On June 5, NRA filed an amicus brief in Beckwith v. Frey, a case challenging Maine’s 72-hour waiting period on firearm purchases.
In March, a federal district court ruled that the waiting-period law likely violates the Second Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. The government then appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. NRA filed its brief in the First Circuit, arguing that the waiting-period law is unconstitutional and that the plaintiffs should ultimately prevail on the merits of the case.
NRA’s brief argues that the Second Amendment’s plain text protects the right to possess arms, and that the right to possess arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them. Therefore, under Supreme Court precedent, the government must justify the law by proving that it is consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. But the government cannot do so, because there is no tradition of regulation that supports a mandatory “cooling off” period for all firearm purchases.
For its part, the government provided a few 19th century laws that prevented firearm sales to someone who was intoxicated. But these laws prevented only specific individuals who potentially posed a heightened risk of danger from obtaining arms; Maine’s waiting-period law applies to all individuals regardless of how responsible they are. The government also pointed to laws that required a license to possess a firearm, but these were discriminatory laws that applied only to disfavored groups, and such repugnant laws cannot form a tradition that justifies modern restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
Because there is no historical tradition supporting Maine’s waiting-period law, the First Circuit should allow the injunction to stand while the case continues.
