Colorado Judge Challenges Gun Rights Groups in Assault Weapon Ban Case

Judge's chair, gavel, flags, and scales of justice emblem.

A federal judge in Colorado has set an October 15 deadline for gun rights organizations to prove their standing in a lawsuit against local assault weapon bans, potentially jeopardizing their case and Second Amendment rights.

At a Glance

Judge Nina Wang ordered gun advocacy groups to demonstrate legal standing by October 15
The lawsuit challenges assault weapon bans in Superior, Louisville, and Boulder
Plaintiffs argue the bans violate Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights
If plaintiffs fail to prove standing, the case could be dismissed without examining constitutionality
The outcome could set a precedent for future challenges to firearm regulations

Judge Challenges Gun Rights Groups’ Standing

In a surprising turn of events, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Wang has put gun rights organizations on notice, demanding they prove their legal standing to challenge assault weapon bans in three Colorado municipalities. The plaintiffs, including Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the National Association for Gun Rights, now face a critical deadline of October 15 to demonstrate they have been directly harmed by the local ordinances in Superior, Louisville, and Boulder.

The judge’s decision stems from her finding that the groups failed to provide sufficient evidence of direct harm from the local ordinances. This development has raised concerns among Second Amendment advocates about the potential dismissal of the case without a thorough examination of the constitutionality of these restrictive firearm laws.

Nearly two years after a collection of firearm owners and gun rights groups sued Boulder County and three of its municipalities over their respective ordinances, a federal judge on Monday signaled she was prepared to dismiss the lawsuit due to… https://t.co/dWHwPmbnG3

— The Gazette (@csgazette) October 2, 2024

The Ordinances in Question

The ordinances at the center of this legal battle prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of certain firearms classified as “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines. Local lawmakers argue these restrictions are necessary for public safety, particularly in light of recent mass shootings. However, gun rights advocates maintain that these firearms are commonly used for self-defense and sport shooting, and should be protected under the Second Amendment.

“Colorado gun owners lack standing to challenge several state assault weapon bans, a federal judge said, though she didn’t immediately dismiss their case.

Judge Nina Wang of the US District Court for the District of Colorado said in her Monday opinion that the gun owner plaintiffs, who are led by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, failed to establish they have standing to sue three Colorado municipalities—Superior, Louisville, and Boulder—over their respective ordinances banning assault weapons.

However, the judge added, the Colorado municipality defendants didn’t raise the standing issue in their motion for summary judgment so that motion, for now, is denied.” – Bloomberg Law

Broader Implications for Gun Rights

This case occurs against the backdrop of broader gun control efforts in Colorado. Recently, a bill banning the purchase, sale, and transfer of semi-automatic firearms, defined as assault weapons, advanced in the Colorado House Judiciary Committee. The bill, House Bill 1292, passed on a 7-3 party-line vote, though its future in the legislature remains uncertain.

If the plaintiffs in the current case fail to prove standing, it could set a concerning precedent for future challenges to firearm regulations. Gun rights advocates worry this could impede their ability to defend Second Amendment rights against restrictive local and state laws.

The Path Forward

Judge Wang has given the plaintiffs until October 15 to provide additional evidence establishing their standing. This evidence must include specific details about the firearms they own or intend to acquire that would be affected by the bans. The defendants will then have until October 29 to respond to any new submissions.

“For instance, there are no factual allegations regarding what types of firearms and/or magazines each of the Individual Plaintiffs possesses; or what features the firearms and/or magazines have; or how long the Individual Plaintiffs have possessed them; or when each of the Individual Plaintiffs came into possession of them,” Wang wrote.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for gun owners’ rights across Colorado and potentially influence similar challenges in other states. As the deadline approaches, all eyes will be on the plaintiffs to see if they can provide the necessary evidence to keep their legal challenge alive and defend what many see as a fundamental constitutional right.