Arbitrary Maine Gun Delay Violates Rights and Endangers Law-Abiding Citizens

Maine’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases seems harmless on the surface. A brief pause to promote safety sounds reasonable, right? But this law is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, stripping law-abiding citizens of their ability to protect themselves. By forcing a three-day delay between buying a gun and taking it home, Maine’s policymakers have erected a barrier that leaves people exposed to danger. This law doesn’t enhance safety; it undermines it.

Picture a single mother in a small Maine town, fearing for her life because of an abusive ex-partner. She passes a background check, purchases a handgun, but must wait three days to bring it home. Those 72 hours could mean the difference between life and death. This isn’t a rare case; countless Americans rely on firearms for immediate self-defense. Maine’s law, now challenged in Beckwith v. Frey, assumes everyone can afford to wait. For too many, waiting isn’t an option.

A coalition of 19 attorneys general, including California’s Rob Bonta, defends the law, arguing it prevents impulsive violence. Their brief in the First Circuit claims waiting periods reduce gun suicides and homicides. But their argument falls apart under scrutiny. Criminals don’t bother with legal purchases or waiting periods. They acquire guns through illegal channels. Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who follow the rules are left vulnerable. Why punish the responsible to address the actions of the reckless?

The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to defend themselves without government overreach. Maine’s waiting period, however, imposes an arbitrary delay with no historical foundation. Since the 1790s, the right to keep and bear arms has been immediate and fundamental. The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision made this clear, requiring gun laws to align with founding-era practices. Where are the colonial laws mandating three-day waits for firearms? They simply don’t exist.

Defenders of the law point to other state regulations, like California’s ten-day wait, as justification. But modern restrictions don’t automatically pass constitutional muster. Bruen demands historical precedent, not a tally of current laws. In 2016, the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s delay, but that was before Bruen redefined the standard. Today, courts like the First Circuit are questioning laws that burden rights without clear historical grounding. Maine’s law is a recent creation, not a reflection of our nation’s traditions.

Advocates for waiting periods cite studies claiming they cut gun homicides by 17 percent and suicides by 7 to 11 percent. These figures grab attention, but they don’t tell the whole story. Many of these studies rely on correlation, not causation. For instance, Wisconsin’s repeal of its five-day wait in the 1990s reportedly led to a 6.5 percent rise in firearm suicides. Yet factors like mental health access or economic hardship weren’t fully accounted for. Numbers alone don’t justify restricting rights.

More troubling is what these studies overlook: the cost of delayed self-defense. In 2023, nearly 47,000 Americans died from gun injuries, including 17,927 homicides. Waiting periods do nothing to stop criminals who ignore legal processes. Instead, they harm law-abiding citizens, like domestic violence survivors, who need immediate protection. Groups like the National Rifle Association have long warned that delays create a dangerous gap for those in peril. Maine’s law proves their concerns are valid.

Claims of public support, often pegged at over 70 percent, miss the mark. Polls capture broad opinions, not the urgent realities of those in danger. A woman escaping an abuser doesn’t care about survey results. She needs a firearm now, not in three days. Real-world consequences outweigh theoretical benefits.

Reducing gun violence is a worthy goal, but Maine’s law takes the wrong approach. Instead of blanket delays, why not target actual threats? Stronger background checks, harsher penalties for illegal gun trafficking, and community violence prevention programs address root causes without infringing on rights. These measures respect the Second Amendment while confronting the 39,000 annual firearm deaths that demand action.

Maine’s law treats every buyer as a potential danger, ignoring the millions of Americans who own guns responsibly. The First Circuit’s preliminary injunction, issued by Judge Lance Walker, labeled the law an ‘indiscriminate dispossession.’ That’s exactly right. Laws should safeguard liberty, not erode it under the pretext of safety.

The core issue is clear: self-defense is a fundamental right. When lives are at stake, a three-day wait feels like a lifetime. Maine’s law doesn’t just delay purchases; it delays justice for those who need it most.

Maine’s waiting period is part of a larger struggle. States like California and New York are pushing restrictive gun laws, backed by attorneys general who prioritize agendas over evidence. But change is coming. Since Bruen, courts have upheld most gun laws, but the minority struck down—like Maine’s—show a growing respect for constitutional boundaries.

Citizens must act. Lawmakers in Augusta and across the nation need to know that arbitrary delays don’t solve violence—they create victims. Support groups like the National Rifle Association, which defend your rights in courtrooms and legislatures. Demand laws that target criminals, not the law-abiding. The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of freedom, not a footnote.

Maine’s 72-hour wait appeared suddenly, and it must disappear just as fast. Let’s protect our safety and our rights by ensuring every American can defend themselves when it matters most. How many must suffer before we value liberty over red tape?