News

Colorado, Denver Defenses Leave Nonresident Carry in Legal Limbo

November 12, 2026

Colorado and Denver are defending a federal lawsuit over nonresident concealed carry by pointing to different legal options for visitors, but together their arguments suggest someone could end up with no lawful way to carry at all.

Snapshot

The Firearms Policy Coalition's lawsuit, Hoffman v. City and County of Denver, challenges Colorado's reciprocity limits and Denver's open-carry ban. In November 11, 2026 filings, Colorado argues visitors can carry openly under state law, while Denver says its ordinance already allows concealed carry for permit holders like plaintiff Gene Hoffman. The catch: Colorado doesn't recognize his California permit.

Key points

  • Conflicting defenses: Colorado cites open carry as a lawful option even though Denver bans it within city limits; Denver cites concealed-carry exceptions even though Colorado's reciprocity law won't recognize Hoffman's permits.
  • Standing dispute: Denver argues Hoffman lacks standing because its municipal code allows concealed carry for permit holders, but that exception requires compliance with state law, which excludes his California permit.
  • Precedent fight: State officials lean on the Tenth Circuit's 2013 Peterson v. Martinez ruling upholding Colorado's restrictions; FPC counters that Bruen and Wolford v. Lopez have since changed the constitutional landscape.
  • FPC's response: President Brandon Combs says the defendants are each pointing to a different carry method while ignoring how their combined laws function, calling it a "constitutional shell game."
  • What's next: FPC's reply is due November 25, with no ruling yet on the requested preliminary injunction; a related NRA-backed case, Howeth v. Denver, is also pending.

Quick take

The filings don't change Colorado law yet, and visitors relying on nonrecognized permits still risk prosecution. The real question for the court is whether overlapping state and municipal restrictions can functionally eliminate carry rights that neither law eliminates on its own.

Read the full story: ammoland.com