It’s not often that both sides of a Second Amendment lawsuit agree the law being challenged is unconstitutional and should be struck down.
That’s exactly what just happened in Dunn v. Glass — a federal court challenge to Florida’s three-day waiting period for firearms purchases. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, whose office would normally defend the state law, has instead joined the plaintiffs in asking the court to declare the waiting period unconstitutional and permanently enjoin its enforcement.
That’s the kind of cooperative resolution that almost never happens in contested constitutional litigation. It also tells you a lot about where Florida’s chief legal officer thinks Second Amendment law is heading.
How Florida ended up with a waiting period in the first place
Florida’s three-day waiting period traces back to a 1990 amendment to the state constitution that required a three-day waiting period between the retail purchase and delivery of a handgun. Following the 2018 Parkland shooting, the Florida legislature passed and then-Gov. Rick Scott signed legislation expanding the waiting period to apply to all firearms — not just handguns.
The expanded waiting period has been Florida law since 2018. Florida gun buyers — including those who already lawfully own firearms and are simply purchasing additional ones — have had to wait three days before taking possession of any firearm purchased at retail, regardless of how quickly the federal NICS background check returned a proceed determination.
In 2025, the National Rifle Association, 2nd Amendment Armory, Centurion Armament Co., and four NRA members filed Dunn v. Glass in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Named defendants included Attorney General Uthmeier, Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Mark Glass, and 20 state attorneys.
The AG’s office formally agrees the law is unconstitutional
On June 5, the parties filed a joint Offer of Judgment asking the court to find the law unconstitutional. The filing is unusual because it doesn’t just settle the case — it directly characterizes Florida’s waiting period as a constitutional violation.
The Offer of Judgment states the proposed ruling:
“Florida Statutes § 790.0655(1)(a), (2)(a)–(c), and (3)(a), and Article I, section 8(b) of the Florida Constitution impose a three-day waiting period between the purchase and delivery at retail of any firearm, subject to certain exceptions. Article VIII, section 5(b) permits any Florida county to impose a three-to-five-day waiting period between the purchase and delivery of any firearm occurring within that county. Those waiting period restrictions burden the right to keep and bear arms. As the government cannot meet its burden to establish a historical tradition of regulation that justifies an arbitrary waiting period unconnected to the time required to complete a background check, they are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The constitutional analysis tracks directly to the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework: firearms regulations must fit within the historical tradition of firearms regulation. The Offer of Judgment essentially concedes that no historical tradition supports arbitrary waiting periods unconnected to the time required to complete the federal background check.
The AG’s role is made explicit in the filing:
“The Attorney General, as the chief state legal officer under the Florida Constitution, has concluded that the Waiting Period Provisions violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the State of Florida by the Fourteenth Amendment. The other Defendants in this case, being represented by the Attorney General, agree to be bound by the Attorney General’s conclusion that the Waiting Period Provisions are unconstitutional.”
In other words: Florida’s chief legal officer has determined the law is unconstitutional, and the other defendants represented by his office have agreed to be bound by that determination.
Florida gun buyers could see the waiting period gone within a week of the ruling
The Offer of Judgment asks the court to do more than just find the law unconstitutional — it asks for immediate cessation of enforcement statewide. The proposed injunction language is direct:
“Defendants, along with their officers, agents, employees, successors, and all persons acting in concert with them, are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing Florida Statutes § 790.0655(1)(a), (2)(a)–(c), and (3)(a), Article I, section 8(b), and Article VIII, section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution to the extent they require retailers to hold a firearm beyond the time required to perform a background check. Within seven days of the entry of the Court’s Final Judgement, Defendants shall promptly notify all relevant state agencies, law-enforcement personnel, and regulatory bodies of the cessation of the enforcement of the challenged law.”
The “seven days” notification requirement is significant. If the court accepts the Offer of Judgment, Florida law enforcement and regulatory bodies will be notified within a week that the waiting period is no longer being enforced. Florida gun buyers could potentially be purchasing firearms with no waiting period beyond the federal background check timeline by midsummer.
Uthmeier keeps proving he actually believes in the Second Amendment
Uthmeier’s willingness to join the plaintiffs in Dunn v. Glass fits a pattern. In 2025, the attorney general declined to appeal a Florida appellate court decision that ruled the state’s ban on open carry unconstitutional — effectively ending Florida’s open carry prohibition. That decision was widely celebrated by gun-rights advocates as a signal that Florida’s chief legal officer would not expend state resources defending firearms restrictions he viewed as constitutionally indefensible.
The Dunn v. Glass approach takes that posture one step further. Rather than simply declining to defend a challenged law, Uthmeier has affirmatively joined plaintiffs in asking the court to strike it down. That’s a substantially more pro-gun-rights position than mere passive non-defense.
It’s also a strategically smart one. Federal court rulings striking down state firearms restrictions can produce broader precedent and longer-lasting policy effects than mere prosecutorial discretion or non-defense decisions. A court ruling that Florida’s waiting period is unconstitutional under Bruen potentially affects similar waiting period laws in other states — and creates persuasive authority for federal courts considering challenges to those laws.
The waiting period can’t survive Bruen, and the AG knows it
The constitutional argument the Offer of Judgment makes is the kind of analysis that should win in any post-Bruen federal court applying the Supreme Court’s framework honestly.
The Bruen historical-tradition test requires firearms regulations to fit within the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. The Supreme Court rejected the previous interest-balancing framework that allowed lower courts to uphold restrictions based on government claims of public safety benefits weighed against burdens on constitutional rights. Under Bruen, the question isn’t whether a regulation might serve a public safety purpose — it’s whether the regulation has historical analogs in American firearms law.
Waiting periods don’t.
There’s no historical American tradition of requiring lawful firearms purchasers to wait an arbitrary number of days before taking possession of a firearm they have legally purchased. The federal background check timeline (which can resolve in minutes for most purchasers) is the procedural mechanism Congress established for verifying purchaser eligibility. Adding an additional waiting period on top of that — particularly one that applies to people who already lawfully own firearms — has no constitutional foundation.
That’s the analysis Uthmeier has now formally endorsed by joining the plaintiffs.
This only works because Florida has an AG who cares about gun rights
Cooperative resolution of Second Amendment cases like Dunn v. Glass depends on the political alignment of the state’s chief legal officer with the plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments. In Florida, Uthmeier is willing to acknowledge that the waiting period fails Bruen scrutiny. In states with attorneys general aligned against gun rights — California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia under Jay Jones, and similar — the same kind of cooperative resolution simply isn’t available.
That’s why gun-rights organizations continue to pursue contested litigation in those states. The SAF/NRA/FPC challenge to Virginia’s assault weapons ban, the Maryland Glock ban lawsuit, the Los Angeles and Inglewood handgun rationing challenge, and similar cases all involve plaintiffs facing state legal officers willing to vigorously defend the challenged laws regardless of their constitutional vulnerability.
Florida is benefiting from having an attorney general who actually believes in the Second Amendment. Gun owners in restrictive states are still waiting for federal courts to apply Bruen to laws that those states’ attorneys general are determined to defend.
What happens next
The court will need to formally accept the Offer of Judgment and enter the proposed Final Judgment. Federal courts generally accept stipulated resolutions like this when both parties agree to the outcome and the proposed judgment doesn’t conflict with established law. The Bruen analysis underlying the Offer is straightforward and well-supported by Supreme Court precedent.
Once the judgment is entered, the seven-day notification requirement kicks in. Within a week of the court’s ruling, Florida agencies and law enforcement bodies will be notified that the waiting period is no longer being enforced. Florida gun buyers could be purchasing firearms with only the federal background check timeline as the procedural barrier — meaning many lawful purchasers will be walking out with their firearm the same day rather than three days later.
For Florida’s gun owners, the end of the waiting period removes a real burden that has been imposed on firearm purchases since 2018. For gun-rights advocates nationally, the Dunn v. Glass resolution provides a useful precedent for challenging similar waiting period laws in other states. And for AG Uthmeier, the case adds to a developing track record of pro-Second Amendment leadership that contrasts sharply with the approaches taken by his counterparts in restrictive states.
The eight-year era of Florida’s all-firearms waiting period is likely about to end. Good riddance.
Do any anti-2 organizations have standing to challenge the agreement?
I am not a FL resident, but I was under the impression that if you have a Florida CCW the waiting period is negated. Can’t you also still get a FL resident CCW despite constitutional carry, to make carrying in other states easier?
So Rights are privileges that carry a price.
^^No of course I don’t endorse the waiting period. I just didn’t know if the FL CCW perk was nixed.
Truth is Rights are privileges. There is nothing free in Freedom.
If you want constitutional justice lawyers have to sue the courts.
It shouldn’t be that way because when We the People depend on lawyers and court decisions we have lost all hope of true Constitutionality.
The argument over the source of “rights” is not insignificant. If there is no God (such entity cannot be “proven” using known scientific principles), then where do “rights” originate? If not from governments, there is no origin/source, thus “rights” are opinions backed by force.