In a controversial decision, a federal judge in Colorado has ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to buy a gun.

The ruling came in the case of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, which challenged Colorado's three-day waiting period for firearm purchases. This decision has sparked outrage among supporters of the Second Amendment, who see it as a blatant disregard for the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

The judge responsible for the ruling, John L. Kane, was appointed to the federal bench by former President Jimmy Carter in 1977. In his decision, he argued that the right to bear arms does not include the right to acquire them.

This decision flies in the face of four rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court in the last 15 years, which have upheld the individual right to possess and carry firearms for self-protection. But Judge Kane's ruling disregards this and insists that the purchase and delivery of firearms is not covered by the Second Amendment.

This reasoning has been met with criticism from gun rights advocates, who argue that such a ruling would imply a right to have something, but not to obtain it through the most obvious and ordinary means. Comparing it to the First Amendment, they point out that the right to free speech includes the ability to purchase and receive newspapers.

Judge Kane attempted to justify his decision by pointing to "expert" testimony that indicated firearm purchases at the time of the founding were not as convenient, prompt, or accessible as they are today.

However, this argument falls flat as it fails to acknowledge the technological advancements that have made the buying and selling of goods and services more efficient in modern times.

Furthermore, Judge Kane also argued that Colorado's waiting period is consistent with the Second Amendment because it is a regulation on the sale of firearms, not on the right to possess them.

But this argument is an example of frivolous formalism, as the waiting period still imposes an impediment on the purchase of guns, thereby implicating the rights of buyers.

In yet another effort to justify his ruling, Judge Kane claimed that the waiting period is consistent with America's historical tradition of regulating the carrying and use of firearms by intoxicated individuals.

Critics have pointed out that this is a false equivalence, as intoxication speaks to the condition of a particular individual at a specific moment, while the waiting period applies broadly to all firearm sales.

READ MORE:

• COLORADO IMPLEMENTS CONTROVERSIAL WAITING PERIOD FOR FIREARM PURCHASES

• COLORADO'S NEW LAWS PUT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS AT RISK

• WHAT COLORADO LAWS GO INTO EFFECT IN OCTOBER?

• FEDERAL JUDGE DENIES EFFORT TO BLOCK COLORADO’S NEW GUN CONTROL LAW

Overall, Judge Kane's ruling has been met with widespread condemnation from those who see it as a dangerous precedent that could further erode the Second Amendment.

This decision not only disregards the clear wording of the amendment, but also disregards the foreseeability and accessibility of firearms in modern times.