A federal judge has declined to enter an agreed judgment that would have blocked enforcement of Florida’s firearm waiting-period requirements beyond the time needed for a background check. In an October 28 order in Dunn v. Glass, U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday denied the parties’ joint motion and directed the clerk not to enter their proposed judgment. The order grants no waiting-period relief and does not decide whether the challenged requirements are constitutional.
The case is pending in the Tampa Division of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Four Florida residents who buy firearms at retail, two firearm retailers, and a national association brought the challenge under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants are Florida’s law-enforcement commissioner, attorney general, and twenty state attorneys. Their agreement on the requested outcome, rather than competing arguments about the law, is central to the judge’s objection.
An accepted offer was not enough
The defendants served an offer of judgment on June 5, 2026, and the plaintiffs accepted it that day. On June 30, the parties jointly asked the court to enter judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. According to the order, they argued that entry was a ministerial act leaving no room for judicial discretion. Merryday rejected that route to the constitutional declaration and permanent injunction they sought.
Invalid Date
More Articles
The proposed declaration covered specified provisions of Florida Statutes Section 790.0655, Article I, section 8(b), and Article VIII, section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution. It would have declared those provisions unconstitutional insofar as they require retailers to hold a firearm beyond the time required to perform a background check. That qualification matters for buyers and dealers: the requested relief targeted the additional waiting time, not the background-check requirement itself.
The proposed injunction would have barred the defendants, their officers, agents, employees, successors, and people acting with them from enforcing those requirements to that extent. It also would have required notice to relevant state agencies, law-enforcement personnel, and regulatory bodies within seven days of final judgment. The agreement included $10,000 in attorney fees and costs, but no damages for the plaintiffs. These were proposed terms; the October 28 order did not award them or activate the notification requirement.
The court wants adversarial briefing
Merryday described Rule 68 as ordinarily a straightforward way to formalize agreed results in routine litigation. Here, however, the agreement would invalidate state constitutional and statutory provisions and prevent principal state law-enforcement officials from enforcing them. His order says that constitutional adjudication requires a full, adversarial presentation and that an injunction of this kind requires a judicial determination of a Fourteenth Amendment violation. The parties’ agreement could not supply that determination.
The judge also pointed to the limited record. Quoting an earlier order, he noted the absence of material merits activity such as a motion to dismiss or a summary-judgment motion. Beyond the complaint, the docket lacked discussion of the merits. Neither side had cited controlling Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit authority on a mandatory three-day wait, and neither had addressed contrasting waiting-period decisions from other federal appeals courts. Those omissions explain the request for further argument rather than a ruling accepting either side’s constitutional position.
For Florida purchasers and retailers, the distinction is immediate: an accepted settlement offer is not the injunction the parties requested. This order supplies no authorization to disregard the challenged waiting requirements after a background check clears. It also does not uphold those requirements on the merits. Whether the plaintiffs ultimately obtain relief, and the scope of any eventual injunction, remain unresolved in this proceeding.
Briefing extends into February
The court invited Florida’s governor, House of Representatives, and Senate, along with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, to participate as amici curiae. Invited participants choosing to take part should file notice by November 30, 2026. Other interested and qualified participants must move for permission by that date. An invitation is not confirmation that any organization will file a brief or take a particular position.
Amicus briefs are due February 1, 2027, with a twenty-five-page limit excluding the caption and signature block. The plaintiffs and defendants may each file their own briefs by February 19, under the same page limit. Those are briefing deadlines, not dates for the waiting period to end. The order sets no date for a final constitutional decision; the next scheduled step is the November 30 participation deadline.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
