On August 28, 2026 the court paused this case and “administratively closed” it to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision in Viramontes v. Cook County. That is a docket housekeeping move, not a dismissal and not a final judgment. The November 2022 order remains in effect: as of this writing the four local 10-round bans still cannot be enforced. What “closed” actually means →
Boulder, Boulder County, Superior, and Louisville each banned magazines holding more than ten rounds. A federal judge signed an order staying every one of those local bans — and it has been in force for nearly four years. Colorado’s statewide 15-round limit is a separate law, and it still applies to you.
This page is about four local 10-round ordinances and nothing else. Colorado’s statewide magazine limit — C.R.S. §§ 18-12-301 through 18-12-302, enacted as HB13-1224 in 2013 — is a different law, in a different case, and it has not been stayed, enjoined, or repealed. Under § 18-12-302, a person who sells, transfers, or possesses a “large-capacity magazine” commits a class 2 misdemeanor — and a class 6 felony if possessed during the commission of a felony or crime of violence. Section 18-12-301 defines the term as a magazine “capable of accepting, or that is designed to be readily converted to accept, more than fifteen rounds of ammunition,” with narrow exclusions (permanently altered feeding devices, and certain tubular magazines including attached tubular devices for .22 rimfire and lever-action tubular magazines). The statute permits continued possession only by a person who owned the magazine on July 1, 2013 and has maintained continuous possession of it.
That law is enforceable everywhere in Colorado, including inside Boulder. The order described on this page did not touch it. It is separately under challenge by the U.S. Department of Justice in United States v. Colorado — but unless and until a court rules otherwise, the 15-round cap is the law and applies to you. Read the statute yourself before you rely on any of this.
The practical bottom line: in these four jurisdictions the effective ceiling is the state’s 15, not the local 10. Nothing here makes anything above 15 lawful.
In June and August of 2022, four Colorado local governments passed near-identical ordinances outlawing so-called “assault weapons” and any magazine holding more than ten rounds — a limit stricter than the state’s own 15. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the National Association for Gun Rights, and six individual residents sued all four at once.
They never had to win. Within months, every single defendant agreed to stop enforcing the bans, and on November 3, 2022, United States District Judge Nina Y. Wang signed the stipulation into a court order.
That order is still in effect today. Not one of those 10-round limits is being enforced against anyone.
The document is Order Approving Revised Stipulation for Entry of Order Staying Certain Provisions of Certain Ordinances, Doc. 38 in Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Town of Superior, No. 1:22-cv-02680-NYW (D. Colo.), entered November 3, 2022. Three pages. Seven numbered paragraphs. Here is the operative language, verbatim.
“Defendant City of Boulder agrees to stay enforcement of the following sections of City Ordinance No. 8494: Section 5, codified as Boulder Revised Code Section 5-8-10 (Possession and sale of illegal weapons) and Section 8, codified as Boulder Revised Code Section 5-8-28 as such apply to ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large capacity magazines.’ The City of Boulder shall continue to enforce the portions of the Boulder Ordinance related to ‘rapid-fire trigger activator, blackjack, gas gun, metallic knuckles, gravity knife or switchblade knife’ as set out in Ordinance 8494.”
Doc. 38 at 3, ¶ 4.
“Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County agrees to stay enforcement of the portion of the County Ordinance regarding ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large-capacity magazines.’ Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County shall continue to enforce the portion of the County Ordinance related to rapid-fire trigger activators.”
Doc. 38 at 3, ¶ 5.
“Defendant Town of Superior agrees to stay enforcement of Sections 10-9-40 and 10-9-240 of the Superior Ordinance as they apply to ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large capacity magazines.’”
Doc. 38 at 2, ¶ 2.
“Defendant City of Louisville agrees to stay enforcement of the following sections of City Ordinance No. 1831 Series 2022: Section 3, codified as Louisville Municipal Code Section 9.84.010 (Possession and sale of illegal weapons), and Section 4, codified as Louisville Municipal Code Section 9.86.010 (Assault weapons), as such apply to ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large capacity magazines.’”
Doc. 38 at 2–3, ¶ 3.
“Security as provided for by Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) is not required in this matter.”
“This Order shall remain in effect until the Court rules on the Plaintiffs’ request for any injunction or declaratory judgment, or when this Court enters final judgment, whichever comes earlier.”
Doc. 38 at 3, ¶¶ 6–7.
The order never prints the number 10. It uses each ordinance’s own term of art, “large capacity magazine.” You have to go to the ordinances to see what that means — and all four define it the same way. As the complaint puts it for Boulder: Section 5-8-2 “defines the term ‘large-capacity magazine’ to mean any firearm magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.” The same sentence appears for Superior (§ 10-9-20), Boulder County (§ 1(c)), and Louisville (§ 9.80.010). That definitional link is what makes this a 10-round order.
The stay is surgical. It knocks out the “assault weapon” and 10-round magazine provisions and leaves everything else standing. Know the difference before you rely on it.
The bans are still on the books. Nothing was repealed and nothing was struck down. Open the Boulder Revised Code today and 5-8-10 is right there. What changed is that the governments promised a federal judge they would not enforce it, and the judge made that promise an order. Practically, look at the gap between the two limits: a 15-round magazine is lawful to own and buy under Colorado law, but Boulder’s ordinance called it an “illegal weapon” the moment it held more than ten. That 11-to-15 band is the space this order protects — and for nearly four years, no one in Boulder, Boulder County, Superior, or Louisville has been prosecuted for it.
Be precise about the ceiling, though: the stay lifts the local 10-round rule, not the state’s 15-round cap. A magazine holding more than 15 rounds is still restricted under C.R.S. §§ 18-12-301/302 everywhere in Colorado, Boulder included. This order moved the line in those four jurisdictions from ten back up to the state’s fifteen. It did not remove the line.
It was a surrender, not a defeat. This is the part worth sitting with. There was no trial on the merits, no ruling that the ordinances are unconstitutional, no appellate opinion. The four governments volunteered. Their lawyers signed a stipulation, and ¶ 6 waived the security bond that a plaintiff normally has to post — the parties agreed there was no need to insure against the harm of not enforcing these laws.
Ask the question plainly:
if a 10-round limit were clearly constitutional,
why would four governments stop enforcing it
rather than defend it?
It is reversible. By its own terms the order dies when the court rules on the request for an injunction or declaratory judgment, or enters final judgment. If the governments win, enforcement can resume. This is a pause with a clock on it, not a repeal — which is exactly why the outcome of the underlying case still matters.
And it is now waiting on the Supreme Court. On June 30, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, on whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments “guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” On August 28, 2026, Judge Wang stayed this entire case to wait for that answer and administratively closed it, with a joint status report due within 30 days of the decision.
This is the part that sounds alarming and isn’t. A case being “closed” normally suggests it is over and somebody won. Here it means almost the opposite.
It is a filing-cabinet move, not a ruling. Administrative closure lets a court take a case off its active docket when nothing can usefully happen for a while — here, because the Supreme Court is about to answer a question that will govern the outcome. Judge Wang’s order directs the clerk to close the case “subject to reopening for good cause under D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2.” Either side can move to reopen. Nobody was dismissed, nothing was decided, and no one lost.
Nobody won and nobody was dismissed. There is no judgment, no ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment that had been fully briefed since late 2025, and no appellate decision. The constitutional question is simply parked.
Critically: the enforcement stay is still active. By its own terms, the November 2022 order lasts “until the Court rules on the Plaintiffs’ request for any injunction or declaratory judgment, or when this Court enters final judgment, whichever comes earlier.” Neither has happened — an administrative closure is not a final judgment, and the August 28 order says nothing about lifting the stay. So the 2022 stay is still active today, and the four governments remain barred from enforcing their “assault weapon” and 10-round magazine provisions. The court in fact described the status quo approvingly, noting the defendants “stayed enforcement of their Ordinances nearly four years ago,” and the plaintiffs had argued the public interest “favors keeping the current status quo.” So the practical effect on the ground is: nothing changes for now. The local 10-round bans stay unenforced while everyone waits.
What happens next. When the Supreme Court decides Viramontes (what that case is and what it actually decides →), the parties must file a joint status report within 30 days. The case then reopens and resolves in light of whatever the Court says. That decision is the real event to watch — and it is the moment the stay could finally be lifted, one way or the other.
That the enforcement stay survives the administrative closure is our reading of the two orders side by side, based on the plain terms of ¶ 7 and the absence of any language dissolving it. It is not a statement from the court, and no judge has been asked to confirm it. If you need certainty about your own conduct, read both orders yourself — they are linked above — and ask a Colorado attorney. And note again that none of this touches the state’s 15-round cap, which is enforced regardless.
This is a stipulated stay, not a holding — no court has declared these ordinances unconstitutional, and the defendants have not conceded that they are. The national terrain is genuinely unsettled: the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s magazine ban en banc, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the Rhode Island magazine case and Maryland’s AR ban in 2025. Viramontes is the first time the Court has agreed to answer the rifle question directly, and it may or may not settle the magazine question alongside it. Dockets move; the status described here is as of the filings linked above.
Four governments paused rather than argue. The state’s 15-round cap is still enforced against every Coloradan, and the case to end it is live right now. Stand in.
The author of this site is not an attorney and does not practice law. Nothing published here is legal advice, no part of it is offered as legal advice, and reading it creates no attorney-client relationship with anyone. This is Second Amendment advocacy and general-interest commentary written by a private citizen, and it includes opinion.
Full terms: Legal Notice & Terms of Use → Page last reviewed September 11, 2026. The law may have changed since.