Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen is spearheading a 28-state coalition backing a legal challenge to Maine’s newly enacted 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases, calling the law an unconstitutional infringement on Second Amendment rights.
In an amicus brief filed in Beckwith v. Frey, the coalition urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to uphold a lower court’s decision that blocked Maine’s waiting-period law, which took effect in 2024. The district court concluded that the law likely violated the Second Amendment because it lacked a historical precedent from the Founding or Reconstruction eras—criteria set by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision.
“Maine failed to carry its burden to show that its waiting-period law is ‘part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms,’” Knudsen wrote in the brief. He argued that the law imposes a flat delay on all firearm purchasers regardless of whether they pose any risk, making it inconsistent with historical firearms regulations like licensing or intoxication laws that included individualized standards.
The coalition’s brief contends that the right to acquire firearms is protected by the Second Amendment and that Maine’s law cannot be justified under Bruen, which requires that modern gun regulations be supported by historical analogues.
Maine officials have defended the law as a necessary response to modern challenges, such as the impulsive use of firearms in suicides and homicides. They argue that a waiting period can serve as a critical buffer to prevent tragic outcomes in moments of crisis. However, Knudsen and the other attorneys general countered that human impulsivity is not a new societal concern, and Maine failed to show that any similar laws existed at the time of the nation’s founding.
“Maine’s historical evidence—licensing and intoxication laws—is not ‘relevantly similar’ to its waiting-period law,” the brief asserts, noting that those older laws offered conditions to avoid restrictions, whereas Maine’s mandate applies universally.
Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the Arizona Legislature joined the brief led by Knudsen.
The case is now before the First Circuit, which will determine whether Maine’s law can stand under the constitutional framework established by Bruen.
By: DNU staff