## Facts

- Colorado enacted Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-12-302, generally prohibiting the sale, transfer, or possession of firearm magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds, with specified exceptions and a grandfather provision for certain preexisting magazines.
- Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the National Association for Gun Rights, and an individual gun owner sued the Governor in his official capacity, claiming the law violated Article II, § 13 of the Colorado Constitution (right to bear arms).
- Plaintiffs did not assert a Second Amendment claim.
- The State justified the statute as a public-safety measure aimed at reducing casualties in mass shootings, supported by legislative findings and empirical materials asserting that higher-capacity magazines increase deaths and injuries.
- The district court upheld the statute under Colorado’s state-constitutional framework for firearms regulations; the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted review to assess whether the statute violates Article II, § 13.

## Issues

1. Whether the large-capacity magazine restrictions implicate the right to bear arms for defense of home, person, and property under Article II, § 13.
2. Under the governing state-constitutional test, whether the statute is a reasonable exercise of the police power and does not “nullify” the protected right.
3. Whether limiting magazine capacity is reasonably related to the governmental objective of reducing the number of victims and severity of mass shootings.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the statute.
- The court held the statute implicates the state constitutional right to bear arms but does not nullify it.
- Applying the existing state standard, the court concluded the statute is a reasonable exercise of the police power because it is reasonably related to a legitimate public-safety interest.
- The court emphasized the law leaves practical avenues for armed self-defense because it does not ban all magazines or common firearms and allows possession of many firearms and magazines at or below the 15-round limit.
- The court noted the analysis was based on Colorado constitutional law, not federal Second Amendment doctrine.

## Legal Principles

- Article II, § 13 protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, but it permits reasonable regulation under the state’s police power.
- A firearms regulation is constitutional if it (1) is a reasonable exercise of the police power (i.e., reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest) and (2) does not nullify the right to bear arms in defense of home, person, and property.
- A regulation does not “nullify” the right when it restricts certain weapons-related features or accessories yet preserves meaningful, practical means for lawful armed self-defense.

## Conclusion

Colorado’s large-capacity magazine statute was upheld because it serves a legitimate public-safety objective and reasonably advances that objective while leaving law-abiding residents with adequate means to possess firearms for self-defense, so it does not amount to a de facto repeal of the state constitutional right to bear arms.


Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, 467 P.3d 314 (Colo. 2020)