Within days of the U.S. Department of Justice ordering Denver to repeal its decades-old assault weapons ban, city officials declined, triggering a direct legal showdown with the Trump administration over the reach of municipal authority and the contours of the Second Amendment.
The dispute moved quickly from policy disagreement to litigation. Federal attorneys challenged Denver’s ordinance in court, arguing the ban unlawfully restricts firearms in common use for lawful purposes. Denver holds that its ordinance fits within police powers and is consistent with both historical firearm regulation and Colorado’s current statutory framework.
In statements published by the City and County of Denver, officials emphasized that the 1989 ordinance is a lawful exercise of local authority and integral to the city’s public safety strategy. The city framed the ban as a targeted effort to “keep weapons of war off city streets,” while signaling it is prepared to defend the measure through trial.
Since Colorado Senate Bill 21-256 repealed Colorado’s longstanding preemption of local gun laws, municipalities like Denver have had broader latitude to enact firearm regulations exceeding state baselines. Denver’s defense is expected to lean heavily on that statutory shift, positioning the ordinance as an authorized exercise of delegated power.
Post-New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, however, there remains the question of whether a ban on certain classes of firearms can survive the Supreme Court’s history-and-tradition test.