Maine’s 72-hour waiting period for purchasing firearms is being challenged in the First Circuit, where a group of buyers and sellers argued Monday that the law violates the Second Amendment. During an hour-long hearing, a three-judge panel grilled both sides with rapid questions but left the issue unresolved. Maine’s waiting period, adopted in April 2024, aims to reduce suicide rates by delaying gun access, supported by studies showing that states with waiting periods have significantly fewer suicides.
Nine other states and the District of Columbia have similar waiting periods, and some states impose specific delays for handguns. Maine’s law includes exceptions for law enforcement, security personnel, dealers, and certain private sales, such as those between family members. A lower court had issued a preliminary injunction against the law, finding it likely unconstitutional, but Maine argued on appeal that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, not necessarily the right to purchase them immediately.
The judges questioned this distinction, with one noting that obtaining a firearm is necessary to keep and bear it. Maine’s chief deputy attorney general, Christopher C. Taub, argued that limits only implicate the Second Amendment if they meaningfully impair the right, which he said a 72-hour delay does not. The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Erin Murphy, countered that the law restricts possession and that the state’s concern is controlling access, not the transaction itself.
Discussions also focused on the law’s goal of ensuring responsible gun ownership, particularly preventing access during mental health crises. The judges raised concerns about the law’s exceptions and effectiveness, noting that impulsive buyers could still find other ways to obtain guns. Maine’s attorney cited studies supporting waiting periods as effective suicide prevention tools, while Murphy invoked a recent Supreme Court ruling emphasizing historical context over policy effectiveness in Second Amendment cases.
The judges wrestled with whether the waiting period is comparable to other regulations like safety classes and background checks, which require active steps from buyers, while the waiting period simply imposes a delay. They debated whether the law’s universal delay fits with historical traditions of individualized assessment. Ultimately, the panel seemed uncertain how to reconcile these issues, questioning how to define the limits of the right to bear arms and what measures are constitutionally permissible to regulate gun access.