Is Federal Judge Telegraphing His Intent in Waiting Period Case?

August 20, 2026
10:02 am

▶

Listen to Article

A federal judge’s decision to hold off on ruling in a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period law is raising eyebrows among Second Amendment advocates, and not without reason. Rather than issuing a swift decision after oral arguments, the court has signaled it may be waiting for the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling in *United States v. Rahimi*, a case that could redefine how lower courts apply the *Bruen* test. That pause isn’t just procedural—it’s a strategic signal that the judge may be looking for clearer guidance on how far the government can stretch “sensitive places” or “shall-issue” restrictions before they run afoul of the Constitution. For the 2A community, this delay is both a warning and an opportunity: it shows how lower courts are still grappling with *Bruen*’s implications, but it also underscores the importance of pushing cases forward to force those courts to confront the historical tradition test head-on. What makes this moment particularly telling is the broader pattern emerging across the judiciary. Judges who are ideologically opposed to expansive Second Amendment rights are increasingly using procedural delays or narrow interpretations to blunt *Bruen*’s impact, effectively buying time until a more favorable Supreme Court composition or precedent emerges. In this instance, the waiting period challenge isn’t just about a 10-day cooling-off period—it’s a test of whether the government can impose burdens on a fundamental right without a historical analogue. If the judge ultimately upholds the law by stretching *Rahimi* or inventing new justifications, it could set a precedent that weakens *Bruen*’s originalist framework, giving anti-gun states a roadmap for future restrictions. For gun owners and activists, the takeaway is clear: vigilance and persistence are essential. Every delay, every narrow ruling, every attempt to sidestep *Bruen* is a reminder that the fight for constitutional carry and the elimination of unconstitutional barriers isn’t won in a single case. The 2A community must continue to support litigation, track judicial appointments, and hold lawmakers accountable, because the courts are still very much in play—and the next few years could determine whether *Bruen* becomes a robust protection or a paper tiger.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

What makes this moment particularly telling is the broader pattern emerging across the judiciary. Judges who are ideologically opposed to expansive Second Amendment rights are increasingly using procedural delays or narrow interpretations to blunt *Bruen*’s impact, effectively buying time until a more favorable Supreme Court composition or precedent emerges. In this instance, the waiting period challenge isn’t just about a 10-day cooling-off period—it’s a test of whether the government can impose burdens on a fundamental right without a historical analogue. If the judge ultimately upholds the law by stretching *Rahimi* or inventing new justifications, it could set a precedent that weakens *Bruen*’s originalist framework, giving anti-gun states a roadmap for future restrictions.

For gun owners and activists, the takeaway is clear: vigilance and persistence are essential. Every delay, every narrow ruling, every attempt to sidestep *Bruen* is a reminder that the fight for constitutional carry and the elimination of unconstitutional barriers isn’t won in a single case. The 2A community must continue to support litigation, track judicial appointments, and hold lawmakers accountable, because the courts are still very much in play—and the next few years could determine whether *Bruen* becomes a robust protection or a paper tiger.

Share this story