The Colorado State Shooting Association (CSSA) has filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, and Fourth Judicial District Attorney Michael Allen, challenging Senate Bill 25-003, the states recently enacted permit-to-purchase law. Signed into law in April 2025, SB 25-003 introduces a new permit system for purchasing certain semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with detachable magazines. While the law is not scheduled to take effect until August 2026, opponents argue it represents an unconstitutional barrier to lawful firearm ownership under the Second Amendment. Originally proposed as a ban on so-called assault weapons, the measure was amended into a permit-to-purchase framework. Under SB 25-003, individuals will be required to obtain a firearms safety course eligibility card from their county sheriffs office, complete a state-approved training course, and then present this documentation before buying covered firearms. Critics argue these additional requirements impose unnecessary costs, delays, and burdens on law-abiding citizens who already undergo background checks and waiting periods when purchasing firearms in Colorado. CSSA President Ray Elliott described the law as an overreach that unfairly penalizes responsible gun owners while failing to address criminal misuse of firearms. Colorado already has background checks and waiting periods. This law piles on yet another hoop for responsible citizens while criminals ignore the rules, Elliott said. He also stressed that the additional costs associated with mandatory courses and permits could make firearms inaccessible to lower-income residents who may need them for personal protection. The lawsuit is being led by Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), which has argued that SB 25-003 conflicts with Supreme Court precedents in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). MSLF attorney Michael McCoy stated that the law treats the right to bear arms as a second-class right. If the state attempted similar backhanded restrictions on religion, speech, or counsel, the courts would strike them down immediately, McCoy argued. With the Second Amendment, too many states have gotten away with this. No more. One of the plaintiffs is Air Force veteran Israel Del Toro, who was severely injured by an IED blast in Afghanistan. Del Toro has adapted his shooting with the aid of AR-platform pistols equipped with stabilizing braces and force-reset triggers. Both are targeted for prohibition under SB 25-003. The lawsuit contends that the law would effectively prevent veterans like Del Toro from exercising their rights by outlawing the adaptive tools they depend on for self-defense and recreational shooting. Supporters of the legislation, led by Democratic lawmakers, argue that it is designed to enhance public safety by ensuring buyers of high-capacity firearms are adequately trained and vetted. They claim the laws framework provides a responsible balance between gun rights and preventing misuse of powerful firearms. However, opponents say the measure is merely a repackaged ban, intended to discourage ownership by creating additional hurdles and costs. Colorados prominence in the gun policy debate adds national significance to the case. The state has been the site of multiple high-profile shootings, and lawmakers have frequently positioned it as a testing ground for stricter firearm laws. If the CSSA lawsuit succeeds, it could restrict how far states can go in imposing licensing or permit-to-purchase requirements. Conversely, if the law is upheld, it may embolden other states to pursue similar approaches, reframing the national conversation around firearm access. For many gun owners, the stakes extend beyond paperwork and training. They see SB 25-003 as part of a broader pattern of incremental restrictions that collectively erode Second Amendment protections. The CSSA lawsuit asks the federal courts to decide whether the state can impose new prerequisites on firearm purchases or whether such measures cross the line into unconstitutional infringement.