![.45 Caliber hollow point bullets near handgun and magazine stock photo iStock.com/[Pratchaya]](https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/45-ACP-Hollow-point-ammo-1911-pistol-iStock-531419950-600x401.jpg)
Colorado and Denver officials are fighting a federal lawsuit challenging restrictions on concealed carry by out-of-state gun owners, but their latest court filings raise an obvious question: How can someone legally carry a handgun in Denver when the state and city impose restrictions that appear to eliminate both open and concealed carry?
On November 11, 2026, Colorado officials, Denver officials, and Denver District Attorney John Walsh filed separate responses opposing a preliminary injunction sought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) in Hoffman v. City and County of Denver, No. 1:26-cv-04837-PAB. As AmmoLand previously reported, Hoffman and FPC argue that Colorado’s reciprocity requirements and Denver’s open-carry prohibition combine to leave otherwise-qualified visitors without a lawful way to carry a handgun for self-defense.
Denver’s defense is particularly interesting. The city argues that California resident Gene Hoffman, who holds concealed-carry permits from California, Utah, Arizona, and Florida, can already legally carry a concealed handgun under Denver’s municipal ordinance. The problem is that Colorado’s statewide reciprocity law does not recognize those permits for a California resident.
The November 11 filings put that contradiction at the center of an increasingly important fight over whether Americans surrender their Second Amendment rights when they cross state lines.
Colorado Says Open Carry Is Legal. Denver Bans It.
Under Colorado law, concealed-carry permits are generally issued only to state residents. Colorado also recognizes permits from certain other states through reciprocity agreements, provided the permit holder resides in the state that issued the permit.
According to FPC’s first amended complaint, Colorado lacks reciprocity with 15 states and Washington, D.C., including California. That leaves residents of those jurisdictions unable to obtain a Colorado permit or rely on permits issued by their home states.
Colorado generally allows adults who are legally eligible to possess firearms to carry openly without a permit. Denver, however, prohibits open carry within city limits, subject to exceptions.
The combined restrictions are the foundation of FPC’s constitutional challenge. Colorado points to the availability of open carry under state law, while Denver argues that its municipal ordinance provides exceptions allowing concealed carry.
Denver Says Hoffman’s Permits Are Already Valid Under City Law
In its November 11 response, Document 34, Denver argues that Hoffman lacks standing to challenge its ordinance because he already possesses concealed-carry permits.
Denver Municipal Code § 38-118(d) provides an exception for concealed-carry permit holders. However, that exception expressly requires compliance with applicable federal, state, and local law.
That qualification matters. Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-12-213 requires qualifying reciprocity and generally recognizes out-of-state permits only when issued to residents of the issuing state. Hoffman’s California permit is not recognized by Colorado, and his nonresident permits from other states do not satisfy that residency requirement.
Denver also argues that individuals may carry openly or concealed with valid authorization from the city. According to its filing, Denver Police Chief Ron Thomas stated that the city would have considered such a request from Hoffman had he submitted one.
But the possibility of receiving special permission from government officials is not the same as recognizing a constitutional right. Denver has not established in these filings that Hoffman could obtain that authorization or that his California permit protects him from prosecution under state law.
FPC Accuses Colorado and Denver of Playing a Constitutional Shell Game
In a November 12 press release, FPC criticized the defendants for defending their respective restrictions without addressing their combined effect. FPC President Brandon Combs argued that Colorado and Denver are pointing to different methods of carrying firearms while ignoring how their laws interact.
“Colorado and Denver want everyone to ignore what their laws actually do. Colorado points to open carry, knowing Denver bans it. Denver points to concealed carry, knowing Colorado won’t recognize the permits held by peaceable visitors. Their entire defense amounts to ‘Pay no attention to the gun ban behind the curtain,‘” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “But this isn’t Oz, and the Constitution isn’t an illusion. The Supreme Court has already made clear that peaceable Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Our victory against California’s nonresident carry ban proved that fundamental rights don’t stop at state lines. So Colorado and Denver can keep pointing fingers and making excuses, but they cannot hide their unconstitutional gun-control scheme from the courts or the People. FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward until these immoral and unconstitutional restrictions are eliminated nationwide.”
The dispute also reaches beyond Denver’s municipal ordinance. Colorado Bureau of Investigation Director Armando Saldate and Colorado State Patrol Chief Matthew Packard rely on the Tenth Circuit’s 2013 decision in Peterson v. Martinez, which upheld Colorado’s restrictions on nonresident concealed-carry permits. The state argues that precedent remains controlling.
FPC counters that Peterson predates the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed that the Second Amendment protects carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. FPC also points to Wolford v. Lopez and argues that constitutional protections do not disappear at state borders.
Denver District Attorney John Walsh separately argues that he enforces Colorado criminal law rather than municipal ordinances and that Hoffman has never applied for a Colorado permit. The defendants also challenge the urgency and breadth of FPC’s requested injunction.
Second Amendment Rights Do Not Stop at State Lines
The case presents a fundamental constitutional question: Can state and municipal governments impose separate carry restrictions that, when combined, effectively disarm otherwise law-abiding Americans visiting from another state?
FPC argues that they cannot. The defendants maintain that lawful avenues for carrying firearms remain available and that the plaintiffs have not established grounds for immediate judicial relief.
A related lawsuit, Howeth v. City and County of Denver, brought by two individuals and the National Rifle Association, is also challenging Denver’s restrictions. Its preliminary-injunction motion remains pending according to the state’s November 11 filing.
FPC is expected to reply to the defendants’ arguments on November 25. No ruling on the requested preliminary injunction has been identified.
For now, Denver’s litigation position should not be mistaken for a change in Colorado law or confirmation that visitors holding nonrecognized permits can carry concealed firearms without risking prosecution.
The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not merely the right of residents to possess whatever privileges state and local governments choose to recognize. Americans do not lose that fundamental right simply because they travel to another state, and government officials should not be able to accomplish through overlapping restrictions what the Constitution forbids them from doing directly.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
