The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that Maine’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases is likely constitutional, overturning a lower court’s decision that had blocked the law from being enforced.
A three-judge panel vacated a preliminary injunction that had prevented Maine from enforcing the law, which requires a 72-hour waiting period for a gun buyer to take possession of a firearm after purchasing it.
The panel found the law does not violate the “plain text” of the Second Amendment.
Circuit Judge Seth Aframe wrote that while the Second Amendment protects the right to “keep and bear” arms, the Maine law regulates the acquisition of firearms, which is a step that happens before a person actually possesses or carries a weapon.
In the 24-page ruling, the court characterized the law as a “presumptively lawful” condition on the commercial sale of firearms rather than an outright ban. The court concluded the 72-hour delay is a “modest” burden similar to the wait already allowed for federal background checks.
This law and one expanding background check requirements was enacted in 2024, six months after 18 people were killed in the mass shooting in Lewiston. Lawmakers designed the “cooling off” period to reduce suicides and homicides sparked by impulsive firearm purchases.
The lawsuit was brought by a gun buyer, a firearms training business and three firearms dealers. They argued the law interfered with the rights of victims of domestic violence to immediately protect themselves and caused significant business losses for firearms dealers.
The court concluded the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim, which sends the case back to the district court. By vacating the preliminary injunction, the appeals court allows the state to resume enforcing the waiting period while the underlying lawsuit continues.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less