Could mandatory waiting periods be on their way out?

[JagerDog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1lJq9drxpM

Maine court suggests yes.

[pacrat]

https://www.pressherald.com/2025/02/13/federal-judge-pauses-maines-new-waiting-period-for-gun-sales/

Chief U.S. District Judge Lance Walker said in Thursday’s order that he’s granting the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief because they have presented a strong argument that the 72-hour waiting period, which was enacted this year and took effect in August, is unconstitutional.

Walker said in his 17-page decision that the request for an injunction required him to consider the “balance of equities and the public interest.”

“Given that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success and the existence of irreparable injury, I find that the balance of equities favors them as well,” Walker wrote. “Similarly, although members of the public undoubtedly feel that they have a genuine interest in laws curtailing the right to keep and bear arms, their interest is not exclusive and not one that can win out in terms of an interest-balancing exercise by a court that is sworn to uphold the Constitution.”

[Capybara]

I'll believe it when I see it here in Commifornia. The Commies who run this place don't like "wins", they usually just ignore SCOTUS.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The actual decision... Beckwith v Frey

...If a citizen cannot take possession of a firearm then his or her right to possess a firearm or to carry it away is indeed curtailed, even if, as Frey claims, the curtailment is modest. However, the threshold inquiry is whether the Second Amendment covers the conduct curtailed by the Act, not a qualitative assessment of how modest the imposition on the right happens to be. Citizens wishing to purchase a firearm are dispossessed of one for 72 hours exclusively by operation of the Act’s requirement that everyone be subjected to a “cooling off” period, even those who have passed an instant background check at the FFL dealer’s counter. That is indiscriminate dispossession, plain and simple. Attorney General Frey impliedly concedes the point by suggesting that the Act merely prohibits “immediate” possession through a “commercial transaction,” emphasizing that the infringement is only temporary and presumptively subject to regulation...

Viewed dispassionately, the Act employs no standard at all to justify disarming individuals, let alone a standard that can be described as narrow, objective, or definite. Consequently, I find that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claim...

In 2022, Reason magazine posted this... SCOTUS Rejects 'Interest-Balancing' Tests That Treated the Second Amendment As a 'Constitutional Orphan'

...When confronted by policies like New York's, Thomas says, courts should not "balance" the government's asserted interest against the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. "Heller relied on text and history," he writes. "It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny."

In fact, Thomas says, Heller and McDonald "expressly rejected" the application of "any judge-empowering 'interest-balancing inquiry' that 'asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.'" Heller noted that the Second Amendment "is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people," and it "surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms" for self-defense...

In other words, I get that Judge Walker is observing that 'interest-balancing' is insufficient; but, SCOTUS already addressed that. Do I have faith that this will be the beginning of the end for waiting periods however? Nope. But, it is nice to hear.