Judge Denies Colorado Assault Weapon Ban Injunction

Bans on so-called assault weapons are particularly insidious, at least in my mind. The reason is very simple. They're bans on a particular, popular category of firearm that happens to be best suited for militia duty, and everyone who backs these bans knows it. Colorado, for example, knew what it was doing when it passed its assault weapon ban.

It's not surprising that some tried to get a federal court to issue an injunction to block enforcement of the law.

Unfortunately, we now know that's not happening.

A federal judge on Wednesday denied gunowners’ request to block enforcement of a Colorado law banning rapid-fire devices and restricting ownership of semiautomatic firearms to individuals who passed a safety course.

“The court concludes that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment challenge,” Senior U.S. District Judge William Martinez wrote in a 35-page opinion.

“Accordingly, plaintiffs are unlikely to suffer irreparable injury, which rises and falls here with its likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, the balance of the equities and public interest —  construed together — tips in favor of defendants,” the Barack Obama appointee added.

Lawmakers passed SB25-3, the “Act Concerning the Prohibition of Certain Semiautomatic Firearms and Rapid-Fire Devices,” in 2025. The law took effect in August with first-time violators being penalized with a class 2 misdemeanor and subsequent infractions rising to a class 6 felony.

In order to purchase a semiautomatic weapon in Colorado, the law now requires individuals to complete a hunter education class with a four-hour safety course, or an extended 12-hour class spanning two days. The class must be taught by a sheriff-verified firearms instructor, with the final exam results recorded in a statewide database.

The sheriff is generally required to issue an eligibility card to anyone who completes the required coursework, but may deny a card if they have “reasonable belief that the documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will present a danger to themselves or others.”

How on earth does Martinez figure this would fly with the Supreme Court following the Bruen decision? The "balance of the equities and public interest" suggests he's never even read the Bruen decision, which killed interest balancing with regard to Second Amendment cases once and for all. The so-called public interest in gun control is always something anti-gunners will push, but the Court explicitly rejected that in favor of a history, text, and tradition standard, which no assault weapon ban can actually meet.

He's out of his freaking gourd.

[Editor's Note: Judge Martinez's reference to the "balance of the equities and public interest" concerns the legal standard for granting a preliminary injunction, which requires courts to consider those factors. It is separate from the Second Amendment analysis required by Bruen, which prohibits judges from using interest balancing to determine whether a firearms regulation is constitutional. Martinez addressed the Bruen framework separately in his opinion, in part by declaring that the plaintiffs haven't shown the semi-automatic firearms in question are protected by the Second Amendment... which is just one area where the judge is really "out of his freaking gourd" as far as I'm concerned — Cam]

Unfortunately, this means that some people who have concerned county sheriffs for some reason, even if they've never engaged in a single criminal act, will be denied the ability to purchase a modern sporting rifle, and Martinez doesn't seem to see this as a serious due process concern. 

[Editor's Note: Not only that, but some county sheriffs have opted out of issuing these permits altogether, calling them unconstitutional or an unfunded mandate by the state legislature. Residents of those counties are then forced to travel to other communities to apply for a permit to purchase semi-automatic firearms. — Cam]

Honestly, the fact that he was appointed by Obama is pretty damn obvious based on his comments alone. It was either Obama or Biden, really, since most of Clinton's judges have retired by now.

Still, there is a case, and while Martinez might not see the irreparable harm or think the case won't succeed on its merits, I think that in the long term, it will, and we'll see the harm caused. A right delayed is a right denied.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.