First Circuit upholds Maine's waiting period — and that ruling could hurt Illinois gun owners

AURORA, IL — Here's the news that came across my desk this morning: The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston just upheld Maine's three-day waiting period law in Beckwith v. Frey. Now, you might be thinking — why should Illinois gun owners care about a Maine case? The answer is simple: bad precedent spreads, and this ruling gives ammunition to every state attorney general trying to defend unconstitutional delays on the right to keep and bear arms.

What happened in Maine

Maine passed a law requiring a three-day waiting period before someone can take possession of a firearm they've legally purchased. Gun owners challenged it, arguing that forcing law-abiding citizens to wait days to exercise a constitutional right violates the Second Amendment. They were right, but the First Circuit didn't see it that way.

The court upheld the waiting period, essentially saying that a few days' delay doesn't meaningfully burden the Second Amendment. If that reasoning sounds familiar, it should — it's the same logic Illinois uses to defend every restriction in PICA. Sure, we're banning the most commonly owned rifles in America, but you can still have a bolt-action, so what's the problem?

From behind the counter at Law Weapons, I can tell you exactly what the problem is: constitutional rights don't work that way. You don't get to chip away at them piece by piece and claim each individual restriction is reasonable.

Why this matters for Illinois cases

Right now, our case — Bevis v. City of Naperville — is working its way through the Seventh Circuit alongside Barnett v. Raoul and the other challenges to Illinois' PICA ban. The state keeps arguing that banning entire categories of firearms and magazines somehow passes constitutional muster because people can still own something.

This Maine decision gives Illinois attorneys another talking point: Look, other circuits are upholding restrictions too. Waiting periods are fine, so surely our much more reasonable rifle regulations should survive. It's a dangerous precedent that treats constitutional rights like a government privilege that can be rationed and delayed.

The Supreme Court was clear in Bruen: the right to keep and bear arms is not a second-class right. But circuit by circuit, we're seeing courts find creative ways to ignore that mandate. Each bad ruling makes the next one easier to justify.

What this means for gun owners (and for my customers)

Every day, customers walk into my shop and ask the same question: When will this legal mess be over? Cases like this Maine decision remind me why we can't afford to lose focus or momentum. Constitutional rights are under attack from multiple directions, and the courts aren't automatically siding with the Constitution just because Bruen exists.

That's why our fight here in Illinois matters so much. If we can get the Seventh Circuit to properly apply Bruen and strike down PICA's rifle and magazine bans, it creates positive precedent that other circuits will have to reckon with. But if we lose, or if the courts water down our victory with endless exceptions and delays, then rulings like this Maine case become the new normal.

The constitutional right to keep and bear arms means you can walk into a shop like Law Weapons, legally purchase a firearm, and walk out with it that day — assuming you pass your background check. It doesn't mean the government gets to impose waiting periods, ban entire categories of commonly owned arms, or treat you like a potential criminal for exercising a fundamental right.

Where we are right now

Our case and the other PICA challenges remain pending before the Seventh Circuit. We're waiting for oral arguments to be scheduled, and we continue to believe the facts and the law are on our side. But cases like this Maine decision show exactly why we can't take anything for granted.

We keep watching. We keep fighting. And we keep serving the people who refuse to be treated like second-class citizens for exercising a constitutional right.

— Robert Bevis, Law Weapons & Supply