Dru Stevenson, Professor of Law

This post summarizes the First Circuit’s decision in Beckwith v. Frey (2025), which upheld Maine’s 72‑hour waiting period for firearm purchases. The court resolved the case at Bruen Step 1, concluding that waiting‑period laws regulate the commercial acquisition of firearms rather than conduct protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text. This post outlines the court’s reasoning, doctrinal significance, and implications for post‑ Bruen litigation. Background Maine enacted a 72‑hour waiting period for all firearm purchases. A district court enjoined the law, but the First Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claim. Backstory   While the First Circuit panel was unanimous, it’s worth noting that Maine—the state in question—has a unique legal culture regarding firearms. For decades, Maine resisted waiting periods, priding itself on a "sporting" tradition. It wasn't until the tragic mass shooting in ...

The Seventh Circuit issued three Second Amendment decisions on April 2, all involving the federal felon‑in‑possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The most notable is United States v. Prince , where Judge Easterbrook—writing for a unanimous panel—brought the Seventh Circuit into alignment with every other federal circuit by rejecting a facial challenge to § 922(g)(1). The court emphasized that the statute has many unquestionably constitutional applications, which is enough to defeat a facial attack under standard principles of constitutional adjudication. The panel was careful, however, not to resolve the more difficult question that has occupied courts since Bruen : whether § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to individuals whose prior convictions are non‑violent or otherwise do not suggest dangerousness. That issue remains open in the Seventh Circuit. A companion case, United States v. Watson , illustrates the court’s incremental approach. Chief Judge Brennan upheld § 92...