By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A coalition of 25 state attorneys general have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting the petitioners in a challenge of Maine’s 72-hour waiting period law, encouraging the high court to review the constitutionality of such a wait.
Led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, the coalition includes attorneys general representing Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the Arizona Legislature.
The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the state’s favor, so the plaintiffs—Andrea Beckwith, Adam Hendsbee, Thomas Cole, TLC Gunsmithing and Armory, A&G Shooting, the East Coast School of Safety, Nancy Coshow, and James White, J. White Gunsmithing—are appealing to the high court.
The case is known as Beckwith v. Frey.
The Knudsen-led AG coalition joins other groups which have filed amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs, including the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association, and the Buckeye Institute.
In their brief, the attorneys general contend, “The First Circuit’s misinterpretation of the Second Amendment— effectively creating ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,’—threatens the liberty of citizens in every State. And while Maine’s law is particularly condemnable because it was adopted in response to Bruen, thirteen states and the district of Columbia now impose some form of waiting period, showing the nationwide importance of this issue.”
Later, they note, “Maine submitted expert declarations summarizing the history of American firearms regulation, yet could not identify a single Founding-era law that made a purchaser wait to take possession of a firearm. Because Maine bears the burden to justify Section 2016, its failure to produce any similar Founding-era law strongly suggests that no such tradition existed.”
In a prepared statement, Knudsen argues, “Maine’s ‘cooling-off’ law qualifies a ‘limitation or qualification’ on the Second Amendment. If a law-abiding citizen buys a firearm on Monday and passes the required background check the same day, that person would still be unable to exercise the right to keep arms for multiple days. Similarly, ‘cooling-off’ requirements for citizens in the context of the First Amendment would be scrutinized in court.”
An affirmative ruling from the Supreme Court could jeopardize similar, or longer, waiting periods in other states, including Washington, California and New Mexico.
No other constitutionally-protected right is subject to a waiting period before it may be exercised.
