Key Takeaways
- The Second Amendment Foundation and NRA filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review Beckwith v. Frey, challenging Maine’s 72-hour firearm waiting period.
- Petitioners argue that waiting periods infringe on Second Amendment rights by delaying the exercise of constitutional rights.
- The case highlights a split among federal appeals courts regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment and acquisition rights.
- SAF contends that historical context shows that waiting periods are an anomaly and lack support from founding-era traditions.
- The outcome could set a precedent affecting various purchaseside restrictions for firearm buyers.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on September 22, 2026, urging the justices to hear Beckwith v. Frey, the challenge to Maine’s 72-hour firearm waiting period. An amicus brief is a filing from a “friend of the court,” an outside party with a stake in the outcome that is not one of the litigants. The case is docketed as No. 26-258 and names Maine Attorney General Aaron M. Frey as the respondent.
Andrea Beckwith and the other petitioners are asking the Court for a writ of certiorari, which is simply the order the Supreme Court issues when it agrees to review a lower court’s decision. I covered the petition itself in A Stalking Victim Passed Her Background Check, Paid for the Gun, and Went Home Unarmed. Maine’s 72-Hour Wait Is Now at the Supreme Court. What is new is that two of the largest gun rights organizations in the country have now put their names behind that request, with SAF’s Konstadinos Moros as counsel of record and Joseph Greenlee of NRA-ILA joining him on the brief.
The law at issue, LD 2238, requires a 72-hour wait between the agreement to buy a firearm and the moment the dealer can actually hand it over. The First Circuit upheld it, and the way it got there is the whole fight. According to SAF’s announcement, the appeals court held that laws regulating the purchase or acquisition of a firearm do not target conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text at all, and that such laws are constitutional unless the plaintiffs prove they are “abusive” toward Second Amendment rights.
Here is why that matters in plain terms. Under Bruen, the analysis has two steps. First, does the law burden conduct the Second Amendment’s text covers? If yes, the government has to justify the law with historical tradition. There is no step where a judge weighs how badly the law hurts you against how much good it does. The First Circuit’s approach skips the history requirement entirely by saying buying a gun is not “keeping” or “bearing” one, and then lets waiting periods stand unless a court first decides the delay crossed some line into abuse. SAF argues that is the interest-balancing Heller and Bruen already threw out, wearing a new label.
“A waiting period delays the exercise of a constitutional right, and that is enough to implicate the Second Amendment,” Moros said. “The First Circuit told plaintiffs they have no claim unless a judge first decides the delay is ‘abusive.’ That is merely interest-balancing by another name. If courts can dodge history by saying acquisition is not ‘keeping’ or ‘bearing,’ Bruen becomes optional.”
The brief also leans on a split among the federal appeals courts, which is one of the classic reasons the Supreme Court agrees to take a case. Per SAF, the Fifth Circuit recently held that there is no middle ground at Bruen’s first step: conduct either implicates the plain text or it does not, and how heavy the burden is generally does not matter at that stage. That is the Elite Precision Customs v. ATF decision the brief cites, handed down September 18, 2026. SAF also points to the Tenth Circuit, whose Ortega v. Grisham ruling the brief cites, as having recognized that acquiring a firearm is a necessary predicate to keeping and bearing it. Put those next to the First Circuit and you have federal courts reading the same constitutional text in opposite directions, which is exactly the kind of disagreement only the Supreme Court can resolve.
The second half of the brief goes to history. Its heading argues that waiting periods are a historical anomaly and that firearms were readily available even in the Founding era. If that holds, then even a court that reaches Bruen’s second step should have trouble finding a tradition that supports making a lawful buyer cool off for three days.
“Waiting periods have real-life consequences for anyone wishing to purchase a firearm for self-defense,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Maine’s law, and the First Circuit’s theory that buying a gun is only an ‘ancillary’ right, treats self-defense as a privilege the government may slow-walk. That’s not the way constitutional rights work, no matter how lawmakers in the state feel about the Second Amendment.”
To be clear, this is a brief supporting a petition, not a ruling. The Court has not decided whether to hear the case, and Maine will get to argue that the First Circuit had it right.
More from USA Carry:
The part of this that goes beyond Maine is the acquisition question. If buying a gun sits outside the Second Amendment’s text, then every purchase-side restriction, from waiting periods to permit-to-purchase schemes to dealer regulations, gets to skip the history test that Bruen made mandatory. That is a much larger door than a 72-hour delay. It also lands on the person who has the least time to spare, the one buying a firearm because a threat just showed up in their life. A serious carry mindset means knowing the purchase and permit rules where you live before you need them, which is why I keep my state-by-state concealed carry permit information current, but no amount of planning helps the buyer who did everything right and still walked out empty-handed.
I will continue tracking Beckwith v. Frey as the Supreme Court decides whether to take it up.
Read the full article here
