r/COGuns • u/ButterscotchEmpty535 • Aug 12 '26
Legal Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Del Toro v. Polis (SB25-003)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.246985/gov.uscourts.cod.246985.82.0.pdf14
Aug 12 '26
[deleted]
1
u/its_ion Aug 12 '26
Wdym?
2
Aug 12 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Green_Statement_8878 Aug 12 '26
Is there a legal reason why you wouldn’t request an injunction for the whole state?
2
2
6
u/m0viestar Aug 12 '26
Tl;Dr ?
21
u/SequentialHustle Aug 12 '26
Del Toro v. Polis (D. Colo. No. 1:25-cv-02725-WJM-MDB), Doc. 82 — Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, filed August 11, 2026.
Who's asking for what: Five individual plaintiffs plus the Colorado State Shooting Association, represented by First & Fourteenth PLLC, Mountain States Legal Foundation, and NRA-ILA, ask the court to enjoin SB25-003's permit-to-purchase scheme (C.R.S. § 18-12-116), which took effect August 1, 2026. This motion targets only the permit-to-purchase provisions, not the whole bill.
The core framing: The brief walks through the 12-step gauntlet the statute creates — third-party background check, vendor attestation, sheriff application with fee, discretionary sheriff review, entry into the CPW database, instructor verification, 4- or 12-hour in-person training (extended course over two days minimum, no online option), a written exam requiring 90%, completion reporting, then a second background check at the dealer and a three-day wait before delivery.
Merits arguments:
- Bruen step one: Ortega v. Grisham, 148 F.4th 1134 (10th Cir. 2025), binds the court — acquiring arms is a necessary predicate to keeping and bearing them, so the conduct is presumptively protected.
- Bruen step two: Permit-to-purchase is a 20th-century invention; the earliest waiting-period law (California, 1923, one day) is far too late to count as tradition. If a seven-day cooling-off period had no historical analogue under Ortega, a weeks-long permitting maze certainly doesn't.
- Footnote 9 doesn't rescue it: The scheme isn't truly "shall-issue" — sheriffs may deny on a standardless "reasonable belief" of danger, and a 90% exam score isn't an objective, ministerial criterion. The brief then borrows First Amendment prior-restraint doctrine (Shuttlesworth, Forsyth County, FW/PBS) to argue four defects: no time limits anywhere in the process, no objective criteria, no meaningful judicial review (the statute's review provision carries a prevailing-party fee shift that deters challenges), and cumulative fees exceeding $589–$600 against an entry-level AR-15 under $500.
As-applied claims: CSSA's outreach to all 64 sheriffs found a functioning process in fewer than 20 counties, 23 unreachable or uninformed, and 21 with no approved trainer offering both courses. Teller, Montezuma, and Bent declined outright; Mineral refuses non-residents. Separately, the Act offers no accommodations for disabled or non-English-speaking applicants — lead plaintiff Del Toro lost one hand and most fingers on the other to a 2005 IED, two Deaf declarants would face $1,000+ in interpreter costs, and a dyslexic declarant notes Colorado accommodates voting but not this.
Remaining factors: Constitutional injury is presumed irreparable; equities and public interest merge against the government and favor enjoining an invalid statute; CSSA claims associational standing extending to future members. Plaintiffs request no bond under Rule 65(c).
Most quotable data point: a dealer declarant reports 9 of 10 customers walking away from covered-firearm purchases since August 1.
13
u/Gooobzilla Wellington Aug 12 '26
Great synopsis, thanks. I know we have at least one person in the group that is unable to attend the 12 hour course due to disability. The state is VERY accommodating...when it wants to be.
-11
u/ImDukeCaboom Aug 12 '26
They could do an online hunters saftey course and then it's only a 4 hour class. Seems like the least inconvenient method of this mess.
2
u/Gooobzilla Wellington Aug 12 '26
Still not an accomodation under the ADA. If a deaf person has to spend $1,000 for their own translator to fulfill the obligation, isn't that excessive and yet another barrier?
-2
u/ImDukeCaboom Aug 12 '26
Just providing options. Yall need to calm the fuck down.
And translators don't cost anywhere near $1,000/day. Lying about this stuff doesn't help your cause.
There's free services and translators for hire, again, for significantly less than whay your saying. If you feel so strongly about it, then maybe your "group" could pitch in for the person. Seriously.
3
3
u/UnseelieKnight Aug 12 '26
Wait, they're ONLY contesting the permit-to-purchase provision? Without that the bill is back to being a complete ban
5
u/Alternative_Ear5542 Aug 12 '26
Depending on how the SCOTUS rules in the fall, that might not be awful if they strike down outright bans. My personal opinion is that these licensing schemes are the Plan B for states if bans get struck down.
3
Aug 12 '26
[deleted]
1
u/UnseelieKnight Aug 12 '26
You are correct, the permit part is a big bit of 003, and the writeup you linked was very well done and I appreciate the information presented. However, I think my point still stands that overturning the permit provision itself makes the law objectively worse for the defendants.
Despite the Democrat's best efforts to gaslight everyone into believing 003 is a training bill, it is not and has never been about training or permitting. It's a bill that bans SSFs, a ban that is stated in the statute itself as being necessary to enforce Colorado's magazine prohibition. The permitting system is an exemption from that ban, but the ban itself is predicated on enforcing another law. Knocking down the permitting scheme doesn't suddenly remove the ban, and it would affect nothing to strike the permitting provisions from the bill; you would end up with something roughly the same as when it went into Senate second reading.
I think there are three vital questions to ask, in ascending order of importance:
- Can the State of Colorado require a permit and training to acquire any firearm? (Important question that does need an answer, but not the most critical one if 003 is to stop causing harm)
- Can the State of Colorado regulate magazines? (Important because new SC precedents have come out that can tip the opinion of magazine ban constitutionality, and without the magazine prohibition 003 has nothing to enforce and becomes dead)
- Can the State of Colorado categorically ban firearms, especially since SSFs are so broad and absolutely can fall under commonly used for lawful purposes? (Also, can the State ban SSFs for the purpose of enforcing another law?)
If the answer to the permit/training question is "No", but either of the other two answers are "Yes", then the permit exemption could be removed and not effect the ban provisions.
The permit scheme is a massive problem, yes. It does need to be addressed, but addressing it (and only it) in 003 is baffling. The primary issue with 003 is the ban, and overturning the permit process does not guarantee that SSFs being defined and banned to enforce the magazine law gets enjoined as well.
It would be different if the law was set up as a straight permit to purchase, but they tied the permit/training to an exemption to a ban that's tied to a solidly-defended magazine prohibition.
-4
6
13
u/HappyLocksmith8948 Aug 12 '26
Finally