A US federal judge in Maine granted a temporary injunction on Thursday to pause the implementation of a gun law that requires 72 hours to pass before the purchase of firearms can be completed.
Case file: https://wgme.com/resources/pdf/df042dff-7f87-444e-9961-d535d7a4286c-InjunctionGranted.pdf
So… throw it out cause it’s not perfect? What the heck do you need a gun for that can’t wait 72 hours for? Idk man you seem biased.
I am, indeed, biased. Heavily biased. But, my argument is consistent, even if we’re talking about a hypothetical 72-hour waiting period before buying a hammer, or exercising our 5th amendment rights. What the heck do you need a hammer for that can’t wait 72 hours? Why do you need to be arraigned within 48 hours? Why can’t you just remain locked up for two weeks?
I (mostly) suppressed my bias in my argument. I accepted the premise of a cooling-off period that I do not actually believe to be necessary or appropriate.
My arguments reflect the concept of strict scrutiny. I demonstrate that even if we accept the (unfounded) premise of a “cooling off” period, this law is not the “least restrictive means” of achieving that purpose.
If you want to keep this law, you’re going to have to consider someone walking into a gun store with a Remington 870 over their shoulder, an AR15 on their chest, and a Glock 17 on their hip. You’re going to have to explain how society benefits by requiring this well-armed individual to wait 72 hours before picking up a bolt-action .22 plinker.
If you can make a reasonable argument for this, you have a solid case to keep the law.
It is to protect consumers from over purchasing firearms. Since you already have one firearm it is clear you don’t need another one to exercise your made-up constitutional belief. This allows a cooling off period for your wallet so you can come to the logical conclusion that you do not need another firearm.
/s
You sound suspiciously like my wife, and I’m not even married…
First, thank you. I appreciate the intellectual and precise response that isn’t condescending or bashing that many discussions delve into. To help better understand your position, could you quote the whole 5th amendment for everyone who isn’t from the USA so we are all on the same page and then point out specifically how “waiting 72 hours before purchase” violates it?
I can more clearly address it, sure.
First off, my focus here is “strict scrutiny”. I provided a link above. To summarize:
Basically, if you want to write a law that affects a constitutional right, it must pass the “strict scrutiny” test.
The cooling off period does not violate the 5th amendment. I mentioned the 5th amendment as a general, non-controversial example of constitutional rights, in order to demonstrate how “strict scrutiny” would apply.
The 5th amendment guarantees a right to “due process”. If you are arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal act, the police can’t just hold you indefinitely. As soon as feasible, the police have to release you with a summons. If they want to hold you in custody, they have to deliver you to court quickly, generally not more than 48 hours after arrest. That initial hearing is called “Arraignment”.
A law that allows police to hold you for any amount of time without charge (8 hours, 48 hours, 2 weeks, whatever) would affect your 5th amendment right to due process. That doesn’t necessarily mean it violates the right; it simply affects it. If the state wants to keep such a law, they will have to show that it meets the “strict scrutiny” standard. If they can meet the “strict scrutiny” standard, that law can be enacted. Here, the courts would likely determine that the 2-week delay is not the “least restrictive means” of achieving whatever “compelling interest” the state has in delaying
The 2nd amendment guarantees constitutional rights that are impacted by a “cooling off” period: the right to keep and bear arms. As such, the “strict scrutiny” standard applies. That doesn’t mean that cooling off periods violate the constitutional right; it just means that the necessity of such a law will be judged by “strict scrutiny”.
Even conceding the “compelling interest” and “least restrictive means” components of the test, waiting period laws are not “narrowly tailored” when they are imposed on current gun owners. Without meeting “strict scrutiny”, they should be overturned.
You make some valid points and I applaud you and again thank you for being so thorough. However, quote the full 2nd amendment, and you will see that a waiting period is encouraged by it.
Before we get to the “well regulated” clause you’re referring to, we need to understand “militia”.
First, I’ll direct your attention to Article I, Section 8, parts 12 and 13. These give Congress power to create armies and a navy.
Next we’ll go to part 15: Congress is not given power to create the militia. Congress’s power is to call forth the militia. The militia exists without having been created by Congress.
The militia consists of everyone that Congress can call forth. Who is that? Who can they call forth?
We know from 10 USC 246 that they have already provided for calling forth able bodied male citizens (and those intending to become citizens) aged 17 to 45, as well as members of the National Guard, regardless of age, sex, physical abilities, or citizenship status. They limited themselves to men, aged 17 to 45; they are free to revise that criteria any time they want. They are free to change the age range to 16 to 60. They are free to change “able bodied” to “sound mind”. They are free to include women. They are free to include non-citizens and foreign volunteers. Even children have been allowed to come forth when Congress has called in the past.
Everyone that Congress can call forth is the militia. The militia is the people. The same people to whom the right is guaranteed in the 2nd amendment.
“Well regulated” refers to Part 16, in which Congress is granted the authority to provide “discipline” (training standards), and the state is granted the authority to conduct that training. The second amendment explicitly limits Part 16 powers as they pertain to the right to keep and bear arms. Congress has the power to arm the people; they do not have the power to disarm the people.
Frankly I would have it go further, require a full background check to be recently completed, expand it it to a week, cap ammo volumes, enable red flag provisions, and entirely ban full classes of high capacity and high cyclic rate weapons.
Your comparison to a simple tool or invoking of a self preservation is absurd on its face to the point of not being worth proper answering. I’ve handled guns virtually all my life, took a state safety course at a around 10 years old that’s marked on my licence 30+ years later, and take a fair pride in picking off a dime size target at back yard range lengths.
Introducing a minimal delay on the flow of weapons into the already saturated hands of the public is a pittance of a concession if it stops even a single person from go out after a drunken fight and decide to shoot someone, or an isolated depressed individual to say this is the night to die, or to keep another of the far too frequent school shootings from happening. You provide this picture of a walking arsenal coming in and needing to get yet another gun right this moment as though they where an addict needing a fix as some argument against the law.
This premise is the proposed “compelling state interest” I discussed in my last comment.
This law isn’t going to die from lack of a “compelling state interest”. This law is going to die from a lack of “narrowly tailored”, because nobody has made that argument.
The complaint you present is that there should be several exceptions to the waiting period. If you believe that phrasing it as cooling off is a problem then the simple solution is to say all purchases of a firearm have a waiting period, no exceptions. Crisis of specificity resolved.
Of course the go to argument then is ‘but my 2A’ at which point you end up down some rabbit hole where people argue they should be able to own a fully automatic field gun if they want to because reasons…
Yeah, I’ve addressed this. The “interest” that I accepted as “compelling” only applies to first time gun buyers, who don’t have access to other guns during the waiting period.
To meet strict scrutiny, you need to demonstrate both the compelling government interest and the narrow tailoring. If you want me to accept that “no exceptions” is narrowly tailored, you’re going to have to show me a compelling government interest that applies to both current gun owners and first time buyers.
Your arguments don’t seem to demonstrate comprehension of “strict scrutiny”. That is almost certainly going to be applied to this law. If you want to keep this law, your arguments are going to need to meet the strict scrutiny standard.
Tbf
I highly doubt a drunken and bloody person is completing a sale even if it’s legal (and I don’t think it is). If they can wait until they sober up, take a shower, and then still want to go to the store the next day, three more days isn’t likely to assuage their anger, and even if it does then the next time the situation arises the gun is in their posession already.
Guns are the most frequent choice for men, sure, but not even for women (that would be intentional poisoning last I checked). As such any sufficiently motivated man can just go the woman’s route which is technically even more convenient since everyone has a bottle of tylenol on hand. Or, guns also aren’t even the most effective, and I hesitate to say what is lest someone depressed see it and they decide it’s a good idea, but suffice it to say it is located within 5mi of your house right now (in most countries) and it isn’t guns nor is it something that can be remedied. Furthermore 72hr isn’t sufficient time for such an individual to seek professional help, may not even be enough time to get them to their first appointment, any such individual will have the same scenario as above, in which while they may be prevented from suicide “tomorrow,” once the purchase completes they’ll have it for next time. In fact, CA found that risk of suicide by firearm is highest in the week after the purchase completes and stays high for months after.
This is probably the least effective, these kids plan these shootings for months. They aren’t saying “mommy, can you drive through Ammu-Nation on the way to school this morning? I’ve been good all week!” and picking up their arsenal. There more than likely is at least three days from point of purchase to time of crime just due to logistics in most shootings (counting purchased-by-shooter guns, stolen-from-daddy of course is longer than three days from purchase to crime, wouldn’t be fair to count it as it would artificially inflate the numbers in my argument’s favor.)
In fact speaking of “time to crime,” as the ATF calls the time from purchase until the gun shows up at a crime scene, the average time to crime of guns in the US is eleven years. No state has an eleven year waiting period.
But think for a second about a woman escaping her abusive husband and taking the kids to her mom’s. It may be beneficial if she knows her abusive husband is armed for her to buy a gun of her own as he’s clearly dangerous (and taking one of “his” could get her imprisoned and give him the kids, not an option). If she can’t get it for three days and he knows that, that could give the armed abusive husband just one more advantage at wholesale family annihilation (ala The Haight Family) by denying the victim the tools (and therefore ability) to defend themselves from harm. Unfortunately, if she calls the cops before he gets there, even if she has a reasonable suspicion he’s on the way, they will not do anything “until a crime has been committed” and therefore she’s unfortunately left in a position where it may be necessary to do so.
Not only are artificial waiting periods ineffective for their stated goals, the hindrance could also actively prevent those that do have a sudden need to acquire a firearm from protecting themselves from harm.