SAF and NRA Just Asked SCOTUS to Take Maine’s Waiting Period
On September 22 the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association filed an amicus brief in Beckwith v. Frey, No. 26-258. Petitioners: Andrea Beckwith and others. Respondent: Maine Attorney General Aaron M. Frey. Counsel of record: Konstadinos T. Moros of SAF, with Joseph G.S. Greenlee of NRA-ILA. The First Circuit, 171 F.4th 560, said lawsuits over the wait fail “unless plaintiffs demonstrate that the Act is abusive toward Second Amendment rights.” Bearing Arms, September 23: the statute is a 72-hour wait; the district court had granted a preliminary injunction and the First Circuit reversed. This is an amicus. It is not a grant.
- SAF/NRA amicus dated Sept. 22, 2026: Beckwith v. Frey, S. Ct. No. 26-258. Petitioners: Andrea Beckwith et al. Respondent: Maine AG Aaron M. Frey.
- Counsel of record: Kostas Moros (SAF). With Joseph Greenlee (NRA-ILA). Cited decision: 171 F.4th 560 (1st Cir. 2026).
- First Circuit line quoted in the brief: not viable “unless plaintiffs demonstrate that the Act is abusive”; a “burden” but not an “infringement.”
- Bearing Arms, Sept. 23: 72-hour Maine wait; district PI granted, then reversed. Amicus, not a cert grant.
- Amici also cite Wolford and a California 11% gun/ammo tax order as the same text-dodge. Historical-analogue fight is the second point of the brief.
The brief is dated September 22, 2026, in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 26-258. Caption: Andrea Beckwith, et al., petitioners, v. Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General of Maine, respondent. On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Amici: Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association of America. Counsel of record: Konstadinos T. Moros, SAF, Bellevue, Washington. With him: Joseph G.S. Greenlee, NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, Virginia. The cited First Circuit decision is Beckwith v. Frey, 171 F.4th 560 (1st Cir. 2026).
The quote the amici put in the brief is the First Circuit’s own line: lawsuits are not viable “unless plaintiffs demonstrate that the Act is abusive toward Second Amendment rights.” “In our view,” that court wrote, the law is “a burden on, but not an infringement of, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.” That is interest balancing with the labels sanded off. The amici’s point, citing Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032 (2026): any law that implicates the plain text must be justified by historical tradition. They also flag a California superior court minute order, Poway Weapons & Gear, No. 25CV018964 (Sacramento Cnty. June 9, 2026), upholding an 11 percent “sin tax” on guns and ammunition on the theory that the tax does not even implicate the text. Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms, September 23: Maine’s wait is 72 hours; the district court granted a preliminary injunction; the First Circuit reversed and said acquiring a firearm is not protected Second Amendment activity.
The brief asks for a grant, not a merits holding from this filing. Waiting periods, the table of contents says, are a “historical anomaly.” That is the ask. The Court has not taken the case.
"The First Circuit called a waiting period a burden, not an infringement. SAF and NRA just asked the Supreme Court to say that sentence out loud."← More Stories
Comments
Share your take. Name is public; state is optional. Be civil — spam is removed.
Loading comments…