Hoffman v. Denver: Colorado and Denver Point at Each Other

Last updated November 2026 · By Nick Hall, reads the dockets behind nonresident carry fights for USA Gun Shop readers

Quick take: Colorado and Denver have answered FPC’s bid to let visitors carry a handgun in Denver, and each one points at a route the other side’s law closes. The state says open carry is legal, the city says out-of-state permits already work, and the plaintiff says neither door is actually open. Nothing has been decided, and FPC’s reply is due November 25.

• What happened: On November 11, 2026, Colorado’s CBI director and State Patrol chief, the City and County of Denver and Denver District Attorney John Walsh filed briefs opposing FPC’s preliminary injunction motion.
• Why it matters: The case asks whether a visitor from a state without reciprocity can be left with no legal way to carry a handgun in Denver.
• What’s next: FPC’s reply brief is due November 25, and the docket shows no hearing date on the motion yet.
• Who to watch: Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, who has the case as No. 1:26-cv-04837.

Gene Hoffman holds carry permits from four states and says he cannot lawfully carry a handgun on a Denver sidewalk. The state says that is Denver’s doing. Denver says he is wrong about that, too. We pulled the docket and read all three opposition briefs plus the motion they answer, so here is what each side actually argued.

Table of Contents

What FPC’s Motion in Hoffman v. Denver Asks For

Firearms Policy Coalition and Hoffman filed suit on September 29, 2026, amended the complaint on October 6 and moved for a preliminary injunction on October 7. Hoffman lives in California and is an FPC member. His son is enrolled at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, he visits two or three times a year, and he stays with friends in Denver. His last trip was May 2026. His next one is set for January 2027.

The complaint is about two rules stacking. Colorado issues concealed carry permits only to its own residents, and it honors another state’s permit only when that state recognizes Colorado’s. The motion says California is one of 15 states without reciprocity. Denver then makes it “unlawful for any person to openly wear, carry, or transport any weapon on or about their person or vehicle” under Section 38-118(b) of its municipal code.

FPC is blunt about the theory: “To be clear, this is not a case about concealed carry.” The claim is that the combination leaves no lawful way to carry at all in Denver, and the motion adds school zones under the federal Gun Free School Zones Act plus the parking areas of public universities and certain government buildings.

The ask is big. The motion for a preliminary injunction wants the court to “enjoin Defendants from enforcing Colorado and Denver’s unconstitutional carry regime against nonresidents” and to “order Defendants to grant carry licenses to nonresidents,” including Hoffman and FPC’s nonresident members. It also brings a Privileges and Immunities Clause claim against Colorado and asks the court to waive bond.

Colorado’s Answer: Open Carry Is Legal, Take It Up With Denver

Attorney General Philip J. Weiser’s office represents CBI Director Armando Saldate III and Colonel Matthew C. Packard, chief of the Colorado State Patrol. Their response brief opens on the state’s best line: “Colorado’s lenient public-carry firearm regime allows the open carry of handguns without a permit.”

From there the state hands every problem to someone else. Not being able to carry in Denver “is a matter of local government law.” School zones are “a matter of federal law.” Any barrier to a permit is “directly attributable to Mr. Hoffman’s home state,” which declines the reciprocity Colorado offers.

On the law, the state calls the Tenth Circuit’s 2013 decision in Peterson v. Martinez “binding and on-point precedent.” Peterson held that concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The state also claims Eleventh Amendment immunity, because Colorado sheriffs administer permits and neither Saldate nor Packard can issue one.

Then the equities. The brief calls this a “copycat” of the NRA’s Howeth case and faults FPC for a “13-year delay,” since the group was founded the same year Peterson came down. It argues reciprocity is a bargaining chip, and that striking it would undercut the state’s interest in “applying pressure on other states” to recognize Colorado permits. And even with an order in hand, it says, sheriffs have “90 days by statute” to act on an application, so Hoffman might not have a permit before his January trip anyway.

One housekeeping note from the docket. The state’s first version was struck on November 12 for running past the judge’s 15-page limit, and a 15-page version went back on file the same day.

Denver’s Answer: Your Out-of-State Permit Already Works Here

Denver, Police Chief Ron Thomas and Sheriff Elias Diggins filed together, with WilmerHale’s Ryan Chabot alongside the City Attorney’s Office. Their response goes straight at the premise: “Hoffman allegedly has a California concealed-carry permit, and therefore he may carry a concealed handgun under Denver’s ordinance today.”

That reading rests on Section 38-118(d), which lets a person carry concealed if they hold “a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun” and carry it “in conformance with any applicable federal, state, or local law.” The city’s second door is 38-118(c)(3), which allows carry “with valid authorization from the city.” Chief Thomas swore that his department has no record of a request from Hoffman and that “the Department would have considered any such request.” So, Denver says, no injury and no standing.

On history, the city says it “has regulated open carry since at least 1952 and concealed carry since the nineteenth century,” and that under Bruen a city can remove one manner of carry if the other stays open. It even takes FPC’s favorite history, the old traveler exceptions, and turns it around. Those laws protected people in transit, not people mixing with the crowd on city streets, and the brief concludes that “Plaintiffs thus demand greater ability to carry than these historical statutes would have allowed.”

Denver also argues that under Trump v. CASA, any order could cover only Hoffman and FPC, and it cites FPC’s own membership page saying the same thing.

The DA’s Brief and the Gap Between All Three

District Attorney John Walsh filed separately. His point is narrow: he holds a state office for the Second Judicial District, he prosecutes state crimes, and he does not enforce city ordinances. Since state law allows open carry without a permit, his brief says “Hoffman may legally open carry under Colorado law.”

Put the three briefs side by side and you can see the problem FPC is selling. The state and the DA point to open carry, which Denver bans inside city limits. Denver points to an out-of-state concealed permit, but its own exception requires carry “in conformance with any applicable federal, state, or local law,” and Colorado law honors a nonresident’s permit only from a reciprocal state where that person lives. Hoffman’s sworn declaration says California lacks reciprocity and Colorado does not recognize his other three permits either.

FPC President Brandon Combs put it this way in the group’s release: “Colorado points to open carry, knowing Denver bans it. Denver points to concealed carry, knowing Colorado won’t recognize the permits held by peaceable visitors.”

But the authorization door is the live question, and nobody has tested it. Denver says it is open to anyone who asks. The Howeth plaintiffs, in a filing Denver cites, say it is limited to security personnel under a separate code section, 42-137. If a judge buys Denver’s reading, Hoffman’s first step is a letter to the police department. If not, the state and the city have each defended a door the other one locked.

What Happens Next in the Denver Visitor-Carry Fight

Judge Brimmer’s October 29 order set the schedule: oppositions by November 11, FPC’s reply by November 25, and the defendants’ answer to the amended complaint 30 days after the court rules on the injunction. The docket shows no hearing on the motion so far. Both the state and Denver say they want to present evidence, including expert testimony, at any hearing. A phone scheduling conference before Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter is set for January 5, 2027.

The NRA’s parallel case against Denver, Howeth v. City and County of Denver (case 26-cv-03690), attacks the same two rules, and the state’s brief says the injunction motion there is fully briefed and pending. FPC, for its part, points to Hoffman v. Bonta, a 2025 summary judgment against California’s nonresident carry ban won by a different plaintiff named Hoffman.

Until a judge rules, nothing changes for visitors. If your home state has no reciprocity with Colorado, check the concealed carry reciprocity map and our Colorado gun laws guide before your next trip.

Three defendants, three briefs, three different doors. FPC’s whole case is that every one of them is locked.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

---

Related Reading

• Denver Leaves Visiting Gun Owners No Legal Way to Carry
• Colorado gun laws explained
• Concealed carry reciprocity, state by state
• A trucker asks the Supreme Court to settle carry reciprocity
• Concealed carry versus open carry
• Colorado SB25-003 permit law survives an injunction bid