Colorado argues to keep 3-day firearm possession waiting period

Second Amendment advocates pointed to recent rulings over Hawaii and New Mexico firearm laws they say establishes similar waiting periods as unconstitutional.DENVER (CN) — Second Amendment advocates on Monday urged a federal judge to look to recently rejected firearm restrictions and condemn to the same fate a Colorado law that requires individuals wait three days between purchasing and obtaining a firearm.“The government cannot disarm someone by using the presumptive reason of dangerousness,” attorney Michael McCoy argued for his clients the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and “Boomstick Babe” Alicia Garcia.Garcia and the “no compromise” Second Amendment advocacy group sued Colorado in October 2023 to block the waiting period law from going into effect.Senior U.S. District Judge John Kane denied a requested preliminary injunction, which stands after Garcia withdrew her 10th Circuit appeal in 2024.In the meantime, several rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court have since illuminated the Second Amendment landscape after Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen opinion, which instructed courts to ground new gun restrictions in historical law.Bruenrecently doomed Hawaii’s so-called vampire rule requiring gun owners to permission to carry on private property, McCoy said the Hawaii case, Wolford v. Lopez, called into question any period of separation between gun and owner.After all, in the 6-3 opinion, George W. Bush-appointed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito lamented the burden of a gun owner being separated from their firearm for a full lunch hour.“One hour was an unconstitutional burden and in this case, we’re talking about three days,” McCoy of Mountain States Legal Foundation, said. “Wolfordmakes it clear that the bar is low, calling into question any restriction that impedes acquirement.”McCoy also pointed to the high court’s decision in U.S. v. Hemani earlier in 2026 finding the government can’t categorically deny a casual pot smoker the right to bear arms. He also cited the 10th Circuit decision in Ortega v. Grisham that struck down New Mexico’s law requiring a seven-day waiting period between buying and obtaining a firearm.“The critical questions in this case have been answered by Wolfordand Ortega, which was frankly a gift,” McCoy said.But state attorney Joseph Michaels argued the Colorado law follows the federal government’s background check timeline. Michaels urging Kane to renew his earlier finding that the Centennial State waiting period survived scrutiny even after Ortegaand Wolford.“If a three-day background check is constitutional, how can a three-day waiting period not be?” Michaels asked.Michaels was quick to draw distinctions between New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period and Colorado’s. Besides differences in time period, Michaels said Colorado’s law only applies to buyers while New Mexico’s restricted the rights of sellers as well, and that New Mexico granted more exceptions to their law, making it unevenly applied.When it came to Wolford, Michaels argued the Supreme Court shot down a law limiting access to a firearm someone already owned, which didn’t apply to a future acquisition.“Acquire is something that happens before one comes into possession of a firearm, making it separate from the right to have and bear arms,” Michaels said.On rebuttal, McCoy called the state’s argument “ridiculous,” outright chuckling at the idea that obtaining and having firearms could be different.“I don’t see how there is a right to possess arms but not a right to acquire them in the first place,” McCoy said.Listening intently and taking notes, Kane did not interrupt either speaker during their presentation. The Jimmy Carter-appointee did not say when or how he would decide the case, but promised to be thorough, in anticipation of his ruling being reviewed by the 10th Circuit.“Frankly it’s an awesome task,” he said.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads