The Colorado chapter of the National Rifle Association is seeking an injunction to stop the state from enforcing a new law that took effect earlier this month. The measure requires anyone buying or selling certain firearms to first complete a safety training course offered through Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Under Senate Bill 003, the course is mandatory for anyone planning to purchase a semiautomatic rifle, shotgun or handgun with a detachable magazine.

The Colorado State Shooting Association filed a lawsuit last September challenging the law’s constitutionality, arguing it places “unlawful burdens on the rights of law-abiding Coloradans.”

“A government that makes you ask permission to buy a firearm isn’t protecting your rights — it’s trampling them,” said Ray Elliott, the group’s president. “We believe the courts will see this law for what it is: a blatant infringement of our Second Amendment freedoms.”

The suit was filed in the United States District Court by the Mountain States Legal Foundation on behalf of CSSA and six individual plaintiffs, who claimed to be directly affected by the law.

Now that the law has gone into effect, CSSA is seeking a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement until the lawsuit is resolved.

SB25-003, which took effect Aug. 1, now requires Coloradans who want to buy many commonly owned semi‑automatic firearms to navigate multiple steps: an initial background check, approval from their county sheriff, mandatory in-person training, a written test with a minimum score of 90%, added fees, a second background check at the point of sale and the state’s three-day waiting period, the organization said in announcing its motion.

The motion argues that the “cumulative burden” of the law is incompatible with the Second Amendment and cites a case in which a court ruled New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases unconstitutional.

“Colorado took a constitutional right and buried it underneath permission slips, background checks, fees, government bureaucracy, a two-day training mandate and a test scored more strictly than the written examination required of Colorado police officers,” said Huey Laugesen, executive director of CSSA. “Now the law is in effect, and the evidence shows the system the state spent more than a year preparing still does not function for huge numbers of Coloradans.”

According to the motion, at least 21 of Colorado’s 64 counties lacked an approved trainer to teach the safety course. CSSA also argues that the law’s requirements are discriminatory to individuals with disabilities, non-English speakers and applicants with dyslexia.

“The State of Colorado had roughly 16 months to make this system work before it took effect,” said Elliott. “Coloradans should not lose the ability to exercise a fundamental constitutional right because the government created a system that is expensive, arbitrary, inaccessible and in many parts of the state simply nonfunctional. We are asking the court to put a stop to it.”

Rep. Cecelia Espinoza, D-Denver, a former judge, argued that any lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law would not hold up, as legal challenges to similar and sometimes even stricter gun control measures have failed almost unanimously.

The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to bear arms is “not absolute” and can be subject to “reasonable regulations,” she said.

Similar laws in other states have faced mixed rulings through the courts. While a court has issued an injunction on the implementation of an Oregon ballot measure requiring a permit, background check and training course to purchase a firearm, a panel of Court of Appeals judges upheld Maryland’s requirement to undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a training course and a 30-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun.

According to Everytown, 10 states have adopted policies requiring gun buyers to undergo firearm safety training to purchase handguns.