Legal News

I can more clearly address it, sure.

First off, my focus here is "strict scrutiny". I provided a link above. To summarize:

In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional.

Basically, if you want to write a law that affects a constitutional right, it must pass the "strict scrutiny" test.

The cooling off period does not violate the 5th amendment. I mentioned the 5th amendment as a general, non-controversial example of constitutional rights, in order to demonstrate how "strict scrutiny" would apply.

The 5th amendment guarantees a right to "due process". If you are arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal act, the police can't just hold you indefinitely. As soon as feasible, the police have to release you with a summons. If they want to hold you in custody, they have to deliver you to court quickly, generally not more than 48 hours after arrest. That initial hearing is called "Arraignment".

A law that allows police to hold you for any amount of time without charge (8 hours, 48 hours, 2 weeks, whatever) would affect your 5th amendment right to due process. That doesn't necessarily mean it violates the right; it simply affects it. If the state wants to keep such a law, they will have to show that it meets the "strict scrutiny" standard. If they can meet the "strict scrutiny" standard, that law can be enacted. Here, the courts would likely determine that the 2-week delay is not the "least restrictive means" of achieving whatever "compelling interest" the state has in delaying

The 2nd amendment guarantees constitutional rights that are impacted by a "cooling off" period: the right to keep and bear arms. As such, the "strict scrutiny" standard applies. That doesn't mean that cooling off periods violate the constitutional right; it just means that the necessity of such a law will be judged by "strict scrutiny".

Even conceding the "compelling interest" and "least restrictive means" components of the test, waiting period laws are not "narrowly tailored" when they are imposed on current gun owners. Without meeting "strict scrutiny", they should be overturned.