Gene Hoffman holds concealed-carry permits from California, Utah, Arizona, and Florida, but none allows him to carry a handgun publicly for self-defense when he visits Denver. According to a federal lawsuit brought by Hoffman and Firearms Policy Coalition, Colorado’s residency and reciprocity restrictions combine with Denver’s open-carry ban to leave him without a lawful avenue to exercise that right, even though he is willing and otherwise able to meet Colorado’s permit requirements.
FPC and Hoffman filed Hoffman v. City and County of Denver on September 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Their October 6 amended complaint challenges the denial of public carry to otherwise-qualified visitors and seeks access to Colorado carry licenses for Hoffman and similarly situated individuals, including FPC members. The case confronts a problem familiar to traveling gun owners: a collection of permits can still leave an American disarmed at his destination.
How Colorado and Denver Close Both Avenues for Carry
Hoffman is a California resident who travels to Denver at least two or three times annually to visit friends and his son, who attends Colorado State University. The complaint says he plans to return in January 2027 and would carry a handgun for lawful self-defense if the challenged restrictions did not prevent him from doing so. It also alleges that he could satisfy Colorado’s permit criteria apart from its residency requirement.
Colorado generally reserves its concealed-handgun permits for residents and recognizes qualifying out-of-state permits only when the holder resides in the issuing state. Because Hoffman lives in California, which lacks reciprocity with Colorado, his California permit is not recognized, and his nonresident permits from Utah, Arizona, and Florida do not overcome the restriction. Although Colorado generally permits open carry, Denver prohibits it, closing the other avenue for carrying a handgun publicly.
The complaint identifies 15 states and Washington, D.C., without Colorado reciprocity, placing their otherwise-qualified residents in the same position when seeking to carry publicly in Denver. For those visitors, the restrictions do more than dictate whether a handgun must be carried openly or concealed; the plaintiffs argue that they eliminate both options and deny the public-carry right recognized in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
American History Protected Armed Travelers
The lawsuit’s Second Amendment claim draws on Bruen’s requirement that the government justify a challenged restriction through the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation once the amendment’s text covers the conduct. FPC argues that carrying a handgun publicly for self-defense plainly falls within that protection and that American history provides no justification for stripping otherwise-qualified citizens of the right because they live in another state.
“Even when states did not require that travelers carry arms, there is a longstanding historical tradition—stretching from before the Founding until after Reconstruction—of traveler exceptions to carry restrictions that otherwise applied,” the complaint states.
It cites a 1686 New Jersey law restricting the carrying of certain weapons while exempting “all strangers, travelling upon their lawful occasions thro this Province, behaving themselves peaceably.” It also identifies traveler exceptions in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Alabama, among other jurisdictions.
The complaint further cites colonial laws requiring travelers to carry arms for their safety. These examples support the plaintiffs’ argument that travelers were historically afforded greater freedom to be armed because of the dangers they faced away from home. Colorado and Denver impose the opposite treatment on people in Hoffman’s position, excluding them from lawful public carry because of where they reside.
A Separate Challenge to Residency Discrimination
The lawsuit also invokes Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, which protects citizens against certain forms of discrimination when they enter another state. The complaint cites Supreme Court precedent explaining that the clause bars discrimination against out-of-state citizens when there is no substantial reason beyond their residency. Hoffman alleges that Colorado excludes him from its permitting process despite his willingness and ability to satisfy the other requirements, while qualified Colorado residents can obtain permits.
That exclusion has consequences beyond Denver’s open-carry ban. The complaint points to permit-dependent protections involving handgun possession in vehicles on public-university campuses and carry in parking areas adjacent to certain government buildings. Hoffman says he would also possess a handgun in his vehicle in Colorado State University’s parking area if he could obtain a valid permit, connecting the licensing challenge directly to his trips to visit his son.
The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act creates an additional obstacle. As FPC explains, its qualifying-license exception requires a license issued by the state where the school zone is located or one of that state’s political subdivisions. Recognition through reciprocity does not itself satisfy that exception. The amended complaint therefore asks for Colorado licenses as necessary for complete relief, along with declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctions, nominal damages against Denver, and attorney’s fees.
Building the Case for Nationwide Carry Rights
Constitutional attorney Mark Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, argues that Colorado and Denver’s overlapping restrictions amount to an effectively full-blown carry ban for Hoffman.
Denver prohibits him from carrying openly, while Colorado’s permit rules prevent him from carrying concealed, leaving neither avenue available for public armed self-defense. Smith explains that this complete denial violates Bruen’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun publicly for self-defense. To justify that prohibition, the government must identify a supporting historical tradition, yet the complaint documents laws that protected armed travelers and sometimes afforded them greater carry freedom than residents. Smith views the case as another step toward establishing that Americans retain their right to bear arms when they cross state lines.
In Bruen, after examining the text of the Second Amendment and the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, the Supreme Court held that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
The Supreme Court did not qualify that holding by recognizing only a right to carry in one’s state of residence, and there is no historical tradition of states or localities imposing such restrictions. Indeed, far from supporting such a restraint on bearing arms, and although it is not Plaintiffs’ burden to carry, the Nation’s historical tradition squarely rejects it.
Source: Complaint in Hoffman and Firearms Policy Coalition v. Denver, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
FPC has already made progress against residency restrictions in California, New York, and Louisiana, and Denver is the next fight in that broader effort. For gun owners, these cases address a familiar problem: planning a trip means sorting through conflicting carry laws, collecting additional permits, and still being told to leave their defensive handgun behind. Hoffman’s four permits show how far that system remains from respecting the right to bear arms.
“Colorado and Denver cannot deny millions of Americans their right to carry. As we’ve successfully shown in other cases, fundamental rights do not stop at state lines. The Second Amendment protects the People, period—not just where they live. We have already litigated to eliminate residency-based carry barriers in California, New York, and Louisiana, and we are going to keep pressing this issue throughout the United States,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.
Americans traveling to visit family, work, or take a vacation have the same right to protect themselves that they have at home. The Denver lawsuit seeks to restore that freedom for Hoffman and others in his position, moving the country closer to honoring the right wherever Americans travel.
Restoring the Second Amendment means ending the treatment of armed self-defense as a privilege that expires at a state line.
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.
