Florida Judge Refuses to End Gun Waiting Period Despite State’s Admission It Violates Second Amendment
Florida’s Attorney General and all 20 state attorneys agreed that the state’s mandatory firearm waiting period violates the Second Amendment. A federal judge has refused to enter that judgment, leaving gun owners subject to the restriction while inviting national gun-control organizations to weigh in.
Florida’s top law enforcement officials have agreed that the state’s mandatory three-day firearm waiting period violates the Second Amendment, but a federal judge has refused to enter the judgment that would end its enforcement. Now, instead of Florida gun owners getting relief from a law the state itself has conceded is unconstitutional, two national gun-control organizations have been invited to argue the issue before the court.
On October 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday denied a joint motion for entry of final judgment in Dunn v. Glass, Case No. 8:25-cv-02264-SDM-AEP, an NRA-backed lawsuit challenging Florida’s firearm waiting-period requirements.
The decision leaves Florida’s waiting period in effect, even though Attorney General James Uthmeier, Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Mark Glass, and all 20 state attorneys agreed in June that the restriction violates the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Florida Already Agreed Its Gun Waiting Period Is Unconstitutional
Florida’s mandatory waiting period originated with a 1998 constitutional amendment requiring a three-day delay between the retail purchase and delivery of handguns. In 2018, the Legislature expanded the requirement to all firearms.
Under the law, with limited exceptions, a person purchasing a firearm must wait at least three days before taking possession, regardless of whether the required background check has already been completed and approved.
The NRA filed its lawsuit in August 2025, challenging the waiting period under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The organization was joined by four NRA members, 2nd Amendment Armory, and Centurion Armament Co., working in partnership with Mountain States Legal Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Rather than continue defending the law, Florida officials offered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on June 5, 2026. The plaintiffs accepted that offer the same day.
The state’s offer of judgment included a proposed declaration that the waiting-period restrictions burden the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. More importantly, it acknowledged that the government could not establish the historical tradition necessary to justify a mandatory delay unrelated to completing a background check.
The proposed declaration stated:
“Those waiting period restrictions burden the right to keep and bear arms.”
The agreement went further, expressly stating that Attorney General Uthmeier had concluded the waiting-period provisions violated the Second Amendment and that the other defendants agreed to be bound by his conclusion.
The proposed judgment would have permanently prohibited state officials from enforcing the waiting period beyond the time necessary to perform a background check.
In other words, once a lawful purchaser cleared the required background check, Florida could no longer force that person to wait additional days before taking possession of a firearm solely to satisfy the challenged waiting period.
AmmoLand reported on the agreement in June, when it appeared the lawsuit was headed toward a major Second Amendment victory. However, the anticipated final judgment was never entered, and Wednesday’s order confirms that the court will not approve the agreement through the procedure the parties selected.
Federal Judge Rejects Agreement and Invites Gun-Control Groups
Judge Merryday did not rule that Florida’s waiting period is constitutional. Instead, he rejected the parties’ attempt to obtain a declaration of unconstitutionality and permanent injunction through Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 68 ordinarily allows defendants to offer judgment to resolve litigation, but Merryday concluded that the parties were attempting to use the procedure to obtain a constitutional determination without sufficiently developing the legal arguments.
The judge pointed out that the parties had not presented meaningful adversarial briefing addressing the constitutional question or the differing decisions reached by other federal appellate courts.
Specifically, the order referenced Ortega v. Grisham, 148 F.4th 1134 (10th Cir. 2025), involving New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period, and Beckwith v. Frey, 171 F.4th 560 (1st Cir. 2026), which upheld Maine’s three-day waiting period.
The court determined that a declaration invalidating provisions of Florida’s Constitution and statutes, followed by a permanent injunction, required a fuller constitutional adjudication.
But rather than simply directing the parties to submit additional arguments, Merryday took the unusual step of inviting outside organizations to participate.
The court specifically invited the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence to submit amicus curiae briefs. Florida’s Governor, House of Representatives, and Senate were also invited to participate.
These groups have not been made parties to the lawsuit, and the order does not establish that they will participate. Nevertheless, the decision opens the door for national gun-control organizations to present arguments defending a firearm restriction that the officials responsible for enforcing it have already agreed violates the Second Amendment.
The invited participants must notify the court of their intention to participate by November 30, 2026, and submit their briefs by February 1, 2027. The plaintiffs and defendants may file their own briefs by February 19, 2027.
A Right Delayed Is a Right Denied
The larger constitutional issue is straightforward. The Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, and exercising that right necessarily includes acquiring a firearm.
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the government must justify regulations burdening conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text by demonstrating consistency with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Florida’s Attorney General has already acknowledged that the state cannot meet that burden when it comes to imposing an arbitrary waiting period unrelated to completing a background check.
Yet law-abiding Floridians remain subject to that restriction.
A purchaser who has passed the required background check and is legally eligible to possess a firearm can still be prohibited from taking it home simply because the government has decided that additional days must pass.
For someone purchasing a firearm for personal protection, that delay is not a minor inconvenience. The government is preventing an otherwise eligible citizen from immediately acquiring the means to exercise a fundamental constitutional right.
Florida’s case also comes amid a broader national fight over mandatory firearm waiting periods.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court declined to hear Beckwith v. Frey, leaving Maine’s 72-hour waiting period in effect after the First Circuit upheld the restriction. Meanwhile, gun-rights organizations continue challenging New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period.
These cases demonstrate the continuing fight over whether the government can impose arbitrary delays on the acquisition of firearms, despite the Supreme Court’s historical-tradition standard.
Florida Gun Owners Are Still Waiting for Their Rights to Be Recognized
According to the NRA’s October 29 statement, the organization remains confident that Florida’s waiting period will ultimately be found unconstitutional and intends to continue fighting the restriction.
For now, however, the law remains in effect, and firearm dealers and purchasers must continue complying with its requirements.
A Florida federal court has declined to immediately invalidate the state’s firearm waiting period law in the NRA’s Dunn v. Glass case.
Florida’s law requires a three-day wait to take possession of a firearm, even when a background check is approved sooner. https://t.co/yxqOM1AX4H
— NRA (@NRA) October 29, 2026
Florida’s Attorney General, FDLE Commissioner, and every state attorney have already agreed that the waiting-period provisions violate the Second Amendment. Nevertheless, the federal court has refused to enter their proposed judgment, and the case will continue into 2027.
The American right to keep and bear arms does not come with a government-mandated cooling-off period. The Constitution does not require law-abiding citizens to prove that they have waited long enough before exercising a fundamental right.
Florida’s own chief legal officer has acknowledged that the state’s waiting period cannot be justified under the Second Amendment. Now gun owners are left waiting for a federal court to reach the same conclusion.
The right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege granted on the government’s schedule. A right delayed is a right denied.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.