In a stunning ruling, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to acquire or purchase firearms.
The case, Beckwith et al. v. Frey, was brought by several Maine residents and businesses against Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey. It challenged a 2024 Maine law requiring a 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases (Me. Stat. tit. 25, § 2016). The law was enacted six months after the October 2023 mass shooting at a bowling alley in Lewiston, Maine, in which 18 people were killed, and 13 others were injured. In response, the state introduced the “cooling off” period.
The plaintiffs argued that the mandatory three-day waiting period violated their Second Amendment rights. A federal district court judge agreed, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities favored them. After conducting a Bruen analysis, the judge issued a preliminary injunction.
Under step one of the Bruen framework, the district court examined the conduct in light of the plain text of the Second Amendment. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were part of “the people” and that the right to bear arms includes the right to acquire arms. Courts across the country have long held that there can be no meaningful right to bear arms if one cannot first acquire them. Having found that the law burdens protected conduct, the court then moved to step two and allowed the state to present historical analogues to justify the 72-hour waiting period. The state failed to do so.
Maine appealed to the First Circuit, where the case was heard by a three-judge panel consisting of one Obama appointee and two Biden appointees. The panel reversed the district court, holding that the lower court had erred in its Bruen analysis. In its opinion, the majority cited opinions on gun violence from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other groups that have taken anti-gun positions. Prior to Bruen, such interest-balancing considerations were permissible, but after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, courts may consider only text, history, and tradition when evaluating Second Amendment challenges.
The First Circuit panel determined that the district court should never have reached step two of the Bruen analysis. According to the panel, there is no Second Amendment right to acquire a firearm. Because purchasing a gun is not protected conduct, the court concluded that the 72-hour waiting period is constitutional.
“We agree with the Attorney General’s view that laws regulating the purchase or acquisition of firearms do not target conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s “plain text.” The Amendment’s plain text guarantees an individual’s ability to keep and bear arms, which means to have and carry guns. Heller, 554 U.S. at 582-84. The Act does not address this conduct,” the First Circuit opinion stated. “Rather, the Act imposes a limitation in some circumstances on when a person can acquire a firearm after the person purchased it. The Act thus regulates conduct that occurs before a person keeps or carries a gun. Accordingly, applying Bruen’s plain text analysis, the Act imposes conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms that do not directly restrict the textual rights protected by the Second Amendment.”
This decision creates a clear circuit split. The Seventh Circuit held that the right to bear arms includes the right to acquire arms in Ezell v. City of Chicago (2011 and 2017). The Ninth Circuit agreed in Teixeira v. County of Alameda (2017) and more recently in Nguyen v. Bonta (2025). The Tenth Circuit also recognized this right in Ortega v. Grisham (2025). The First Circuit’s ruling is an outlier.
If the plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court seems likely to grant review, given the clear circuit split. The plaintiffs could also seek en banc review by the full First Circuit. The chances of en banc review being granted are also high, as the panel’s decision starkly conflicts with precedent from other circuits and with Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).
The panel vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the lower court.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
