In November of 2024, Colorado created a 6.5% state excise tax to be paid by vendors on the sale of firearms, ammunition, and firearm precursor parts to consumers located in Colorado. The excise tax does not apply to wholesale sales or sales to peace officers, active-duty U.S. military personnel, and law enforcement. The provisions of “Proposition KK” are codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-37-101, et seq.

Who Does This Apply To?

For the tax Colorado defines a “vendor” as a person or company doing business as an ammunition vendor, firearms dealer, or firearms manufacturer. All Colorado Vendors must register with the Colorado Department of Revenue by April 1, 2025, and file annual registration renewals. Vendors must keep complete and accurate records to determine their correct tax liability, including itemized invoices of all taxable products sold to Colorado consumers.

Vendors that do not have a location in Colorado must register when annual retail sales into the state exceed $20,000. This includes online sales, catalog sales, etc. If sales in Colorado are $20,000 or less for the prior calendar year, the vendor must register by the 1st of the month 90 days after retail sales exceed $20,000 for the calendar year.

Firearm Ammunition FAQs

Firearm industry vendors must register with the Colorado Department of Revenue by April 1, 2025. Failure to register opens vendors to back payment requirements and potential penalties. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting petitioners in a case known as Andrew Hanson, et. al. v. District of Columbia, et. al., challenging the District’s ban on so-called “high-capacity magazines” capable of holding more than ten cartridges.

SAF is joined by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The case has national implications and the amicus brief calls the court’s attention to the fact that the federal circuit courts are divided on the question whether magazines are “arms,” what constitutes “common use,” and whether arms most useful for military service are protected by the Second Amendment.

SAF is represented by attorney Adam Kraut, who is SAF’s executive director. NRA is represented by attorneys Joseph G.S. Greenlee and Erin M. Erhardt at the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

“In our brief,” Kraut noted, “we remind the court that repeating arms predate the Second Amendment by roughly three centuries, and that semiautomatic firearms were invented in 1885. Likewise, detachable box magazines came along back in 1862. Despite technological advances over the past 200 years, neither the sale nor possession of repeating arms of any capacity were ever banned in the United States.”

“The very essence of the Second Amendment is to protect the right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The language of the Second Amendment does not stipulate which bearable arms are protected, only that they are, and that the right of the people to bear those arms shall not be infringed. Because of the lower court split on whether magazines are ‘arms,’ we believe the high court needs to resolve this controversy without further delay.” Read more

Yesterday, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin reaffirmed his support for the rights of law-abiding gun owners by vetoing two dozen bills that would have trampled on the Second Amendment freedoms of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Similar to last session, Governor Youngkin disposed of egregious legislation that would have emboldened criminals and left peaceable Virginians defenseless.

“On behalf of Virginia’s NRA members and Second Amendment supporters, I want to thank Governor Youngkin for standing strong in his support for the Second Amendment by vetoing the litany of gun control bills pushed through the General Assembly this year,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “For the second year in a row, gun control activists tried to enact dozens of radical, California-style laws that would have severely restricted the Second Amendment rights of gun owners in the Commonwealth. The NRA applauds Governor Youngkin for upholding his promise to protect our Constitutional freedoms.”

The bills vetoed by Governor Youngkin came from the long wish list of radical gun control activists. This included attempts to restrict the Constitutional rights of 18- to 20-year-old adults, dramatically expand gun-free zones that would have left law-abiding Virginians defenseless and enact a mandatory waiting period to take possession of a legally purchased firearm. In addition, the vetoed legislation would have banned a wide range of commonly owned firearms used by Virginians to hunt, compete and for self-defense. Read more

NEW YORK CITY – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of its opening brief with the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Christian v. James, an FPC Law case that challenges some of the State of New York’s post-Bruen bans on public carry. The opening brief, filed Friday, addressed the plaintiffs claims regarding carry in public parks and can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/boron. The Second Circuit plans to hear arguments in June.

“Given that the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that the ‘plain text’ of the [Second] Amendment extends to cover carrying firearms in public, and the Parks Ban prevents carrying firearms in public parks, this case unquestionably passes Bruen’s threshold inquiry, and the Parks Ban is presumptively unconstitutional,” argues the brief. “The question then is one for history, and the history of firearms regulation demonstrates that the Parks Ban is neither facially constitutional nor, in the alternative, constitutional when applied to parks outside of urban areas.”

“New York’s ban on carry in parks is unconstitutional and it’s not a close call. The Second Circuit should put a stop to this restriction that the State enacted in defiance of the Supreme Court’s clear decision in Bruen,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

NEW ORLEANS – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) issued the following statement regarding United States v. George Peterson, a criminal matter presenting an FPC-backed challenge to the U.S. Government’s regulation of suppressors through unconstitutional registration and taxation requirements. Key case documents in Peterson can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/peterson.

Background

In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) (26 U.S.C. § 5801, et seq.) which, among other things, regulates firearm suppressors (“silencers”), imposing registration and tax payment requirements.

Under federal law, the terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean “any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.” (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25).)

In 2022, the United States Government criminally charged Mr. George Peterson, a resident of Louisiana, with possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor (i.e., “silencer”) in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871.

Mr. Peterson has been and remains an FPC member.

As an affirmative defense to the charge, Mr. Peterson challenged the NFA’s constitutionality with respect to its regulation of suppressors as being unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

In 2023, Mr. Peterson entered a conditional plea of guilty (pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure), reserving the right to have the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit review the district court’s denial of his motions to dismiss the Indictment and to suppress evidence.

In February 2025, a 3-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Mr. Peterson’s motion to dismiss in a horrifically flawed and dangerous decision.

Recognizing the danger the panel decision represents to Second Amendment-protected rights, FPC agreed to financially back world-class counsel for Mr. Peterson’s appeal. Read more

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that attorneys for the challengers in an FPC-backed lawsuit challenging the State of Illinois’s ban on carrying firearms on public transportation and in related facilities have filed a response brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate filing comes after the district court declared the ban unconstitutional as applied to the named plaintiffs and denied the state’s motion to stay that decision. Key case filings for Schoenthal v. Raoul can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/schoenthal.

“Both the State and County offer a variety of principles to support the ban, but all lack merit,” argues the brief. Under the relevant history, the challengers say, “the only time when the government banned carriage of firearms was when it took upon itself the obligation to secure a location from the unlawful carriage of firearms. But the general rule was and is that individuals are empowered to bear arms for their own defense.”

“FPC is proud to maintain its support of this important case to eliminate unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms in public,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We will continue to Fight Forward in Illinois and throughout the United States.” Read more

BOSTON — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of its final summary judgment brief at the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Granata v. Campbell, a lawsuit that challenges the Commonwealth’s ban on handguns. The brief can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/granata.

“At its core, the State’s argument in this case is precisely the sort of argument that the Supreme Court ruled out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen,” argues the brief, which goes on to explain why the arguments the Commonwealth make in defense of its ban do not justify the law under the Court’s text-informed-by-history standard.

“Massachusetts may not ban the purchase and possession of constitutionally protected handguns, full stop. This has been true since 2008 when the Supreme Court decided the question in D.C. v. Heller. We hope the district court will soon declare the regulatory scheme unconstitutional and put an end to its enforcement.” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed an opposition to Washington, D.C.’s motion to dismiss Wehr-Darroca v. D.C., FPC’s lawsuit challenging the District’s ban on firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. The brief, which argues that the D.C. Circuit’s precedents regarding standing in Second Amendment challenges are inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decisions as well as every other circuit court in the nation, can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/wehr-darroca.

“For too long, these outdated precedents have barred pre-enforcement Second Amendment challenges in this Circuit, only allowing cases to move forward if a litigant has been arrested, prosecuted, or singled out with specific threats or denials,” argues the brief. “This precedent has effectively closed the courthouse doors to law-abiding D.C. residents seeking to vindicate their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

“The D.C. Circuit’s case law on standing has turned the Second Amendment into a second-class right in our nation’s capital. The government should not be allowed to avoid constitutional compliance by forcing peaceable people to break the law and subject themselves to serious criminal liability before they can challenge unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court’s precedents recognize this and every other circuit court in the country has held as much. It is time for the D.C Circuit to fix this serious doctrinal problem,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has asked the United States Supreme Court to hear its Worth v. Jacobson case, agreeing with the State of Minnesota that the Court should take up the State’s petition in order to affirm FPC’s victory below and eliminate unconstitutional age-based bans across the country. FPC’s Supreme Court brief and the Eighth Circuit’s unanimous decision in favor of FPC and its co-plaintiffs can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/worth.

“While the court below correctly held that Minnesota’s age restriction on carrying firearms is unconstitutional, [Minnesota] is correct that the federal courts of appeal have divided over the constitutionality of such laws,” argues FPC’s response brief. “Whether the government may prevent peaceable 18-to-20-year-old Americans from acquiring or carrying firearms is a question of fundamental importance, and Respondents agree that it merits this Court’s review.”

“This case presents the perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to take up this incredibly important issue and hold that all peaceable adults have the right to keep and bear arms. In case after case, FPC and our allies have successfully shown that these age-based bans are unconstitutional and cannot survive scrutiny. The Court should grant review and affirm the Eighth Circuit’s well-reasoned decision,” explained FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more