The coordinated timing between the Supreme Court’s grant in Viramontes and the new Elliott filing in Denver is no accident; it signals that litigators are deliberately building a national docket that forces the Court to confront the post-Bruen reality of “assault weapon” bans. By tethering Colorado’s municipal restrictions to the Illinois case already on the docket, FPC and CSSA are ensuring that any ruling on the definition of “common use” or the scope of sensitive-place and sensitive-time doctrines will immediately ripple into the Rocky Mountain West. The move also underscores how local ordinances have become the last redoubt for gun-control advocates once state-level measures face stricter scrutiny under Bruen’s text-and-history test.

For the broader 2A community the lawsuit is both a warning and an opportunity. It warns that even deep-red states can harbor pockets of prohibition that survive until directly challenged, yet it also offers a vehicle to lock in precedent that magazine-capacity limits and feature-based bans are inconsistent with the historical tradition of an armed citizenry. If the Court ultimately treats the AR-15 platform as an arm “in common use” for lawful purposes, the dominoes in Denver—and eventually in other Front Range cities—will fall quickly, giving grassroots organizations a ready-made template for rolling back similar restrictions elsewhere.