The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the state of Colorado, alleging that its ban on ammunition magazines holding more than 15 rounds violates the Second Amendment. The suit marks the second federal challenge to a Democratic gun restriction in Colorado in as many days, and signals that the Trump administration's newly created Second Amendment Section means business.
The Colorado magazine ban dates to 2013, when state Democrats passed it and then-Governor John Hickenlooper signed it into law. For more than a decade, law-abiding gun owners in the state have lived under a restriction that the DOJ now says is flatly unconstitutional.
In a press release accompanying the filing, the Justice Department laid out its position in plain terms, stating that it was challenging the law for "unconstitutionally banning certain constitutionally protected standard capacity firearm magazines." The DOJ added that the law "unconstitutionally infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes."
That phrase, "in common use for lawful purposes", is not accidental. It tracks the legal standard the Supreme Court established in District of Columbia v. Heller and reinforced in subsequent rulings. The DOJ is framing these magazines not as exotic accessories but as standard equipment owned by tens of millions of Americans.
Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, called Colorado's ban what many Second Amendment advocates have long called it: a political gesture dressed up as public safety.
"Colorado's ban on certain magazines is political virtue signaling at the expense of Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Under my direction, the Division's Second Amendment Section will continue to defend law-abiding Americans' rights against unconstitutional restrictions on their right to possess arms which are owned by tens of millions of their fellow citizens."
That statement carries institutional weight. The Second Amendment Section is new, and Dhillon is making clear it will be an active enforcement arm, not a symbolic office that collects dust.
The Colorado lawsuit landed one day after the DOJ filed a separate suit against the city of Denver over its ban on so-called assault weapons, including AR-15-style rifles. That ban has been on the books for 37 years. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the Denver challenge in similarly direct language.
As the Washington Times reported, Blanche stated: "The Constitution is not a suggestion and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right." He added that "Denver's ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles directly violates the right to bear arms."
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, a Democrat, has publicly rejected the DOJ's demand to roll back the city's ordinance. The Washington Examiner reported that Johnston remains defiant, setting up a direct confrontation between the federal government and Democratic city leadership. The federal lawsuit against Denver states that "when the City banned AR-15 style rifles with standard capacity magazines, it banned an arm in common use for lawful purposes by law-abiding citizens."
That confrontation is now playing out on two fronts in one state. Colorado faces a challenge to its statewide magazine cap. Denver faces a challenge to its decades-old rifle ban. Both cases flow from the same DOJ office and the same legal theory: that commonly owned firearms and their standard accessories enjoy constitutional protection, full stop.
The back-to-back filings are part of a broader pattern. The Trump DOJ has shown a willingness to take Democratic officials to court on multiple fronts, including a recent lawsuit against New Jersey's governor over a law restricting federal officers.
The creation of the Second Amendment Section inside the Civil Rights Division is itself a statement. For years, gun-rights advocates argued that the federal government treated the Second Amendment as an afterthought, or worse, as an obstacle to manage rather than a right to protect. The new section flips that posture.
Dhillon's comment that the section "will continue to defend law-abiding Americans' rights" suggests the Colorado and Denver lawsuits are early moves, not one-offs. If the DOJ is willing to challenge a 37-year-old Denver ordinance and a 13-year-old state law in the same week, other blue-state restrictions may be next.
The DOJ under Blanche's leadership has been active on several fronts beyond firearms. The department settled with Michael Flynn after years of politically charged prosecution, and it has pursued accountability from officials tied to earlier administrations. Blanche himself has faced scrutiny from within his own party, Senator Thom Tillis has signaled he may block Blanche's confirmation over concerns about Jan. 6 leniency. But on Second Amendment enforcement, the acting attorney general appears to have broad conservative support.
Colorado's 2013 law was controversial from the start. It passed on a party-line vote, driven by Democratic legislators who controlled both chambers. Hickenlooper signed it despite significant pushback from rural sheriffs and gun owners across the state. Two state senators who voted for the ban were recalled by voters that same year, a rare act of direct democratic accountability that underscored how far the legislature had moved from the public it served.
The DOJ press release did not specify the court where the Colorado suit was filed, the case number, or whether any individual plaintiffs joined the federal government. Those details will emerge as the litigation proceeds. What is clear is the theory of the case: magazines holding more than 15 rounds are standard equipment, owned by tens of millions of Americans, and banning them crosses a constitutional line.
Colorado will have to defend its law against a federal government armed with a post-Heller, post-Bruen legal framework that has shifted the landscape sharply toward individual gun rights. The state's attorneys will likely argue public safety and legislative discretion. The DOJ will argue text, history, and the plain meaning of "shall not be infringed."
The broader significance extends well beyond Colorado's borders. States like California, New York, New Jersey, and others maintain similar magazine restrictions. If the DOJ prevails in Colorado, those laws face the same vulnerability. Democratic officials who built careers on gun-control legislation may find their signature achievements struck down, not by ballot initiative or legislative repeal, but by the constitutional standard they spent years trying to work around.
The Justice Department has also been willing to pursue high-profile targets in other arenas, including the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. The common thread is a DOJ that treats its enforcement authority as something to use, not something to apologize for.
For now, Colorado gun owners wait. They have waited since 2013 for someone in a position of authority to say what the DOJ said Wednesday: that banning the magazines that come standard with the firearms Americans lawfully own is not a policy choice, it is a constitutional violation.
Thirteen years is a long time to treat a right like a privilege. The DOJ just served notice that the waiting is over.
