their lawsuit to reflect her determinations. She also permitted the plaintiffs and the government defendants to once again file motions for summary judgment, which could end the lawsuit without a trial if the law pointed to a clear outcome.

The defendants — Boulder County and the municipalities of Superior, Louisville and Boulder — enacted their regulations against assault weapons and large-capacity magazines in the wake of a mass murder at a Boulder King Soopers. The plaintiffs responded by suing pursuant to a then-new U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, in which the court’s Republican-appointed majority made it more difficult for gun restrictions to pass constitutional muster. 

The parties submitted nearly 1,900 pages of material seeking to end the case in their favor without a trial. However, in a Sept. 30 order, Wang focused on the set of largely identical statements the plaintiffs submitted asserting they currently possess assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, would like to acquire more in the future, but would be prohibited by the ordinances.

She found that, problematically, the plaintiffs had given no details about what items they own, making it impossible for her to determine whether their unspecified guns actually fell under the prohibitions of the ordinances. She believed the plaintiffs’ stated intent to acquire banned items was similarly vague.

The parties responded to her order, and the government defendants conceded some claims were viable. Yet, they maintained none of the plaintiffs’ challenges could proceed against the prohibition on assault weapons acquired prior to July 2022. They noted each owner, if they wished to keep their weapon, was required to get a certificate from the local government. Some of the plaintiffs indicated they would not do so because they did not want their firearms “recorded in a government database” or deemed the process “absurd.”

Wang observed that her prior order required the plaintiffs to describe whether their failure to pursue an ownership certificate should count against them. But they had not explained whether their conduct amounted to a “self-inflicted injury” that removed their ability to sue.

Consequently, she concluded challenges to the municipalities’ prohibitions against the current possession of assault weapons were not viable.

As for the forward-looking prohibitions on assault weapons, Wang believed plaintiff Bryan LaFonte had standing to challenge Louisville’s provision, and both gun rights organizations could challenge Boulder County’s.

As for the current prohibition on large-capacity magazines, defined as those capable of holding more than 10 rounds, the government defendants argued state law prohibits magazines with a capacity larger than 15 rounds. Because the plaintiffs were not challenging that law, “state law independently prohibits them” from acquiring magazines that fall under both the local and state prohibitions.

Wang agreed that any plaintiffs with magazines outlawed at the state level did not have standing to challenge the ordinances. But LaFonte and plaintiff James Michael Jones could proceed with claims against Boulder and Louisville, and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners could proceed against Superior.

Finally, because LaFonte, Jones and plaintiff Gordon Madonna asserted they intended to purchase magazines that hold between 10 and 15 rounds — and because the National Association for Gun Rights asserted one of its members plans to transfer a 15-round magazine to his family members — Wang allowed the challenge on future possession to proceed against Louisville, Boulder and Boulder County.

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