A Colorado district court judge denied a motion to dismiss the local prosecutor named as a defendant in a lawsuit challenging the state's 6.5% tax on firearms and ammunition, keeping the legal fight over Proposition KK on track.
Judge Andrew McCallin issued a one-page order rejecting El Paso County District Attorney Michael Allen's argument that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue him. The ruling clears the way for the case, brought by a Colorado Springs gun store, the Colorado State Shooting Association, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the National Rifle Association, to move forward on the merits.
Allen had asked the court to remove him from the suit entirely. McCallin was not persuaded. The judge pointed to Magnum Shooting Center of Colorado Springs, which argued it could face prosecution if it refused to collect the tax. That threat alone, McCallin wrote, was enough to keep Allen in the case.
The order, dated July 27, laid out two grounds for denial. First, the threat of prosecution gave Magnum Shooting Center standing. Second, the complaint stated "a plausible declaratory judgment claim" against Allen, legal shorthand meaning the plaintiffs raised a real legal question that deserves an answer from the court.
The Daily Caller reported that Allen did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
From the order itself:
"Magnum Shooting Center of Colorado Springs points out that it would potentially face prosecution if it refused to comply with C.R.S. §§ 39-37-101 et seq. This threat of possible prosecution is sufficient to confer standing on Defendant Magnum in this action. Furthermore, the complaint states a plausible declaratory judgment claim against Defendant Allen."
That statutory citation, C.R.S. §§ 39-37-101, is the state code section created by Proposition KK, the ballot measure Colorado voters approved in November 2024. It slaps a 6.5% excise tax on firearms, firearm parts, and ammunition sold in the state.
The coalition challenging the tax filed its initial complaint in March 2025. The suit accused Colorado of doing through the tax code what the Second Amendment forbids the government from doing directly: making it harder and more expensive for law-abiding citizens to buy guns and ammunition.
The complaint put it bluntly:
"Proposition KK will, as intended, financially burden both vendors and consumers seeking to exercise or facilitate the exercise of Second Amendment rights."
That framing, "infringement by taxation", echoes a broader argument gaining traction in Second Amendment litigation nationwide. If a state cannot ban firearms outright, the theory goes, it should not be allowed to price them out of reach through targeted taxes that single out a constitutional right.
The Firearms Policy Coalition announced the ruling on X, posting: "A Colorado state judge has DENIED the motion to dismiss from one of the defendants in our lawsuit against the state's firearm tax."
Proposition KK is not the only Colorado firearms regulation under legal scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed separate lawsuits targeting two other state-level restrictions: one seeking to invalidate Denver's ban on modern semiautomatic firearms, and another challenging Colorado's ban on standard-capacity magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.
Colorado enacted that magazine ban in 2013 under HB 13-1224, months after mass shootings at an Aurora movie theater and Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Gun-control groups such as Everytown and Giffords Law Center have given Colorado high marks for its firearms laws, but those grades mean less when the laws keep landing in court.
The pattern is not unique to Colorado. A federal appeals court recently struck down New Jersey's AR-15 and magazine bans as unconstitutional, dealing a major blow to one of the left's most aggressive gun-control regimes. And the legal reasoning in that case, rooted in the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision requiring firearms regulations to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition, is the same framework plaintiffs are invoking against laws like Proposition KK.
Even judges appointed by Democratic presidents have broken with progressive orthodoxy on these questions. A Biden-appointed judge struck down New Jersey's AR-15 ban, prompting alarm from left-leaning commentators who warned the Supreme Court would follow suit.
Meanwhile, some Democratic governors continue to push forward regardless. Virginia's governor signed a semiautomatic firearms ban even after the DOJ warned that a lawsuit was coming. The strategy appears to be: pass the restriction, collect the political credit, and let the courts sort it out later.
Denying a motion to dismiss is not a ruling on the merits. No court has yet declared Proposition KK unconstitutional. But the fact that Allen could not even get himself removed from the case tells you something about the strength of the plaintiffs' position. When a judge says a gun store faces a credible threat of prosecution for refusing to collect a tax, and that the complaint raises a "plausible" constitutional claim, the state's defense is already on its back foot.
The next steps in the case remain unclear. The full list of defendants beyond Allen has not been publicly detailed in the available filings, and it is not yet known whether other defendants have filed or plan to file their own motions to dismiss. What is clear is that the lawsuit will proceed, and the core question, whether a state can tax a constitutional right into submission, will get its day in court.
For gun owners and retailers in Colorado, the 6.5% surcharge is already a reality every time they walk up to the counter. For the state officials who championed Proposition KK, the courtroom is about to become a much less comfortable place.
Colorado wanted to make buying a gun more expensive. Now defending that decision is getting expensive, too, and the bill is just starting to come due.
