The First and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals have reached opposing conclusions on the constitutionality of gun purchase waiting periods, creating a circuit split that could push the issue toward the Supreme Court.
The First Circuit upheld a waiting period law, finding that such "cooling-off" periods do not violate the Second Amendment's text or history. The court reasoned that waiting periods serve a legitimate purpose in preventing impulsive violence and suicides without substantially burdening the right to bear arms.
The Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, striking down a waiting period as unconstitutional. That court applied the text-and-history test established by the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires firearms regulations to align with the nation's historical tradition of gun regulation.
This disagreement reflects deeper tensions in how federal courts interpret Second Amendment protections post-Bruen. The First Circuit emphasized that waiting periods have historical roots in early licensing schemes. The Tenth Circuit countered that the Founders did not employ comparable cooling-off periods and that modern waiting periods impose delays that impair immediate self-defense rights.
The split involves real stakes. Waiting period laws exist in 21 states and the District of Columbia. Proponents cite public health data showing that waiting periods reduce firearm suicides and homicides. Second Amendment advocates argue that delays prevent law-abiding citizens from immediately exercising constitutional rights.
The circuit split puts pressure on the Supreme Court to clarify how strictly courts should apply historical analysis under Bruen. Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored Bruen, emphasized originalism focused on founding-era practice. That framing appears more favorable to the Tenth Circuit's approach, though lower courts continue wrestling with how much historical analogy courts can draw.
Resolution may require Supreme Court intervention. Either the Court accepts a case to establish