In layman’s terms: First Circuit Appeals Court says that purchasing or acquiring a firearm is not referenced in the plain text of the Second Amendment.
It is becoming increasingly evident that courts will not be the arbiters of justice when it comes to securing Second Amendment liberties. Nothing illustrates this principle in action better than a recent decision out of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in what is a truly unprecedented ruling that flies in the face of the Constitution.
The court issued a 24-page ruling in the case of Beckwith v. Frey on April 3. The case addresses Maine’s 72-hour waiting period to take possession of a firearm, enacted in 2024. In April of 2025, the First Circuit ordered a pause on the implementation of the rule while the case was heard.
Now, addressing an appeal to the preliminary injunction enjoining the rule from being enforced, the court states that “…we think that the Act is likely constitutional. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings.” Under this order, the law may go into effect while it is challenged.
By way of reminder, the challenged law was a knee-jerk reaction to the October 2023 Lewiston, Maine shooting in which 18 were killed, and 13 were injured (see our background below). The court states that, “The impetus for enacting this statutory ‘cooling off’ period was to decrease suicides and homicides carried out after impulsive firearm purchases.” “Impulsive firearms purchases” are not unlawful. In fact, they are often required in cases where someone faces an imminent threat.
Analysis
In its analysis, the court describes a “two-step test” prescribed by the Supreme Court in Bruen. “Applying Bruen, the district court first concluded that, at step one, the Second Amendment’s ‘plain text’ covers the conduct regulated by the Act, which it characterized as ‘the act of purchasing or acquiring a firearm.'”
The court even shows it has an intimate understanding of the Second Amendment, writing, “The Second Amendment’s unqualified command is, of course, that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'”
To decide this case, the court tasks itself with deciding, “…whether, by imposing a seventy-two-hour waiting period for the delivery of a purchased firearm, the Act ‘infringe[s]’ the textual ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . .'”
Here, the court takes up and champions the position of the state’s Attorney General, making a material distinction between purchasing and “keeping and bearing.” “We agree with the Attorney General’s view that laws regulating the purchase or acquisition of firearms do not target conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s ‘plain text.'” Or, in other words, the court claims that the right to keep and bear arms does not include purchasing or acquiring one because that is not stated in the plain text of the Second Amendment.
To do so, they twist the Bruen decision, stating, “…Bruen implicitly recognizes that there is a category of laws that (1) does not directly regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text but nevertheless burdens Second Amendment rights, and (2) is presumptively lawful without reference to an historical analogue.”
The court analogizes the act to a “shall-issue” licensing scheme and states that it only “briefly delays” but “does not prevent” a citizen from keeping and bearing arms.
It summarizes: “We therefore view the Act’s imposition of a brief waiting period as a non-abusive effort by Maine to address a documented problem arising from the immediate acquisition of firearms while remaining sensitive to minimizing the Second Amendment burdens imposed by the Act.”
Given the court’s stated understanding of the Second Amendment, the interpretation of its decision can be nothing more than an attack on the enumerated right itself.
Background on Maine Shooting
Maine’s Independent Commission to Investigate the Facts of the Tragedy in Lewiston found multiple missed opportunities for intervention by law enforcement based upon the shooter’s behavior, including by the Sheriff’s Office and the Army Reserve unit. In fact, the report documented systemic failure at many levels. (In a related incident, the federal government settled with families of victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs, Texas church shooting, paying $144.5 million because the Air Force failed to report the shooter’s domestic violence conviction, allowing him to buy guns.)
It is worth noting that the challenged act in Maine carves out exemptions for law enforcement officers.
