El Paso County maintained a “state-created danger” in the year leading up to the 2022 Club Q shooting, an attorney told a federal appellate court in Denver this week.

The hearing follows years of litigation by Chicago-based law firm Romanucci & Blandin, which Club Q victims hired in November 2024 to pursue a federal complaint against county commissioners and the Sheriff’s Office alleging that the county failed to enforce Colorado’s red flag law and ignored warning signs that Anderson Aldrich would carry out a mass shooting.

In July 2025, federal Judge William J. Martínez dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, saying there was no evidence that county officials created or enhanced a state of danger.

However, Martínez said the county’s inaction to enforce the red flag law was “profoundly and deeply troubling,” adding that county officials knew that Aldrich planned to be “the next mass killer” and was stockpiling ammunition, firearms and bullet-proof body armor, according to court documents. The authorities learned of Aldrich’s plans following a 2021 kidnapping case that a judge has since dismissed and sealed.

Attorneys from Romanucci & Blandin pursued an appeal with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, where attorneys made final arguments Monday. The appellate court is expected to make a ruling in the coming months.

Attorneys and Martínez claim that the red flag law could have prevented Aldrich from committing the Nov. 19, 2022, shooting, which killed five people and injured more than a dozen others at the LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs.

The warning signs were clear, attorneys say

The law allows temporary confiscation of firearms from people determined to be an “extreme risk” to themselves or others through an Emergency Risk Protection Order (ERPO). A judge must sign off on the petition, and the first order lasts 14 days. Petitioners can request a second hearing, where a judge can decide to extend the ERPO to 364 days.

The lawsuit claims that El Paso County should have enforced that law following the kidnapping case that happened more than a year before the shooting.

The dismissed case involved Aldrich, who allegedly threatened a family member with a homemade bomb inside their Colorado Springs residence, prompting a neighborhood evacuation while a bomb squad and crisis negotiators talked Aldrich into surrendering. Court documents detail a 911 call with Aldrich’s grandmother, who told dispatch of Aldrich’s plans to be the “next mass killer.”

The judge who presided over the case said Aldrich needed urgent mental health treatment, or “it’s going to be so bad,” PBS reported.

Prosecutors charged Aldrich with first-degree kidnapping, among other counts, but the judge dismissed the case in July 2022 because the District Attorney’s Office “failed to prosecute” after Aldrich’s grandparents moved to Florida, according to court documents. In August of that year, the case was sealed under no objection from the District Attorney’s Office.

Months later, the Club Q shooting happened.

Attorney Patrick Huber told the court Monday that the county either knew or should have known that Aldrich was a significant threat to the community, adding that Aldrich visited Club Q at least seven times to case the building before carrying out the shooting.

The government’s inaction was intended, Huber alleged.

At the time, former Sheriff Bill Elder said deputies would not petition for an ERPO unless they could establish probable cause and “exigent circumstances” existed. That is a stricter standard than what’s required by the law, which focuses on the possibility of violence instead of whether a crime has been committed.

County commissioners unanimously signed a resolution opposing the law in 2019. The resolution states that El Paso County is a “Second Amendment preservation county” and that the commissioners will not “appropriate funds, resources, employees or agencies” for any ERPO-related proceedings.

Such stances, Huber argued, fostered a “state-created” danger. The law firm said in a news release that the county prioritized political opposition to the red flag law over public safety.

The Sheriff’s Office declined to provide a statement to The Gazette, saying it does not comment on pending litigation. It also did not answer questions about its policy or stance on the red flag law.

Last updated in April 2025, the Sheriff’s Office policy on ERPOs states that deputies are “dedicated to protecting the community from potential dangers posed by individuals with severe mental illness who have access to firearms and display behavior that raises public safety concerns.”

It also says deputies will “respect and protect” people’s constitutional rights, including the right to be free from “unreasonable” search and seizures. It does not specify what is considered unreasonable.

County commissioners also declined to comment and answer similar questions.

Club Q management also caught up in litigation

During Monday’s hearing, the county’s attorney, Nathan Whitney, said the court should defer to the locally elected officials in this case because they were advocating for their constituents’ priority at the time — the desire to protect the Second Amendment.

“If we impose an obligation on the government to act simply when we have notice of potential harm by a third party, the liability would be endless,” he told the court.

In July 2025, Martínez reluctantly dismissed the plaintiffs’ property owner liability claim against Club Q co-owner Matthew Haynes.

Filed in the same lawsuit against El Paso County, plaintiffs alleged that Club Q was negligent in its security planning, staffing, training and emergency response. Huber said management failed to take adequate security measures to protect its guests, despite known risks faced by LGBTQ+ venues. Instead, attorneys said the club “drastically” reduced its security staffing and failed to implement basic safety protocols.

But the claim was doomed from the beginning, Martínez said.

A 2022 amendment passed by state lawmakers slammed the door on holding property owners liable in mass shootings.

“The Court shares Plaintiffs’ concerns and bristles at the idea that utterly foreseeable mass shootings can continue to occur with little to no civil recourse for victims. By closing the courthouse doors to mass shooting victims,” he wrote, “the General Assembly has essentially given landowners carte blanche to implement zero safety precautions against obvious — or even known — threats of violence by deranged individuals.”

Looking forward

Although he dismissed that claim, he permitted the plaintiffs’ wrongful death and negligence claims to proceed against the property owners, reasoning it would require a “fact-intensive inquiry” to determine whether those allegations are ultimately not viable.

Along with the allegations against the county, the claim landed on the desks of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2025.

Club Q’s attorney, Michael Kuhn, filed a motion to dismiss the wrongful death and negligence claim, and the other side filed an appeal for the liability claim.

Kuhn told The Gazette that the plaintiffs’ remaining “negligence theories” are “simply the same premises theory repackaged under different labels.”

“Club Q was not responsible for this attack. The shooter was,” he said in an emailed statement.

Attorney Antonio Romanucci, who also represents the plaintiffs, said in a news release that the “failures” by El Paso County and Club Q management created the “perfect storm” to allow a dangerous individual to carry out deadly plans.

“This lawsuit is about accountability — not just for the victims and their families, but to ensure that no other community has to suffer from such reckless disregard for human life,” Romanucci said in the release.

The law firm called for systemic reform, demanding local governments enforce existing red flag laws and that private entities implement “robust” security protocols that prioritize patron safety.