Supreme Court Rejects Maine Gun Waiting Period Challenge, Leaving Second Amendment Split Unresolved
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandatory 72-hour firearm waiting period, leaving law-abiding gun buyers subject to a three-day delay even after passing a background check.
The Court denied certiorari in Beckwith v. Frey, No. 26-258, on October 19, 2026, without explanation or a noted dissent. The decision leaves standing a controversial First Circuit ruling that separates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms from the ability to acquire them.
The denial is not a ruling on the constitutionality of Maine’s law. However, it leaves unresolved a significant disagreement among federal appeals courts over whether states can force Americans to wait before exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Maine’s Waiting Period Survives Another Constitutional Challenge
Maine enacted its 72-hour waiting period in 2024 following the mass shooting in Lewiston. The law requires most firearm purchasers to wait three days before taking possession, regardless of whether their federal background check has already cleared.
The law was challenged by Maine residents, firearms businesses, and gun-rights advocates, including Andrea Beckwith, a firearms instructor who has worked with domestic violence survivors seeking the means to protect themselves.
As AmmoLand previously reported, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker issued a preliminary injunction in February 2025, finding that the challengers were likely to succeed under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework. The district court determined that acquiring firearms falls within the Second Amendment’s protections and that Maine had failed to establish an adequate historical justification for its waiting period.
The First Circuit reversed that injunction in April 2026. In its opinion, the appeals court concluded that firearm acquisition is not directly protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text because purchasing a firearm occurs before keeping or carrying it.
That interpretation allowed the court to avoid requiring Maine to demonstrate that its waiting period was consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court instead treated the delay as a presumptively lawful commercial regulation.
The constitutional problem is obvious. Americans cannot exercise their right to keep and bear arms without first acquiring them. A government empowered to delay access to firearms can obstruct the exercise of that right without directly prohibiting possession.
Federal Courts Disagree Over Gun Waiting Periods
The First Circuit’s decision stands in direct conflict with the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in Ortega v. Grisham, which found New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period unconstitutional. Unlike the First Circuit, the Tenth Circuit recognized that delaying a lawful purchaser’s access to a firearm burdens the Second Amendment and requires historical justification.
The challengers emphasized that disagreement in their Supreme Court petition. The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association supported Supreme Court review. Montana and 24 other states also filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers.
AmmoLand previously covered those efforts. The petition for certiorari included the compelling case of a woman facing a stalker who purchased a firearm for home defense, passed her background check, and still had to leave the gun at the dealer. Her three-day statutory wait was extended by the store’s Sunday and Monday closures.
For Americans facing an immediate threat, a mandatory waiting period is more than an inconvenience. It can leave someone defenseless when protection is needed most.
Maine’s law remains enforceable while the underlying litigation continues. The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene leaves gun owners facing different constitutional standards depending on where they live.
The Second Amendment does not grant government officials authority to decide when law-abiding Americans have waited long enough to defend themselves. The right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes acquiring those arms, and that right cannot be conditioned on an arbitrary government-imposed waiting period. A right delayed is a right denied.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.