In Colorado, a new law has raised concerns among gun rights advocates and ignited a legal battle over the Second Amendment. The law, which went into effect on October 1st, mandates a 3-day waiting period for individuals purchasing firearms in the state. While proponents argue it’s about public safety, many view it as an infringement on the right to bear arms.
Mountain States Legal Foundation, a nonprofit public interest law firm, has taken up the cause and filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s new waiting period law. The law requires gun buyers, even after passing federal and state background checks and paying for their firearms, to wait an additional 72 hours before taking possession of their weapons.
Advocates of the law argue that this waiting period is essential for ensuring background checks are thorough and comprehensive. They believe it’s a reasonable measure to prevent impulsive or dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms. However, those opposing the law contend that it infringes on individuals’ Second Amendment rights and undermines their right to self-defense.
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Alicia Garcia, has expressed her concerns about the law, stating that it puts people’s safety at risk. She cited examples of friends who are trying to escape abusive situations and believe that a firearm is their best means of self-defense. For them, the 3-day waiting period leaves them vulnerable and in potential danger.
The legal challenge is based on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in NYSPRA v. Bruen, which clarified the standards for evaluating gun control laws. The court’s decision affirmed that any regulation or law infringing on the Second Amendment rights should be subject to strict scrutiny. The fact that Colorado lawmakers passed this waiting period law despite the Supreme Court’s decision reflects their determination to undermine gun rights.
Brian Abbas, director of MSLF’s Center to Keep & Bear Arms, has stated that anti-gun politicians are attempting to chip away at gun rights systematically. Their ultimate goal, he believes, is to restrict and eventually outlaw firearms. The challenge in court is not just about Colorado; it’s about defending the constitutional right to bear arms.
If the courts rule against the waiting period law, it will set a precedent that any delay in a person’s right to bear arms is tantamount to a denial of that right. On the other hand, if the law is upheld, it will contradict the principles enshrined in the Second Amendment and undermine the fundamental right to self-defense.
Mountain States Legal Foundation is representing Alicia Garcia in this legal battle. They, along with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, are advocating for the complete invalidation of the law by federal courts, emphasizing the need for a return to constitutional sensibility.
The case is poised to have broader implications for gun rights and regulations not only in Colorado but also across the United States. The tension between public safety concerns and the preservation of constitutional rights is at the heart of this legal battle, and it remains to be seen how the courts will ultimately decide this important matter.
