Is Maine’s 72-hour mandatory gun waiting period unconstitutional? Federal court wants answers

According to Thomas F. Harrison of Courthouse News Service, Maine’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases faced intense scrutiny during oral arguments before the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The law, adopted in April 2024, is designed to reduce suicide rates by forcing a delay between the purchase and the possession of a firearm. But for an hour, a panel of three judges pressed both sides, questioning whether such a waiting period is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

How the Law Works

Harrison reported that the law requires buyers to wait three full days after purchasing a gun before taking it home. This waiting period applies alongside background checks but comes with a list of exceptions, including law enforcement officers, security personnel, licensed dealers, and private family transactions. Supporters of the law argue that the delay can save lives, while critics see it as an unjustified barrier to exercising a fundamental right.

The State’s Argument for Delay

Christopher C. Taub, Maine’s chief deputy attorney general, argued that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, but not necessarily the right to buy them immediately. Harrison’s reporting quotes Taub saying that a restriction only becomes constitutionally significant if it “meaningfully impairs” the right – for instance, through a decades-long waiting period rather than three days. Taub further claimed the law aims to ensure that gun buyers are responsible and not in the middle of a mental health crisis.

Judges Push Back on the State’s Logic

The panel, as Harrison described, appeared unconvinced by the state’s arguments. U.S. Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo pointed out that the law has nothing to do with background checks or criminal records, saying, “Your argument is the waiting period is checking on whether people are law-abiding, and I don’t see that.” Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson added that if someone already owns a firearm, the waiting period accomplishes little.

Plaintiffs Focus on Immediate Possession

Erin Murphy, representing the plaintiffs, told the court that the law directly interferes with possession, which is at the heart of the Second Amendment. “The only thing this law is doing is restricting possession,” Murphy said, as reported by Harrison. One of her clients, she noted, had already paid for and registered a firearm but could not take it home for three days. Under her argument, such delays fall squarely under the prohibition outlined by the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Bruen.

Suicide Prevention at the Heart of the Debate

Harrison emphasized that the legislature adopted the waiting period because of studies showing that 70% of suicide survivors attempted suicide within an hour of first thinking about it. Supporters believe a three-day pause can interrupt such impulsive decisions. A study cited by Maine officials estimated that the law could prevent 12 suicides a year. However, as the judges pointed out, a person already owning a gun or finding one through a private sale might circumvent this safeguard entirely.

Jared Yanis’ Perspective: Delays Are Not History

Gun rights journalist Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News, also covered the case in detail. He emphasized that Bruen set a clear test for modern firearm laws: they must be rooted in historical tradition. “There isn’t a single law from the founding era that required people to wait a certain number of days before buying a firearm,” Yanis said in his video. “A right delayed is a right denied.”

Questioning the Data

Yanis challenged the studies used to support Maine’s law, arguing that they rely on speculative models. “If you take away suicides, Maine doesn’t have a gun violence issue,” he said, pointing out that out of 178 firearm deaths in 2021, 158 were suicides. He also questioned why similar restrictions don’t apply to other methods of suicide, like rope or medication, suggesting that the policy is more about limiting gun access than addressing the root causes of suicide.

The Bruen Standard Looms Large

As both Harrison and Yanis highlighted, the real challenge for Maine lies in whether the law can meet the Bruen standard. Yanis explained that the Supreme Court has rejected interest balancing, meaning judges can’t uphold a restriction simply because they think it’s good policy. They must find a close historical analogue to justify it. Without an 18th- or 19th-century example of mandatory waiting periods, Maine’s law may be on shaky ground.

Judicial Skepticism About Effectiveness

Harrison reported that Judge Seth Aframe called the law “Swiss cheese,” referring to its many exceptions. He warned that someone with impulsive intent could easily obtain a firearm elsewhere. Montecalvo also observed that, unlike safety courses or background checks, the waiting period requires no individualized action from the state: “Here, you just wait three days.”

Rights vs. Policy Goals

This case is a test of whether policy goals, no matter how well-intentioned, can override constitutional protections. Waiting periods may be politically popular, but when judges are asking whether a right includes immediacy, it becomes clear how deeply this case cuts. If courts allow delays for guns, where does that stop? Similar delays on speech or voting would never stand.

A Possible National Ripple Effect

If Maine’s law is upheld, other states may expand their waiting period requirements. If it’s struck down, it could dismantle similar laws already on the books in at least nine states and the District of Columbia. What happens in this First Circuit case could ripple across the country, shaping the future of gun laws in ways we haven’t seen since Bruen.

A Pivotal Moment

Both Harrison and Yanis agreed that there is no clear timetable for a ruling. If the panel follows the Supreme Court’s guidelines strictly, Maine’s 72-hour waiting period could be struck down. If the court sides with the state, plaintiffs are almost certain to appeal, setting up another potential showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Until then, this case stands as a pivotal moment for the question of whether a “pause” on buying a gun is compatible with the Second Amendment.