Ohio Democrats Push 10-Day Waiting Period for Gun Purchases 

There are gun purchase waiting periods and then there are “holy crap” long gun purchase waiting periods. And that’s just what two Democratic lawmakers in Ohio want to make happen, the Ohio Capital Journal is reporting. The two have introduced a proposal for a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, claiming it would reduce violence by giving buyers time to “cool off.” However, the bill’s sponsors, state Reps. Cecil Thomas and Rachel Baker, are relying on questionable studies that have been widely criticized by experts for their methodological flaws and inconsistent results.

The proposal, which would apply to licensed dealers only, faces strong opposition in the Republican-controlled legislature, where gun rights are a top priority.

The bill is backed by a 2017 study that suggests mandatory waiting periods could reduce gun homicides by 17% and suicides by 7-11%. However, these claims have been repeatedly challenged by research reviews from organizations like RAND, which highlight the methodological limitations and inconsistent findings across various studies. These reviews emphasize that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to isolate the effect of waiting periods alone from other variables, such as local crime rates, enforcement practices, and mental health policies. The 2017 study, which looked at the effects of waiting periods from 1970 to 2014, apparently didn’t consider that in that same time frame, violent crime, including homocides dropped signficantly. In that same time frame, more awareness was given to suicide prevention. So, their findings were likely coincidence.

Despite this, Thomas and Baker argue that a waiting period would prevent impulsive decisions during emotional distress, citing the potential to reduce suicides and domestic violence-related incidents. “This brief cooling off period provides individuals with the time to reconsider their purchase,” Thomas said. But critics argue that such claims are based more on emotion than evidence, and that waiting periods do little to address the root causes of violent crime. They could also leave people in domestic violence situations more vulnerable by not allowing them to quickly purchase a firearm for their protection.

Research on the effectiveness of waiting periods is far from conclusive. According to multiple reviews, including those by RAND, the studies often fail to show consistent evidence that waiting periods effectively reduce violent crime. In some cases, studies suggest that waiting periods might even have the opposite effect, with criminals who are not deterred by such laws simply finding alternative ways to acquire firearms. These reviews point out that waiting periods primarily burden law-abiding citizens, who are forced to wait longer to exercise their Second Amendment rights, while doing little to stop criminals from acquiring firearms.

“We’re not dealing with law-abiding citizens committing crimes,” said Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, in response to the bill. “Criminals don’t follow laws, and they certainly don’t respect waiting periods. All this proposal does is penalize responsible gun owners.”

The sponsors of the bill argue that it would align Ohio with states like California and Washington, D.C., which already impose similar waiting periods. But these states have long histories of overregulation and ineffective gun laws that fail to reduce crime. Despite their strict laws, states like California continue to struggle with high levels of violent crime, proving that waiting periods are not a silver bullet.

Rep. Rachel Baker, a Cincinnati Democrat, insisted that the measure respects Second Amendment rights while promoting public safety. “The most effective firearm safety policies are those that respect rights with responsibility,” Baker said. But forcing citizens to wait 10 days to purchase a firearm hardly respects their constitutional rights. In fact, it seems more like an attempt to impose further restrictions on gun ownership, relying on faulty evidence to justify its necessity.

Opponents of the bill argue that the existing background check system already provides an effective safeguard. When a person attempts to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, a background check is automatically conducted. If there is any doubt about the buyer’s eligibility, federal authorities are given three business days to respond. The proposed 10-day waiting period would do little to improve public safety, they argue, and would only serve to frustrate law-abiding citizens.

Republicans in the committee were quick to challenge the bill, with State Rep. Bill Seitz raising concerns about its constitutionality. He pointed out that Ohio voters recently passed an amendment protecting abortion rights, and that courts have blocked similar waiting period provisions for abortion. “If a waiting period for abortion is an infringement on constitutional rights, how is this any different?” Seitz asked.

Thomas and Baker struggled to answer this challenge, with Thomas conceding that the matter might be left to the courts. But their inability to defend the constitutionality of the bill only underscores the weak foundation on which it rests.