The Fight for Maine's Proven 72-Hour Gun Waiting Period Aims to Stop Preventable Tragedies

Maine’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases hangs in the balance. A district court’s injunction has paused its enforcement, but California Attorney General Rob Bonta, joined by 19 other state attorneys general, is fighting to restore it in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. This law isn’t about bureaucracy. It’s about preventing tragedies that shatter families and communities.

Gun violence claimed nearly 47,000 lives in 2023, making firearms the top killer of children and adolescents. This crisis demands solutions grounded in evidence, not emotion. Waiting periods offer a proven way to reduce impulsive acts of violence and self-harm. They create a brief window to rethink a fatal decision. Why would we reject a measure that saves lives?

States like California, Illinois, and Massachusetts have embraced similar laws, recognizing their ability to protect public safety. Research confirms their effectiveness, yet opponents, backed by groups like the National Rifle Association, claim these laws violate Second Amendment rights. Their arguments prioritize individual convenience over the greater good, ignoring the data that proves otherwise.

The numbers tell a powerful story. Waiting periods cut gun homicides by about 17 percent, saving roughly 750 lives each year in the 17 jurisdictions that use them. Gun suicides drop by 7 to 11 percent, preventing countless preventable deaths. When Wisconsin ended its five-day wait, handgun suicides rose by 1.1 per 100,000 people, adding about 65 deaths annually. These are not just statistics; they are people we’ve lost.

Waiting periods work by providing a crucial moment for reconsideration. Most suicide attempts happen within a day of the first thought. A short delay can interrupt this cycle, giving individuals time to seek help. In domestic violence cases, it reduces the risk of abusers acting on impulse. These laws don’t stop responsible ownership; they ensure firearms are acquired thoughtfully, with thorough background checks.

Opponents argue that waiting periods push buyers to unregulated private sales or burden law-abiding citizens. Research debunks the first claim, showing no notable increase in private transfers. Over 70 percent of gun owners support these laws, undermining the second. The opposition’s stance leans on ideology, not facts, and fails to address the lives saved by a brief pause.

Waiting periods have deep roots. Since the 1970s, 44 states and the District of Columbia have adopted them to curb impulsive violence. The 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act set a federal standard, later adapted by states. These laws align with 19th-century weapons transfer regulations, fitting the historical framework courts now evaluate under the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling.

Courts have upheld 88 percent of gun safety laws post-Bruen, finding historical parallels for measures like waiting periods. Maine’s law mirrors licensing and background check systems that ensure only responsible individuals get firearms. Critics argue it lacks founding-era precedent, but this ignores the long tradition of public safety laws. Why prioritize a rigid view of history over modern lives?

Challengers, supported by groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation, call Maine’s law an unfair restriction, claiming it delays self-defense for vulnerable people like domestic violence survivors. This argument misleads. Waiting periods don’t block ownership; they add a brief delay to prioritize safety. In reality, immediate access often empowers abusers, increasing domestic violence deaths.

They also claim economic harm to gun retailers. But the cost of delayed sales pales compared to the toll of gun violence on communities. Courts have long upheld regulations that balance Second Amendment rights with public safety. The opposition’s focus on individual freedoms overlooks the broader impact, weakening their case against the lives saved by a 72-hour wait.

Maine’s waiting period is a critical piece of a larger effort. States like California and Colorado strengthened gun laws in 2024, adding background checks and red flag laws. Meanwhile, states like Kentucky have loosened rules, heightening risks. This growing divide highlights the need to protect laws that work.

We cannot let narrow interests override evidence. Waiting periods reduce violence, save lives, and respect the balance between rights and safety. As Maine fights to uphold its law, we must stand with it, advocating for policies that put people first. How many more tragedies must we endure before we demand change?