New lawsuit challenges Colorado’s 72-hour gun purchase waiting period.
The Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) is taking legal action against Colorado Gov. Jared Polis over a controversial law that requires a 72-hour waiting period for gun transfers.
This law, aimed at preventing suicides, domestic violence incidents, and other crimes, is now facing opposition from plaintiffs who argue that it puts people at risk while effectively shutting down gun shows and private sales.
Related Stories
-
Colorado Governor Signs 4 Gun Control Bills Into Law
4/28/2023
-
Judge Blocks New Colorado Gun Control Law
8/8/2023
Effective October 1, 2023, Colorado implemented HB 23-1219, which mandates a 72-hour waiting period before a firearm can be transferred to a buyer.
This waiting period is the final step in completing a sale and applies to both private sales and transactions handled by licensed firearms dealers.
There are exceptions for antique and relic firearms, military personnel, and transfers among family members.
Mr. Polis’s office did not respond to an email seeking comment. But in a statement released on April 28, when Mr. Polis signed a package of gun bills, he wrote that the law would save lives.
“Today we are taking some important steps to help make Colorado one of the ten safest states . . . Last year, I was proud to sign a comprehensive public safety plan of action into law to put Colorado on track to becoming one of the ten safest states in the nation,” Mr. Polis wrote.
MSLF is representing Alicia Garcia, a Colorado-based social media influencer and firearms instructor, as well as the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Second Amendment advocacy group.
According to MSLF lawyer Sean Nation, the waiting period violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Nation argues that the law is ineffective and may even have adverse effects.
“Waiting periods are pretty ineffective,” he told The Epoch Times.
On the other hand, Nation believes that individuals who need a gun for self-defense would be put at risk.
“A right delayed is a right denied. This does have real public safety issues,” Mr. Nation said.
Mr. Nation points out that the law is unconstitutional under the Bruen decision since there was no similar law in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified.
Must Consider Historical Context
In Bruen, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts must consider the historical context when the Second Amendment was written. The court ruled that if there was no similar law at the time of the amendment’s ratification, then the law is not in line with the founders’ intent.
In a statement posted on the MSLF website, Ms. Garcia expressed concern for her friends who may be endangered by this law as they hide from abusers.
“Asking someone to wait three days for self-defense is to put them at risk for harm,” she wrote. “The politicians say this is about people’s safety—this law is a danger to the most vulnerable.”
A statement on the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners website claims that the law is ultimately intended to eliminate gun shows and private gun sales.
According to the statement, placing a waiting period at the end of a firearms transaction significantly prolongs the time it takes to purchase a gun. The group argues that this waiting period could extend the sale process from a few days to 12 days or more.
Could Snuff Out Gun Shows
“Gun shows and private sellers face the reality that HB23-1219, ‘Three-Day-Minimum Waiting Period To Deliver a Firearm,’ is not about reducing gun deaths, suicide rates, or even violent crimes. Simply, HB23-1219 snuffs out gun shows and private sellers to cut off one of the most commonly used gun-purchasing avenues by Coloradans today,” Taylor D. Rhodes, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, wrote in the statement.
Brian Abbas, executive director of MSLF’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms, shares this sentiment.
“They have an agenda to outlaw guns as much as possible, and they are going to about it meticulously and keep trying to chip away at gun rights,” he wrote in the MSLF statement.
Mr. Nation stated that a U.S. District Court judge will hear an MSLF motion for a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of the law on Thursday, October 26, 2023.
What are the arguments of supporters of the waiting period law in terms of public safety and reducing impulsive gun purchases?
Lease/mountain-states-legal-foundation-takes-legal-action-over-colorado-gun-waiting-period-law/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>press release on their website, MSLF highlighted their concerns about the impact of the waiting period on gun shows and private sales, stating that it would effectively shut them down. They argue that this infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens to buy and sell firearms freely. With the 72-hour waiting period, potential buyers may be discouraged or even unable to attend gun shows or engage in private sales due to the logistical challenges posed by the timing.
Supporters of the law emphasize that it is aimed at improving public safety and reducing the risk of impulsive gun purchases, particularly in cases of domestic violence and suicide. They argue that the waiting period allows for a cooling-off period, giving individuals more time to consider their decision and potentially seek help or support. Additionally, they believe that the law will facilitate background checks and prevent criminals from acquiring firearms through private sales.
However, opponents of the law believe that it is unnecessary and ineffective in preventing crimes or suicides. They argue that individuals who are determined to harm themselves or others will find alternative means to do so, regardless of a waiting period. They also point out that the law disproportionately affects law-abiding citizens who may need immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in dangerous situations. Critics argue that responsible gun owners should not be penalized for the actions of a few individuals.
The legal battle between MSLF and Gov. Polis highlights the ongoing debate over gun control measures in the United States. The Second Amendment has long been a subject of contention, with conflicting interpretations regarding the extent of individual rights to bear arms. This case raises questions about the balance between public safety concerns and the protection of constitutional rights.
Legal challenges like this test the boundaries of gun control legislation and seek to establish legal precedent that clarifies the rights and limitations surrounding firearms. As the case progresses, it will be interesting to see how the court balances the interests of public safety and individual freedoms.
It is crucial for society to have constructive discussions and debates around gun control policies to ensure the well-being and security of all citizens. Whatever the outcome of this particular case, it is clear that the issue of gun control will continue to be a contentious and evolving topic in the United States.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
