This article summarizes a Republican perspective on an NRA lawsuit challenging Illinois’ 72-hour firearm waiting period and the constitutional arguments surrounding it.

The National Rifle Association filed a federal lawsuit on July 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of gun owner Gayle Pearlstein and several other plaintiffs, including some gun retailers. The suit targets Illinois’ waiting period law and asks the court to strike it down as inconsistent with the Second Amendment. This legal action joins a string of challenges across state and federal courts. The case puts a spotlight on how modern waiting rules square with Supreme Court precedent.

Under Illinois law, it is a Class Four felony to transfer any firearm until at least 72 hours after the purchase, even after a buyer has cleared a background check and already owns firearms. The statute contains no exceptions for people with concealed carry licenses or those facing imminent threats to their safety. Plaintiffs say the law forces law-abiding citizens to wait while criminals are unaffected. That mandatory delay is central to the constitutional claim in the complaint.

The complaint argues waiting-period laws lack roots in the Founding era, a key standard from the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen v. New York Rifle & Pistol Association. Plaintiffs note that when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System made most checks essentially instantaneous, many states eliminated waiting periods. The suit points to recent rulings across circuits and to states that have declined to defend similar statutes, arguing the trend favors the plaintiffs’ view of constitutional protection.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs emphasize that “cooling-off” statutes that force delays simply for the sake of delay are products of the late 20th and early 21st centuries rather than anything with historical pedigree. The Tenth Circuit recently struck down New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period, and currently 13 states plus Washington, D.C., still maintain some form of waiting requirement. Those facts are used to frame the argument that the Illinois rule is anachronistic and therefore unconstitutional under current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The lawsuit asks the court for both a facial ruling that the statute violates the Constitution and an as-applied ruling for people who pass background checks. Plaintiffs are also seeking a permanent injunction to stop the state from enforcing the 72-hour rule against citizens who have cleared background checks. The legal strategy is to force a clear judicial ruling on whether delay statutes pass historical-comparison tests required by recent Supreme Court guidance. That relief would immediately alter how transfers are handled in Illinois if granted.

Kerry Slone, founder of We The Female, told supporters that waiting periods aren’t just unconstitutional but “can be deadly.” She added, “A domestic violence or sexual assault survivor being stalked by an abuser can’t tell their attacker to come back in three to ten days.” “Those looking to cause harm to another will ALWAYS find a way, and no ‘cooling off period’ or other government overreach will change that,” she said, arguing the delays can increase real-world risks for vulnerable people.

https://x.com/NRA/status/2074896065141104989

Pearlstein, a firearms instructor and founder of the Lox and Loaded Jewish gun club and lead plaintiff, explained how the rule affects the people she trains. “You can’t expect Bubbie, which is grandma in Jewish, to run away or jump out a window when she’s in fear of death or great bodily harm.” She described scenarios in which victims of domestic abuse are forced to wait before taking possession of a firearm they lawfully purchased, saying the law compounds rather than mitigates danger for people in immediate peril.

Pearlstein said she joined the case because she believes the government is trampling rights: “I’m really thinking that my constitutional rights and my freedom in Illinois are just dwindling away,” she said. “For the amount of taxes that I overpay to live in Illinois, I don’t get anything free from the government. I never have. And I truly believe that for the amount of money that I pay in taxes and my community service and being a small business owner, that I should be able to have constitutional rights.” Those remarks frame the suit as about both principle and practical impact.

Justin Davis, the NRA’s director of public affairs, described the case as part of a broader legal push to test waiting periods nationwide. “These waiting periods across the country are really coming into focus about their constitutionality,” he said. “And of course they’re unconstitutional, especially under Bruen, the landmark Supreme Court decision.” He stressed historical practice, noting that in the Founding era “people were able to make firearms in their home” or “buy them from gunsmiths.” “A right delayed is a right denied,” he added.

The litigation will test whether courts apply the historical-comparison framework to modern statutes that impose mandatory possession delays. Plaintiffs argue the 72-hour rule burdens the right to keep and bear arms “in an ahistorical manner for an ahistorical reason,” and they seek court orders to stop its enforcement. If judges agree, the ruling could reshape transfer rules in Illinois and influence challenges in other states that retain waiting periods.