We've been following Howeth v. Denver, the NRA-backed case arguing that Colorado and Denver rules combine to leave some out-of-state visitors with no lawful way to carry a handgun in Denver. That case now has company. The Firearms Policy Coalition has filed its own challenge, Hoffman v. City and County of Denver, aimed at the same gap from a slightly different angle.

The gap, briefly

Three rules stack together:

  • Colorado only issues concealed handgun permits to residents.
  • Colorado only honors another state's permit if that state honors Colorado's.
  • Colorado generally allows open carry, but Denver bans it.

For a visitor whose home state doesn't have reciprocity with Colorado, that leaves no lawful way to carry a handgun on their person in Denver, openly or concealed. Denver's ordinance does have exceptions, such as in a person's home or business and for qualifying transport in a private vehicle.

Who filed, and when

FPC and FPC member Gene Hoffman, a California resident, filed the case on September 29, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. They amended the complaint on October 6. Hoffman holds concealed carry permits from four states and travels regularly to and through Denver. According to the complaint, none of his permits lets him carry there.

FPC says the combined rules affect residents of 15 states plus Washington, D.C.

How it differs from Howeth

Both cases make the same core argument: under Bruen, Colorado and Denver have to show a historical tradition supporting this kind of restriction, and the plaintiffs say the tradition actually ran the other way, protecting travelers.

The differences are mostly in who is sued and what the court is asked to do:

  • Defendants. Howeth names Denver and state officials. Hoffman uses a different lineup that includes the City and County of Denver, the director of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the chief of the Colorado State Patrol, the Denver city attorney, the police chief, and the sheriff.
  • The residency rule itself. By naming state officials, Hoffman goes more directly after Colorado's resident-only permit restriction, not just how it interacts with Denver's open carry ban.
  • The remedy. FPC asks the court to require some lawful way to carry and lists options: let visitors open carry in Denver, issue nonresident permits, recognize out-of-state permits, or provide an equally effective alternative. It also asks for nominal damages and attorney's fees.

Why the plaintiffs think they'll win

FPC points to similar challenges elsewhere. A federal judge in California ruled in July 2025 that California's ban on nonresident carry permits was unconstitutional. New York now accepts nonresident license applications, and Louisiana repealed its residency requirement after FPC sued. Those outcomes came in other states and courts and don't bind a Colorado judge, but they show the argument has worked before.

Where things stand

Neither case has produced a ruling yet. The Howeth plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on September 4. FPC filed its own preliminary-injunction motion in Hoffman on October 7, asking the court for relief while the lawsuit proceeds. As of October 12, we have not found a decision granting either motion.

Until a court rules, the rules haven't changed. Colorado still issues permits only to residents, reciprocity still depends on your home state, and Denver's open carry ban is still in effect. If you're visiting from out of state, check whether Colorado honors your permit before carrying in Denver.

Bottom line

Two separate federal lawsuits now challenge the same Colorado and Denver carry gap for visitors, and both have requests for preliminary relief pending. Hoffman presents its challenge through a different plaintiff and group of officials while targeting the residency rule directly. That could matter for what a court is able to order if the plaintiffs win. We'll follow both cases as they move forward.

As always, we are not lawyers — just Colorado citizens trying to understand the rules, statutes, and court decisions and share what we learn. The information on this website is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney/client relationship. The accuracy, completeness, or currency of the content is not warranted. Your use of content on this website is at your own risk. Consult an attorney about your specific circumstances.