Legal Corner — Wolford v. Lopez and beyond: Are there implications for Colorado Gun Laws?

In June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Wolford v. Lopez — a Second Amendment case out of Hawaii. The lawsuit challenged a Hawaiian state law prohibiting concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization. The Court held, in a 6 to 3 decision, that this law violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. While this ruling only directly impacts Hawaii’s law, it might raise questions about how the decision relates to Colorado’s gun laws. This article will further describe the holdings in the Wolford case and discuss how it might relate to two of Colorado’s gun laws, as well as touch on some recent Colorado lawsuits over state and local gun regulations.

Overview of Wolford v. Lopez

Hawaii has long had one of the more rigorous gun law regimes in the United States. Following the 2022 landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, Hawaii modified its strict concealed carry law to be slightly more lenient — the new law prohibited firearms on private property that is open to the public without the property owner’s express permission. This law created a default presumption that firearms are not allowed on such property unless the owner makes an affirmative statement or posts a sign stating that firearms are allowed.

In Wolford, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Hawaii’s law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, while a private property owner can prohibit someone from bringing a firearm onto their property, the state cannot adopt a presumption that a firearm cannot be taken on private property that is open to the public. Hawaii attempted to defend its law on ground that Hawaii’s history of firearm regulation supported the state law, but the Court rejected this notion, holding that when conducting the required historical analysis, courts must look to the history of the United States — not the history of a specific state or regional area. In this case, the Court found that there was no analog in history to Hawaii’s statute. The three dissenting U.S. Supreme Court justices opined that this case really addressed property interests, not the Second Amendment.

Colorado firearm laws

This article will not discuss all of Colorado’s firearm laws but instead focuses on two state laws that impact local governments.

In 2021, the Colorado General Assembly passed Senate Bill 21-256, to amend a 2003 law concerning the local regulation of firearms. This act states that firearm regulation is a matter of both state and local concern and went on to give local governments authority to enact local laws governing or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer, or possession of a firearm, ammunition, or firearm component or accessory, so long as any such law is not less restrictive than state law. The act also gave local governments the ability to adopt local laws prohibiting concealed carry in a building or specific area within its jurisdiction. Previously, gun regulation had been declared a matter of state concern, and local governments were prohibited from passing these types of local laws.

In 2024, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 24-131, concerning prohibiting carrying firearms in sensitive spaces. The act identifies numerous categories of sensitive spaces where the carrying of firearms constitutes a crime, such as childcare centers, schools, polling locations, state legislative buildings, courthouses, and buildings of a local government’s governing body unless the local government passes a law to exclude such local government buildings.

Both SB21-256 and SB24-131 prohibit carrying firearms in certain locations, most of which are public locations or private property not open to the public. However, unlike Hawaii’s challenged law, neither of these Colorado laws placed broad prohibitions on the carry of firearms on private property. Moreover, despite the holding in the Wolford case, the Court reiterated the following from its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller: “[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on ... laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” Given that the Court continues to restate its support for this well-established concept, state and local laws that restrict firearms in sensitive places will likely continue to be upheld. However, while some places are well understood to be “sensitive places,” there are certain spaces that may be subject to dispute. Colorado’s laws don’t seem to stray far from the well-established understanding of a sensitive space, but this is an area that could be subject to further litigation whether in Colorado or elsewhere.

SB21-256’s authorization for local governments to pass local laws on the sale, purchase, transfer, or possession of firearms is also not directly implicated by the Wolford decision. However, given the authority that SB21-256 imparts to local governments, municipalities should ensure that any local firearm regulations it has adopted or is considering for adoption comport with the holding in Wolford, both in terms of avoiding broad prohibitions around carrying of firearms on private property and ensuring that any such laws are supported by the history of regulations in the United States.

Firearm lawsuits in Colorado

It is worth noting that there are a few new lawsuits against the State of Colorado and the City & County of Denver, although these cases address a different type of firearm regulation than in the Wolford case. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Denver over its 37-year ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines; one day later, DOJ sued Colorado over its 2013 ban on “large-capacity magazines.” Both suits allege that the respective bans violate the Second Amendment.

In June — five days after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Wolford and the same day that the Court granted a Petition for Certiorari on the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects semi-automatic rifles — gun rights advocates and several Denver residents sued the State and Denver over the same state and local laws as the May lawsuits. This lawsuit likewise challenges the laws as violative of the Second Amendment on grounds that these specific firearms and magazines have not historically been regulated in the United States.

The Wolford decision, these new local lawsuits, and the case recently accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court for its upcoming term, highlight that the Second Amendment is an area that continues to be ripe for litigation. Municipalities with local firearm regulations should continue to monitor these cases for local impacts, and municipalities that are considering enacting new or amended firearm regulations should carefully consider whether those local laws implicate Second Amendment gray areas and, if so, evaluate the level of risk they are willing to take on.

This column is not intended and should not be taken as legal advice. Municipal officials are always encouraged to consult with their own attorneys.