The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy Editorial Independence Who we are Books Volokh Daily Email Archives Search DMCA RSS

Second Amendment Roundup: A Tale of Two Waiting Periods

The First and Tenth Circuits conflict on whether “cooling-off” periods violate the text of the Second Amendment.

Stephen Halbrook | 5.6.2026 9:42 PM

On October 25, 2023, 18 people were killed in a mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine.  The killer's declining mental health was known to law enforcement since that May.  On July 6, although he owned other firearms, he legally purchased the firearm that he would use in the attack.  By August, he repeatedly threatened members of his Army Reserve unit that he would "shoot up" the base.  He was hospitalized for psychological evaluation but released.  Two months later, he carried out his nefarious threats at a bowling alley and a cafe.

In 2024, the Final Report of the Independent Commission to Investigate the Facts of the Tragedy in Lewiston was released, faulting both the military and law enforcement for taking no action to disarm and hospitalize the killer.

Before the Commission report was even released, the Maine legislature enacted a statute targeting any person who would buy a firearm: "Waiting Period. A seller may not knowingly deliver a firearm to a buyer pursuant to an agreement sooner than 72 hours after the agreement."  As the timeline of events indicated, no relation existed between the perpetrator's vile acts taking place six months earlier and the 72-hour firearm transfer waiting period.

In Beckwith v. Frey, decided on April 3, the First Circuit reversed the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the new law.  For those needing a firearm for protection against an immediate threat, not to worry.  The court found it relevant that the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence submitted a statement warning that potential victims not obtain firearms for protection as the firearms were more likely to be used against them, and anyway the Coalition offered "services" to keep victims safe during the seventy-two-hour waiting period.  That must have been reassuring to battered spouses facing death threats.

In the opinion for the court, Judge Seth Aframe held that "laws regulating the purchase or acquisition of firearms do not target conduct covered by the Second Amendment's 'plain text,'" which only "means to have and carry guns."  Since the law regulates activity that takes place before that, it is........

© Reason.com