A federal judge has temporarily blocked the town of Superior’s new gun safety rules from taking effect, relying heavily on a weeks-old U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowed the government’s ability to regulate firearm ownership.

On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Raymond P. Moore issued a temporary restraining order lasting 14 days against Superior, even though the town had not yet responded to the allegations against it by gun rights groups that are seeking to overturn a recent ordinance. Moore’s order blocks two specific provisions of Ordinance 0-9 from taking effect this month: a ban on “assault weapons” and a prohibition on illegal weapons, which include certain knives, firearm magazines and striking weapons.

“The Court is sympathetic to the Town’s stated reasoning,” Moore wrote in his July 22 order. “However, the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”

Moore did, however, allow a third challenged provision of the ordinance to take effect, generally prohibiting the open carry of firearms in public.

Pro-gun groups Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the National Association for Gun Rights filed a lawsuit in federal court against Superior and Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle days after the conservative-majority Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In striking down a concealed carry law in New York, the court recognized the constitutional right to carry a firearm outside the home and the requirement to examine whether government laws on gun safety are consistent with a “historical tradition” of firearm regulation.

Ordinance 0-9, which the Superior Board of Trustees enacted in June, contains several pages of justifications for the new law, which referenced Colorado’s status as home to multiple mass murders, including at an Aurora movie theater 10 years ago and at a King Soopers grocery store in Boulder just last year.

“(P)erpetrators of the five deadliest shootings in modern U.S. history (Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Sutherland Springs, and El Paso) used assault rifles with military-style features, and Colorado’s deadliest mass shooters have also used assault rifles or pistols,” the ordinance reads. The town also pointed out Congress previously enacted a decade-long assault weapons ban in 1994, and it asserted that assault weapons are not tools for self-defense.

The ordinance defines assault weapons as semi-automatic, center-fire rifles. For people who possess assault weapons as of July 1, they have until the end of the year to obtain a “certificate of ownership” through the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office. Going forward, there is a prohibition on ownership of additional assault weapons.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on July 7 claiming parts of Ordinance 0-9 violated the Second Amendment. They alleged they should not be “forced to choose” between exercising their constitutional right and facing criminal prosecution. Charles Bradley Walker, who is an individual plaintiff in the case, explained that he currently possesses the large-capacity magazines the ordinance outlaws.

“I currently own and possess Banned Firearms in the Town. I desire to continue to possess the Banned Firearms in the Town. Moreover, I wish to acquire more Banned Firearms in the Town,” Walker said.

The Bruen case attracted massive interest from groups on both sides of the gun safety debate. Those opposing New York’s regulation argued there is a long history of allowing the public carry of firearms, while supporters cited data suggesting the type of regulation at issue in the case was linked to lower rates of gun violence.

Colorado’s four Democratic U.S. representatives signed on to a brief explaining that legislators “routinely address forms of gun violence that pose unique or growing societal dangers.”

Nevertheless, Moore issued a temporary restraining order against portions of Ordinance 0-9 after concluding the challenged provisions implicated the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights and would, therefore, require under Bruen that Superior’s actions be consistent with the “historical tradition” of American gun regulation. For the assault weapons ban, the judge said he was unaware of any history of banning all assault weapons within the town, given that guns registered as of 2022 would no longer be grandfathered in upon their owners’ deaths.

He also did not believe the town could likely ban the possession and sale of illegal weapons, which includes semi-automatic guns with magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Moore pointed to estimates that the number of AR-15 and AK-47-style guns exceeds the ownership of the Ford F-150, the most popular pickup truck in the United States.

“The Court concludes, therefore, that the conduct regulated by this provision,” Moore wrote, “is covered, at least in part, by the Second Amendment, and therefore that conduct is presumptively protected.”

Moore took no action against a third section of Ordinance 0-9, which bars the open carry of firearms in public places, with exceptions for hunting, being in a vehicle or having permission from a property owner. People with a valid concealed carry permit are also unaffected.

The plaintiffs characterized it as a “flat ban on carrying firearms” in Superior, but Moore was unpersuaded the regulation went too far.

“Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with any argument or information as to why those permit requirements are unreasonable or whether the exemption fails to adequately protect their rights to openly carry weapons,” he wrote.

Superior has not yet filed any response to the lawsuit. Moore acknowledged the town may be able to present evidence that could change his analysis of the regulations. He has scheduled a conference between the parties for July 29 and a hearing on Aug. 4 over whether to issue a preliminary injunction against Ordinance 0-9.

Unless Moore acts by Aug. 5, the temporary restraining order will dissolve.

The case is Rocky Mountain Gun Owners et al. v. The Town of Superior et al.