Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, 685 F.Supp.3d 1033

Plaintiffs: Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) and two Colorado residents, Tate Mosgrove and Adrian S. Pineda, both aged 18–20, challenged Colorado Senate Bill 23-169 (SB23-169) before it took effect.
SB23-169 (signed Apr. 27, 2023) bars persons under 21 from purchasing firearms from private sellers and licensed dealers, with limited exceptions (active-duty military, on-duty peace officers, POST-certified).
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages; they moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement when the statute became effective in August 2023.
The district court held a pre-enforcement challenge: it found RMGO lacked organizational standing but found the two individual plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief.
Applying Bruen’s framework, the court held the individuals were likely to succeed on the merits (Second Amendment covers 18–20 year olds and includes acquisition/purchase), found the Governor failed to show a historical tradition justifying the age-based ban, and concluded plaintiffs showed irreparable harm; it enjoined enforcement of SB23-169 statewide and required no bond.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Organizational standing of RMGO	RMGO represents affected members and can sue on their behalf	RMGO did not identify specific harmed members or show organizational injury	RMGO lacks standing; plaintiffs' motion denied as to RMGO
Pre-enforcement Article III standing of individual plaintiffs	Mosgrove and Pineda intend to purchase firearms for home defense and face a credible threat of prosecution under SB23-169	Challenge premature because law had not taken effect and declarations are conclusory	Individuals have standing: intent + credible threat suffice for pre-enforcement relief
Whether 18–20 year olds are part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment	The Second Amendment’s text and related constitutional protections include ordinary, law‑abiding adults aged 18–20	Historical use of “the people” and status of minors at founding justify excluding 18–20 year olds	Court adopts presumption that “the people” includes 18–20 year olds and finds plaintiffs likely to succeed on this point
Whether SB23-169 is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition (Bruen)	A categorical age‑based purchase ban lacks a founding-era analogue and therefore fails Bruen’s historical‑tradition test	There is a longstanding tradition of age‑based firearms restrictions and some historical laws regulating minors or sales support SB23-169	Government failed to carry its historical burden; plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) (establishes text-and-history framework for Second Amendment review)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes individual right to possess handguns for self-defense in the home)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the states)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing is assessed at commencement of suit)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (U.S. 2014) (pre-enforcement challenges require intent to engage in proscribed conduct and a credible threat of enforcement)
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1979) (pre-enforcement standing principles)
Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023) (third-circuit en banc analysis that “the people” includes groups previously thought excluded)
Bonidy v. United States Postal Service, 790 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2015) (discusses Heller’s list of presumptively lawful regulations)
RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2009) (four-factor preliminary injunction standard)
Free the Nipple–Fort Collins v. City of Fort Collins, 916 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2019) (constitutional-right infringement alone can constitute irreparable harm)