Three Days Too Late: How Colorado Endangers Citizens by Withholding Self-Defense

Colorado’s three-day waiting period is built on a presumption of guilt. It assumes that every law-abiding buyer who passes a background check is a potential threat to themselves or others, and so the state imposes a blanket delay before a constitutionally protected arm may be delivered. That premise is not only offensive to due process and common sense, it fails the Supreme Court’s Bruen test and the 10th Circuit’s own fresh guidance. This week, a 10th Circuit panel blocked New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period as likely unconstitutional, holding that “cooling-off periods” do not fit within any historically grounded exception to the right to keep and bear arms. If a seven-day delay cannot survive in our circuit, Colorado’s three-day delay stands on the same shaky ground.

What Colorado’s Law Actually Does

Enacted in 2023 via HB23-1219 and codified at C.R.S. § 18-12-115, Colorado forbids a dealer from delivering a purchased firearm until the later of three days after the background check is initiated or the moment the check is approved. Delivering earlier is a civil infraction with escalating fines. The law took effect October 1, 2023. For countless Coloradans, including new gun owners facing immediate threats—this means an arbitrary, state-imposed delay on acquiring a tool of self-defense even after they have been cleared.

Our Case So Far—And Why This Week Matters

When we sought a preliminary injunction, the district court refused to pause the law. The court accepted the state’s “public health” narrative and suggested waiting periods could be analogized to other historical regulations—despite acknowledging that the first true waiting period laws did not arrive until the 20th century. That early setback was disappointing, but it was never the last word. The same 10th Circuit that will ultimately review Colorado’s law has now held that New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period is likely unconstitutional under Bruen because “cooling-off” delays are not part of our Nation’s historical tradition. That is a roadmap for Colorado.

The Governing Standard: Heller, McDonald, & Bruen

The Supreme Court made three controlling points that Colorado cannot wish away:

Individual right: District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense. Government may not destroy the core of that right with blanket bans or disabling burdens.
Incorporation: McDonald v. Chicago applied that protection against the States. Colorado must justify its restrictions under the federal Constitution, not merely state policy preferences.
Method: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen rejected interest-balancing and demands that a firearm regulation be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. If the State cannot point to a well-established analogue from the Founding era (or a comparably justified and similar burden), the law fails. Waiting periods—creatures of the 20th century—simply are not there.

The 10th Circuit’s New Mexico ruling applies Bruen faithfully: general “cooling-off” laws are not historically grounded, and thus likely unconstitutional. That logic applies with equal force to Colorado’s three-day delay.

The “Everyone’s a Risk” Premise Is Factually Wrong

Colorado’s policy rests on the claim that a mandatory delay will prevent crimes of passion or impulsive violence. But the best federal data show that the people committing gun crimes are not obtaining their weapons from retailers in the first place. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Survey of Prison Inmates, only about 1.3% of prisoners who used a gun in their offense obtained it from a retail source. A delay on lawful retail transfers does not touch the primary channels criminals actually use. It only burdens the...