We wrote recently about Howeth v. City and County of Denver — the lawsuit arguing that Colorado's resident-only concealed-permit rule, combined with Denver's open-carry ban, leaves certain qualified out-of-state visitors with no lawful way to carry a handgun on their person there. The case just moved from "here's our argument" to "block this now."
What changed
On September 4, 2026, the NRA and the other plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the case — asking the court to block enforcement of the combined restrictions against nonresidents while the underlying lawsuit plays out, rather than waiting for a final ruling that could be a year or more away. That's a meaningfully different ask than the original complaint: a preliminary injunction, if granted, could let visitors like plaintiffs Greg Howeth and Zackary Dougherty carry on their person in Denver before the case is fully resolved.
The core argument for urgency
The motion leans on the same "combined effect" theory from the original complaint — that neither Colorado's resident-only permit rule nor Denver's open-carry ban is unusual on its own, but stacking them produces a complete carry prohibition for an entire category of otherwise-qualified people. What's new is the framing around historical tradition: the motion argues that travelers, going back to the founding era, traditionally held carry rights "at least equivalent, and often greater" than residents of the place they were passing through — the opposite of what Colorado and Denver's rules currently produce. The motion also points to post-Bruen precedent for support, noting that two other states have already had their own bans on nonresidents applying for concealed carry permits struck down in court, which the plaintiffs argue makes their odds of success on the merits strong enough to justify emergency relief now rather than later.
Where this leaves things
The motion does not itself change the rules on the ground. The court must give the defendants an opportunity to respond and then decide whether the plaintiffs have met the demanding requirements for early relief. The claimed gap is also specifically about carrying a handgun on one's person, openly or concealed; Denver's ordinance contains exceptions for places such as a person's dwelling or place of business and for qualifying transport in a private vehicle.
What's changed is the timeline: this case is no longer just moving through the ordinary litigation schedule. The plaintiffs are now asking the judge to intervene before a final judgment. We'll follow the briefing and the court's ruling.
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.
