Key Takeaways
- The First Circuit ruled Maine’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases is likely constitutional, reversing a previous injunction.
- Plaintiffs argued the law violates Second Amendment rights, citing difficulties in immediate access to firearms for self-defense.
- The court found the waiting period regulates pre-purchase conduct and does not infringe Second Amendment rights according to previous Supreme Court rulings.
- This ruling contrasts with a recent Tenth Circuit decision, increasing the chances of Supreme Court review on waiting period laws.
- The case highlights the impacts of waiting periods on individuals needing quick access to firearms, especially in urgent situations.
Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
PORTLAND, ME – A federal appeals court has ruled that Maine’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases is likely constitutional, reversing a lower court decision that had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect.
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its decision on April 3, 2026, in Beckwith v. Frey. The three-judge panel vacated a preliminary injunction that had been granted by a federal district court in February 2025, and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Maine’s waiting period law, Me. Stat. tit. 25, § 2016, took effect on August 9, 2024. It prohibits licensed sellers from delivering a firearm to a buyer less than 72 hours after the purchase agreement is made. The law was passed in the aftermath of the October 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, which killed 18 people and injured 13 others.
The plaintiffs include gun shop owners, firearms instructors, and individual buyers who argued the law violated their Second Amendment rights. Among them was Andrea Beckwith, who runs East Coast School of Safety, an organization that provides firearms training to domestic violence victims. Beckwith argued the law interfered with her ability to help women facing credible, imminent threats arm themselves immediately.
Another plaintiff, Nancy Coshow, said she was forced to drive 80 miles twice in three days to purchase and then pick up a handgun, despite passing an immediate background check and being an experienced gun owner.
The district court had sided with the plaintiffs, finding they were likely to succeed on the merits of their facial Second Amendment challenge. The court applied the two-step framework established by the Supreme Court in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) and concluded the state had not shown the law was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The First Circuit disagreed with that approach. Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Aframe concluded the analysis should not have reached step two of the Bruen framework at all.
More from USA Carry:
The court held that Maine’s waiting period regulates conduct that occurs before a person keeps or carries a firearm, placing it outside the plain text of the Second Amendment. Because the law delays but does not deny a lawful purchase, the court treated it as a condition on the commercial sale of firearms — a category the Supreme Court has called “presumptively lawful” under District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
The court compared the waiting period to “shall-issue” concealed carry licensing regimes, which the Supreme Court noted in Bruen are presumptively constitutional because they delay rather than deny the right to bear arms. The First Circuit applied the same reasoning here, finding the 72-hour wait to be a non-abusive burden on, rather than an infringement of, Second Amendment rights.
The plaintiffs argued the law was abusive because it applies broadly without any individualized assessment of whether a buyer is law-abiding or responsible. The court rejected that argument, noting that shall-issue licensing regimes also apply universally and that the Maine law includes several exceptions — including for law enforcement, family member transfers, antique firearms, and transactions not requiring a background check under federal or state law.
The decision puts the First Circuit at odds with the Tenth Circuit, which recently ruled in Ortega v. Grisham (2025) that a similar seven-day waiting period in New Mexico was likely unconstitutional after applying both steps of the Bruen analysis. That split in appellate authority increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court may eventually weigh in on waiting period laws.
This ruling is a reminder of the real-world consequences these laws carry. Waiting period requirements can affect anyone who needs a firearm quickly for personal protection, particularly women fleeing dangerous situations or individuals who face an immediate threat. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental civil right, and delays in exercising that right are never without cost, even when courts find them permissible.
The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings.
