admin
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen led a 25‑state coalition that filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 28, 2026. The brief asks the Court to review Beckwith v. Frey, the case testing Maine’s 72‑hour waiting period for gun purchases. This is a clear, coordinated push by multiple states to push the high court to take a fresh look at waiting‑period laws under the Second Amendment.
Big, bipartisan list of signatories — and a clear message
The brief was filed on behalf of Montana, 24 other states and the Arizona Legislature. It carries the names of many state attorneys general who are known for defending gun rights, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, and others. The Montana brief joins other cert‑stage filings from national groups like the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA, so this isn’t some lone outcry — it’s a national coalition arguing that Maine’s law deserves Supreme Court review.
Core legal claim: a waiting period is a restriction on possession
The brief makes two short, sharp points. First, it argues the plain text of the Second Amendment — the right to “keep” and “bear” arms — covers the act of taking possession of a gun after purchase. Forcing a buyer to wait 72 hours, the amici say, is therefore a direct restriction on possession. Second, the brief tells the Court that under Bruen the state must show historical analogues for the law; Maine, the brief argues, cannot point to Founding‑era or Reconstruction‑era laws that justify a modern cooling‑off rule. In plain terms: delay the right long enough and it starts to look like no right at all.
Why this matters beyond Maine
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it could decide whether mandatory waiting periods for weapons survive the Bruen framework. A ruling for the petitioners would be more than a win for a few buyers in New England — it would set a national rule on whether states may require delays before citizens take possession of legally purchased firearms. That’s why states and gun‑rights groups have piled into the docket. For those who believe in the Constitution’s plain text, this fight isn’t theoretical. It’s about stopping incremental rules that chip away at a fundamental right.
What comes next — and the bottom line
The petition for certiorari is now on the Supreme Court’s desk and justices will decide at a conference whether to take the case. If they do, expect a full‑blown argument over Bruen, Heller, and what counts as a historical analogue. If they don’t, we’ll be left with a patchwork of circuit rulings and states writing different rules about how long a citizen must cool off before exercising a constitutional right. Either way, Knudsen’s brief makes the argument loud and clear: delays are restrictions, and the Court should settle the question. That’s the point of the high court — even if some in state capitals would rather keep calling constitutional rights “conditions.”
