On August 12, the NRA and two individual plaintiffs sued the city and county of Denver, the city police chief, the city attorney, the city sheriff, the Colorado attorney general and the executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Safety. They argued that the state’s residency requirement for concealed carry permits (CCPs) and Denver’s ban on open carry, taken together, violate nonresident visitors’ Second Amendment rights because they have no lawful means to carry a handgun for self-defense within Denver city limits.
Plaintiffs are residents of South Carolina and Hawaii. Colorado does not reciprocally honor permits issued by South Carolina or Hawaii because neither of those states recognize Colorado-issued CCPs. Colorado does not recognize non-resident permits issued by any state. Colorado will only issue CCPs for residents; non-residents are not eligible for Colorado-issued CCPs. Denver prohibits open carry within city limits and concealed carry without a permit.
The complaint further alleges that the Hawaii resident plaintiff, who has a concealed carry permit issued by Hawaii and a nonresident permit from Utah, owns a second home in a Denver suburb. In May, he applied for concealed carry permit from Colorado but was denied because he lacked a Colorado ID. He alleges that he regularly travels to and from Denver, to see family, to shop, and to travel via Denver International Airport.
Similarly, the South Carolina resident plaintiff alleged that he has a permit issued by South Carolina but has not applied for a permit because the state website, through which one would apply for a concealed carry permit, does not allow non-residents to apply.
They argue that the combination of Denver’s open carry prohibition and Colorado’s CCP requirements (residency, not recognizing permits issued by other states) effectively deny plaintiffs of their Second Amendment rights to carry handguns in public for their self-defense.
In support of their claims, plaintiffs offer historical evidence (from the Duke Center for Firearms Law Repository) that some jurisdictions exempted travelers from public carry restrictions. For instance, plaintiffs offer a 1686 statute from the Province of East Jersey (a province of New Jersey) that prohibited “privately” wearing various weapons but exempted “all strangers, travelling upon their lawful occasions thro’ this Province, behaving themselves peaceably.” Plaintiffs also cite a 1813 Kentucky law and an 1820 Indiana law that generally prohibited concealed carry of certain weapons unless the carrier was traveling on a journey. Plaintiffs also cite to Antebellum and Reconstruction era laws that stand for the same principle. Indeed, the complaint cites dozens of such examples.
The suit brings to the fore a recurring issue in the Second Amendment space: the interstate reciprocity of concealed carry permits. I’ve written about the issue before—here and here. The complaint notes that “three federal courts have found bans on carry by nonresidents unconstitutional,” citing Hoffman v. Bonta, 789 F. Supp. 3d 995 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (California); Cal. Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. L.A. Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 745 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (California law on a preliminary injunction); and Higbie v. James, 795 F. Supp. 3d 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2025) (New York). The complaint also notes that the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down the state’s may-issue permitting system for nonresidents, noting that the nation’s tradition of firearms regulations does not include restrictions against nonresidents.
Interestingly, the complaint does not raise a full faith and credit argument, nor an argument based on Article IV privileges and immunities clause. Instead, they rely solely on a Second Amendment theory instead. We’ll keep an eye on the proceedings and keep you updated.
