existing ethics laws. A declaration that the bans are unconstitutional as applied, however, would only prevent them from being applied to covered individuals in a fashion similar to that alleged by the current Plaintiffs; it would not render them inoperative. In order for Plaintiffs to obtain a declaration that the Amendment is unconstitutional as applied, there must be an actual application or at least a reasonable possibility of enforcement or threat of enforcement. See Hill v. Thomas, 973 P.2d 1246, 1248 n. 2 (Colo.1999) (finding that “as the statute had not yet been enforced, the trial court correctly ruled that the challenge was facial only”), aff'd, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000); see also High Gear & Toke Shop v. Beacom, 689 P.2d 624, 629 n. 4 (Colo.1984) (<HOLDING>). Courts have repeatedly found that where a
holding that waiver of interest was proper where there had been a long delay in the enforcement action holding that the plaintiffs had standing because the questions involved were of such wide concern both to law enforcement personnel and to the public holding that to bring a  1983 cause of action there must be some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action and that a preenforcement suit is justified where there exists a wellfounded fear of enforcement that would infringe upon the exercise of first amendment rights recognizing that plaintiffs had standing to allege infringements of their first amendment rights where the record established that they had been threatened with enforcement of the statute and that such enforcement would cause them injury holding that plaintiffs necessarily demonstrated irreparable harm because they showed a substantial likelihood that their first amendment rights had been infringed