NRA Sues Florida For Violating Second Amendment

The National Rifle Association has taken Florida to court, challenging the state’s three-day waiting period for firearm purchases. According to the NRA-ILA, the case, Dunn v. Glass, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, with the backing of the 2nd Amendment Armory, three NRA members, and the Mountain States Legal Foundation. The plaintiffs argue that Florida’s mandatory delay between purchase and possession is unconstitutional and serves no real public safety purpose.

From Handguns to All Firearms

As reported by the NRA-ILA, Florida first adopted a waiting period in 1998, requiring a three-day pause for handgun purchases. That law was expanded in 2018 to cover all firearms. The measure includes a narrow exemption for concealed carry permit holders but otherwise forces law-abiding citizens to wait a minimum of three days – regardless of whether their background checks are completed instantly. The group described this system as nothing more than a “time tax” on the exercise of a constitutional right.

Recent Court Victories Fuel the Challenge

This lawsuit comes just after the NRA notched a major victory in the Tenth Circuit. In Ortega v. Grisham, the court struck down New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period, ruling that it violated the Second Amendment. John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA, said in the NRA’s announcement that Florida’s case builds directly on that win. “For nearly 35 years, law-abiding Floridians have had to endure unconstitutional laws that arbitrarily deny them access to legally purchased firearms,” Commerford stated. He expressed confidence that Bruen’s precedent, which requires modern laws to align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, would doom Florida’s law.

The Lawsuit’s Core Argument

Mike Jenkins of the Tampa Free Press explained that the NRA’s complaint zeroes in on one point: the waiting period is not tied to the background check process. Once a buyer passes the check, there is no constitutional reason to impose an arbitrary delay. The suit contends that this so-called “cooling-off” requirement assumes citizens are too unstable to exercise their rights immediately. According to Jenkins, the plaintiffs maintain that such a rationale conflicts with both the text of the Second Amendment and recent Supreme Court precedent.

Cam Edwards Brings the Issue Into Focus

On his program Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co., journalist Cam Edwards spoke with John Commerford about the lawsuit. Edwards pointed out that Florida’s case lands in a wave of Second Amendment litigation following Bruen. “It’s encouraging to see these challenges stacking up,” Edwards said, noting that courts are increasingly being forced to confront waiting periods, bans, and other restrictions head-on. He also highlighted how the NRA’s new lawsuits in Massachusetts and Illinois fit into a broader strategy of targeting unconstitutional state-level restrictions.

Commerford: “A Time Tax on Freedom”

In that interview, Commerford emphasized that waiting periods aren’t simply minor inconveniences – they can place people in danger. “What if you have an individual who’s facing an imminent threat?” he asked. “You’re telling them to wait three days – or seven, or thirty – before they can protect themselves and their family. That is not how constitutional rights work.” His words echoed a longstanding NRA-ILA position that “seconds count, police are minutes away,” and unnecessary barriers to self-defense could cost innocent lives.

Florida’s Contradictions

The lawsuit also highlights an inconsistency. As Jenkins reported, Florida allows concealed carry permit holders to bypass the waiting period entirely. That carveout undermines the state’s argument that a universal “cooling-off” period is needed to prevent rash decisions. If some buyers can be trusted to purchase without delay, why should others be denied that same trust? The NRA’s position is that this selective exemption reveals the true nature of the law: a political tool aimed at discouraging gun ownership rather than a legitimate public safety measure.

Growing Momentum of Challenges

Edwards also drew attention to the growing momentum of challenges to so-called “hardware bans,” including assault weapon and magazine restrictions. He noted that the Florida waiting period case joins a crowded docket of lawsuits making their way through appellate courts. Commerford added that the NRA’s litigation team, working in partnership with groups like Mountain States Legal Foundation, is committed to staggering these cases so courts are consistently pressed to address Second Amendment questions. “At some point, the Supreme Court is going to have to take one of these,” he said.

The Historical Test from Bruen

At the heart of Dunn v. Glass is the Bruen standard, which requires modern gun laws to have historical analogues dating back to the founding era. Commerford argued, as quoted by the NRA-ILA, that waiting periods fail that test: “If 18-to-20-year-olds weren’t allowed to possess firearms, this country wouldn’t even be free today.” Jenkins likewise pointed out that Florida’s law lacks historical grounding, relying instead on modern ideas of “reflection time” that the founders never envisioned.

The Problem With “Cooling Off”

To me, the most striking flaw in Florida’s system is that it punishes the responsible along with the reckless. If a background check clears a buyer in minutes, the state’s insistence on a three-day hold treats them as dangerous by default. It’s a presumption of guilt, not innocence. Worse, as Commerford stressed, this delay could be deadly for someone under immediate threat. Laws that claim to enhance safety but ignore real-world urgency may create more victims than they prevent.

Political Push and Legislative Failure

Cam Edwards reminded viewers that Governor Ron DeSantis himself had called for repealing the waiting period, but legislative leaders blocked the effort. Commerford said NRA members worked hard to push repeal through the statehouse, but leadership stonewalled the measure. That failure in Tallahassee left litigation as the only remaining path. As Edwards observed, “This could have been fixed in the legislature. Now it’s going to be settled in the courts.”

Looking Ahead

According to Jenkins, the outcome of Dunn v. Glass could ripple far beyond Florida. If the courts strike down the law, it may embolden challenges in other states with waiting periods. And with the Tenth Circuit already siding against New Mexico, momentum appears to be on the NRA’s side. Commerford told Edwards he expects the case to become “another critical step in rehabilitating Second Amendment rights in the Sunshine State.”

A Defining Case for Florida

Florida’s mandatory waiting period has been on the books for decades, but its future is now in serious jeopardy. The NRA-ILA, through Commerford’s leadership, argues that the state’s three-day delay violates the Constitution, ignores Bruen, and endangers citizens who need immediate access to firearms. Edwards framed the fight as part of a nationwide wave of litigation, while Jenkins underscored the arbitrariness of the law. Whether the courts agree remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Dunn v. Glass is not just about three days – it’s about whether states can place arbitrary time taxes on a fundamental right.