The Colorado State Shooting Association is seeking a preliminary injunction against a new state firearm purchasing law, as the group pursues a broader court challenge to the law’s constitutionality.
The filing from Tuesday alleges that Colorado’s newly-enacted permitting process for many popular semiautomatic rifles is burdensome and arduous to complete, especially amid a patchwork of county sheriff policies and understanding of the law.
“The full permit-to-purchase scheme requires numerous steps, and many of those steps depend on a confusing and incomplete administrative infrastructure,” the filing reads. The plaintiffs contend that the state “has not finished building” the law.
Senate Bill 25-3 requires prospective gun buyers to pay for a background check, apply for an eligibility card with a sheriff, take a safety course with a third-party instructor and pass a written exam. After those steps, they can buy certain semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines for five years.
The law went fully into effect at the beginning of August, and CPW officials have been communicating with sheriffs and firearm instructors for months about the changes, including holding multiple town halls and instructor training sessions.
CSSA, alongside five individuals, were already suing Gov. Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, District Attorney Michael Allen and Colorado Parks and Wildlife head Laura Clellan over the law and have had a case pending before the U.S. District Court of Colorado since last September. In this most recent filing, CSSA asked the court to halt the law and laid out specific difficulties with obtaining eligibility cards and finding certified courses.
That includes alleged confusion among sheriffs over how to apply the statute and administrative limits on actually approving eligibility cards. In a declaration attached as an exhibit to the motion, Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell, a Republican, wrote that his office is not participating in the program because it cannot afford the program’s expected annual operating cost of over $400,000.
“I believe that, in order to cover the cost of the permit-to-purchase scheme, I would have to charge a fee amounting to approximately $400 per application,” he wrote. “I do not believe that I can charge applicants $400 and cover the cost of the program because it will be too expensive for many residents to pay, and I expect it would unconstitutionally burden their Second Amendment rights.”
Teller, Montezuma and Bent counties are choosing not to accept program applications, according to the filing.
Mikesell also wrote that he does not have enough information from CPW about criteria for accepting or denying eligibility card applications. Sheriffs can deny applications if a person fails a background check or if they believe a person is a danger to themselves or others.
In the motion, CSSA argues that the “cumulative burden” of the law is incompatible with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They cite the fees — for a background check, a $52 CPW processing fee, any sheriff-imposed fees and the cost of a training course — as well as the time and distance required for some people in the state to find a certified instructor.
“Someone in Walsh, Colorado, in the southeastern part of the state in Baca County, may have to drive to more populated areas like Pueblo over 187 miles away to complete the required training. And someone in Maybell, Colorado, in the northwestern part of the state in Moffat County, may have to drive to Grand Junction over 140 miles away to complete training,” CSSA Director of Operations Daniel Fenlason wrote in a declaration.
Fenlason wrote that he researched CPW-approved trainers and found 21 counties with no instructor.
Additionally, CSSA contends that the law is discriminatory to people with disabilities, non-English speakers and people with learning conditions like dyslexia.
CSSA’s overarching argument is that the law infringes on Second Amendment rights and cannot withstand a legal test established by the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which requires firearm regulations to line up with historical traditions of gun regulation.
Weiser spokesperson Lawrence Pacheco and CPW spokesperson Travis Duncan declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.