California Gun Rights Advocates Sue the State Over 10-Day Waiting Period to Buy Firearms

A sign is posted at the Martin B. Retting Inc. gun store in Culver City, Calif., on March 24, 2020. Mario Tama/Getty Images

The Firearms Policy Coalition filed a lawsuit in a San Diego federal court challenging California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, the group announced on May 2.

The lawsuit argues that individuals who pass background checks without any prior criminal records should be allowed to immediately retrieve their firearms after purchase to be used for self-defense and other lawful purposes (pdf).

The law requiring a 10-day “cooling off” period is aimed to prevent individuals from rushing to harm themselves or others with newly purchased weapons during periods of sudden distress or anger.

The law applies to all consumers, even those who have passed the requirements for immediate background checks.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a press conference in Sacramento, Calif., on Feb. 1, 2023. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The lawsuit is requesting the removal of the “cooling off” period and argues that gun violence is a “general societal problem” and that a waiting period has never been necessary or helped to prevent gun violence.

“Enforcement of the waiting period laws prevents law-abiding people from taking possession of lawfully acquired firearms for immediate self-defense,” the suit argues. “This relegates the right to keep and bear arms to second-class status.”

State Attorney General Responds

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is named as the lead defendant in the lawsuit and has supported the state’s gun regulations.

“Gun violence has left too many families broken, too many children traumatized, too many loved ones in pain—it’s time to stand up to the companies who sell these deadly weapons,” Bonta said in a statement. “There is no reason that the gun industry should be the only industry exempt from responsibility for the harm that its products cause. We are tired of seeing this industry get a free pass as communities continue to suffer from the trauma of gun violence.”

Bonta’s office told the Los Angeles Times it was “reviewing the lawsuit Tuesday but could not otherwise comment.”

Bonta’s office did not respond to The Epoch Times before press time.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has been a strong proponent of gun control since taking office.

“California has the toughest gun safety laws in the nation, but none of us can afford to be complacent in tackling the gun violence crisis ravaging our country,” Newsom said in a statement in 2022 after signing several new gun laws. “These new measures will help keep children safe at school, keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and responsibly regulate the sale of firearms in our communities. California will continue to lead on lifesaving policies that provide a model for action by other states and the nation.”

The suit also claims that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision not to hear a challenge to the 10-day waiting period was “abrogated,” or undone, by its more recent Bruen decision, and therefore the law is unconstitutional under the court’s newer historical standard, according to the documents.

Online Gun Purchases

Firearms advocacy groups such as San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, California Gun Rights Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation also joined in the suit.

The plaintiffs are also advocating for the possibility of permitting online sales of firearms to ensure citizens can more easily obtain guns for “immediate self-defense.”

“If firearms and ammunition could be purchased online in California like other constitutionally protected artifacts, such as paper, pens, ink, and technology products that facilitate speech, then individuals could simply purchase what they need and have the items delivered to their doorsteps,” the lawsuit states.

Bill Sack, director of legal operations for the Firearms Policy Coalition, is determined to remove the 10-day waiting period for law-abiding gun owners.

“With this new challenge, FPC reiterates the old adage, a right delayed is a right denied,” Sack said in a statement. “Arbitrarily delaying access of life-saving and constitutionally protected tools to peaceable people is immoral and unsupported by the text, history, and tradition of the second amendment in this country. This law must be struck down.”