Colorado Gun Owners Lack Standing to Challenge ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans, Judge Rules

File photo showing Josh O'Neal, general manager of the Rocky Mountain Gun Club, standing in front of a display of firearms, in Grand Junction, Colorado, on April 3, 2016. David Crary/AP Photo

A district judge in Colorado has ruled that gun advocacy groups challenging “assault weapon” bans in several cities lack standing to pursue their claims and ordered the plaintiffs to prove their standing or risk dismissal of the case.

In an opinion and memorandum issued on Sept. 30, Judge Nina Wang of the U.S. District Court for Colorado said that the plaintiffs, led by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the National Association for Gun Rights, had failed to demonstrate that they were directly harmed by local ordinances that prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of certain firearms classified as “assault weapons.”

The plaintiffs mounted a legal challenge in 2022 against four local ordinances enacted by the municipalities of Superior, Louisville, and Boulder, as well as Boulder County, arguing that the bans—which also apply to large-capacity magazines—infringed on their constitutional rights.

Specifically, they argued that the ordinances violated their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms by banning commonly owned firearms and magazines used for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. They also argued that the ordinances violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by enforcing these restrictions without due process.

The judge ruled that the plaintiffs—including several individual Colorado gun owners—had not provided sufficient evidence to establish standing, such as specific details about the firearms they owned or intended to acquire.

“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 plaintiffs previously asserted that they have standing to challenge the ordinances, because the laws make it illegal to acquire or transfer certain types of firearms and magazines that they either own or wish to acquire in the future, violating their Second Amendment rights and causing injury.

In response, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs lack standing because they have not provided sufficient factual evidence that they either own or have definite plans to possess the firearms and magazines in question and so engage in ordinance-violating conduct.

While the defendants sought to have the case dismissed, the judge declined their request. Instead, she gave the plaintiffs until Oct. 15 to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. This means that if they fail to provide sufficient evidence by the deadline, the case could be dismissed without the court addressing the constitutionality of the ordinances.

The defendants have until Oct. 29 to respond after the plaintiffs submit more evidence.

Requests for comment on the judge’s order, sent to Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the National Association for Gun Rights, were not immediately returned.

The ordinances, passed in mid-2022, restrict the possession, sale, and transfer of semi-automatic firearms with certain features, as well as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Local lawmakers have argued that these restrictions are necessary for public safety and to reduce crime committed with the aid of the firearms and magazines in question, particularly mass shootings.

Gun rights advocates, including Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the National Association for Gun Rights, argue that the firearms and magazines banned by the ordinances are used by millions of law-abiding citizens for self-defense and sport shooting and therefore should be protected by the Second Amendment. They also argue that local governments have overstepped their authority in enacting these laws.