Maine 72 Hour Waiting Period Begins Today

[ReggieB9mm]

NH it's a mystery to me. I have a hard time believing only conservative Mass people are going there. I hope it remains as good as everyone says.

It’s not, the new yorkers coming here are supporting demonrats with their signs out in front of their businesses and homes, at least in Commiecord

 

[Remote Camper]

I don’t just walk into a gun shop to buy a new gun.
I buy them online from other dealers, that way I can get a better price, then it’s shipped to my dealer for the transfer/paperwork.

I talked to my dealer…
Once I purchase the firearm the waiting period starts. This wait will be handled by the shipping time to my dealer. So no wait for me.
He said that the waiting period starts once you commit to purchase a firearm. You can call me up on Monday and tell me that you want that Glock 19 on the shelf and swing by on Thursday and there will me no waiting period.
He said that it’s for impulse buyers.


RC

 

[Dench]

I'm saddened but not surprised. Maine isn't as bad as Ma yet but that's not saying much.

Was in Portland in June. It might be worse than MA. Its certainly trying to be.

 

[G4Y4HK]

I don’t just walk into a gun shop to buy a new gun.
I buy them online from other dealers, that way I can get a better price, then it’s shipped to my dealer for the transfer/paperwork.

I talked to my dealer…
Once I purchase the firearm the waiting period starts. This wait will be handled by the shipping time to my dealer. So no wait for me.
He said that the waiting period starts once you commit to purchase a firearm. You can call me up on Monday and tell me that you want that Glock 19 on the shelf and swing by on Thursday and there will me no waiting period.
He said that it’s for impulse buyers.


RC

The Gun Shop in Augusta doesn't handle it that way, as I learned when I went to pick up my shit. They make you sign a paper with a time and date 'starting the clock' and you can only pick it up 3 days later from that clock time. Clock doesn't start when you order it online from whatever shop. It starts when you go to the shop and they run the nics. Pay transfer fee on pickup after 3 days.

 

[lancecolonel]

Was in Portland in June. It might be worse than MA. Its certainly trying to be.

Portland has become a very special brand of retarded in the last few years. Democratic socialists have a solid foothold there and have put members on the city council plus pushed through some garbage referendums.

 

[Remote Camper]

The Gun Shop in Augusta doesn't handle it that way, as I learned when I went to pick up my shit. They make you sign a paper with a time and date 'starting the clock' and you can only pick it up 3 days later from that clock time. Clock doesn't start when you order it online from whatever shop. It starts when you go to the shop and they run the nics. Pay transfer fee on pickup after 3 days.

Go to A&G Shooting at exit 132.


RC

 

[knoxy]

Lol@laws

 

[drgrant]

I don’t just walk into a gun shop to buy a new gun.
I buy them online from other dealers, that way I can get a better price, then it’s shipped to my dealer for the transfer/paperwork.

I talked to my dealer…
Once I purchase the firearm the waiting period starts. This wait will be handled by the shipping time to my dealer. So no wait for me.
He said that the waiting period starts once you commit to purchase a firearm. You can call me up on Monday and tell me that you want that Glock 19 on the shelf and swing by on Thursday and there will me no waiting period.
He said that it’s for impulse buyers.


RC

If that's true then that doesn't work like any other waiting period in any other state that I've ever heard of. that sounds like he's getting cute with the system but that's not actually how it's supposed to be applied.

 

[Remote Camper]

Does someone have the actual law we can read?


RC

 

[drgrant]

Does someone have the actual law we can read?


RC

https://legislature.maine.gov/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=SP0958&item=4&snum=131

 

[drgrant]

Lol after reading it, its pretty loose stool feel good law. It's a civil infrac for a dealer, so I imagine a bunch are just going to creatively ignore it for
regulars and frequent fliers.

There's even a thing in there where rent a cops get an exemption. As well as a C&R exemption. I was shocked not to find dog catcher and EMT. Maybe they
should have just taken the glock blue label defininitions and pasted it into the law.

 

[Remote Camper]

Of course there’s an exemption for C & R. Isn’t that just shipped directly to your house how can you create a waiting period for that?


RC

 

[42!]

Wow, that law is just, I just don't know what to call it.

The wait is based on an "agreement", as defined in the law.
A. "Agreement" means an agreement reached between a buyer and a seller for the purchase and the sale of a firearm.
It's not even a transaction, an email sent to the shop "Hi Joe, I'll be driving by this weekend and I'll be stopping in to buy a gun", and Joe replies "OK". There you have your agreement, and clock starts. And if you don't buy a gun after all, well you changed your mind.

And who's to say you didn't talk to the dealer at some point in advance, a conversation a year in advance could be an agreement "Hi Joe, how's the wife and kids? You know at some point I'm going to buy a gun from you." Joe: "OK". There you go, you have your agreement. This will work for regulars. If I was a dealer I'd keep a list of just first names of everyone who walks into the shop labeled "People with whom I have agreed to sell a gun". And wave that in the face of anyone trying to enforce this BS. Heck do the list on-line, after you have a few thousand it's up to them to prove it's not the person on that list.

This thing is ripe for malicious compliance.

 

[Ultrarunner]

I'd move the entire thing. The return on investment for moving it all should be quickly covered by the added cost of operating two 'partial' sites. Customers would go for the no sales tax thing too.

If I were somehow involved with NH economic development, I'd court KTP and besides the usual financial incentives offer to take an unincorporated area and have it incorporated as "Kittery, NH".

Good idea, but what happens in two years when KTP has spent $25 million on a new facility and NH passes the exact same law...

 

[Chevy 2 65]

73 hours would have saved more lives

Just think of what 80 hrs would do. It would be millions

 

[wjsmall97]

It will be interesting at the end of the month when KTP has its September fest.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Good idea, but what happens in two years when KTP has spent $25 million on a new facility and NH passes the exact same law...

Can’t happen! Was told by the NES brain trust in another thread that it will never happen. So there’s that assurance.

 

[ReggieB9mm]

Can’t happen! Was told by the NES brain trust in another thread that it will never happen. So there’s that assurance.

We’re only one election away from becoming MassNorth.

 

[42!]

We’re only one election away from becoming MassNorth.

The whole country is only ever one election away from going full commie.

You are only 4 minutes away from death, RIGHT NOW. The clock resets every time you take a breath.

All technically true, all not going to happen, at least not that quickly.

 

[Remote Camper]

1 A and 2 supports what I was told.
It doest say AFTER the NICS check. It just says after “agreement”.


RC

 

[lancecolonel]

GOME sent a new update:

Fundraising Update on Coalition Challenge to 72-Hour Waiting Period​ It has been one week since the 72-Hour Waiting Period law went into effect. We wanted to update our supporters and members on the status of the pending legal challenge with regard to this new law and our strategy to contest it. First, we cannot thank our supporters enough for their generous donations and commitment to overturn this infringement on our rights. Even though the donations we have received have been truly remarkable, we know the challenge could be long and potentially exceed one million dollars. To strengthen our coalition with the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, Women for Gun Rights, and the Maine Professional Guide’s Association , we have reached out to our friends at the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) to seek their help. They not only joined our efforts, but have agreed to fund the challenge through its completion. Considering this amazing offer and the financial burden they have accepted, Gun Owners of Maine and the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine will be donating all the money we have raised that was allocated to the legal fund to the NSSF which will be used solely for use on our legal challenge here in Maine. The team of lawyers hired by the NSSF are some of the finest in the nationwith vast experience arguing cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Their legal team has been working with us to ensure that the very best outcome is achieved, including when to file in court and using the most appropriate plaintiffs. It is their belief that part of this process is finding the most complete list of plaintiffs in order to bring the best possible case, and have asked us to extend a request to please make us aware of any individuals you (specifically firearms dealers) may come across who are a first-time firearm buyer who believes their life to be in danger by being forced to wait to have the ability to protect themselves. If you know of anyone who fits this description, please reply to this email and we will be in touch with you. We ask for your continued patience and trust, and hope this information will help our members to understand any perceived delay in filing. Further donations to this challenge can be given directly to the NSSF or can be sent to Gun Owners of Maine as we will continue to forward all legal fund donations directly to those efforts. Thank you again for your support as we continue to defend gun rights in Maine.​ In the Pursuit of Liberty,​

Laura Whitcomb President ​ Joshua Raines Vice President ​ Richard Coshow Treasurer ​

Anne Amadon Board of Directors​ Ryan Appleby Board of Directors​ Andee Reardon Board of Directors​

 

[pastera]

Nguyen v. Bonta: Challenge to California’s "1-in-30" Firearm Purchase Ban

Nguyen v. Bonta: Challenge to California’s "1-in-30" Firearm Purchase Ban

www.firearmspolicy.org

The order (Dkt. 9) granting Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal(Dkt. 3) is REVERSED

Even the 9th sees delays to the right to 'keep' as beyond the state's scope

 

[42!]

Nguyen v. Bonta: Challenge to California’s "1-in-30" Firearm Purchase Ban

Nguyen v. Bonta: Challenge to California’s "1-in-30" Firearm Purchase Ban

www.firearmspolicy.org

Even the 9th sees delays to the right to 'keep' as beyond the state's scope

The challenge isn't for waiting, it's limiting the number of guns in a 30 day period.
A stay isn't a ruling.
And the stay was overturned so no the 9th doesn't think they will succeed.

 

[pastera]

The challenge isn't for waiting, it's limiting the number of guns in a 30 day period.

Yes it is for waiting - one must wait 30 days between purchases of a protected arm

A stay isn't a ruling.
And the stay was overturned so no the 9th doesn't think they will succeed.

The stay was of the injunction of the 30 day rule, therefore overturning the stay puts the injunction against the 30 day rule back in place - Even the 9th sees a delay*** between purchases as an impermissible infringement.
If you read the proceedings the state argues that the plaintiffs already own firearms therefore the 30 day rule does not preclude them from "keeping" but only delays the acquisition of new arms.
And the 9th struck down the argument that a delay of an additional arm is simply a presumptively lawful regulation of commerce.

I would need to go into the jurisprudence on the background check to cite controlling language but the idea is that the normal delay in the instant background check is de minimus and if that check results in an actual delay that is legal in that there is probable cause that the purchaser is a prohibited person (doesn't enjoy the right to be armed so it cannot be infringed).

 

[42!]

Yes it is for waiting - one must wait 30 days between purchases of a protected arm

The stay was of the injunction of the 30 day rule, therefore overturning the stay puts the injunction against the 30 day rule back in place - Even the 9th sees a delay*** between purchases as an impermissible infringement.
If you read the proceedings the state argues that the plaintiffs already own firearms therefore the 30 day rule does not preclude them from "keeping" but only delays the acquisition of new arms.
And the 9th struck down the argument that a delay of an additional arm is simply a presumptively lawful regulation of commerce.

I would need to go into the jurisprudence on the background check to cite controlling language but the idea is that the normal delay in the instant background check is de minimus and if that check results in an actual delay that is legal in that there is probable cause that the purchaser is a prohibited person (doesn't enjoy the right to be armed so it cannot be infringed).

A waiting period to purchase a gun has historically, always, been a delay from when you go to get the gun till when you can take it home. This is not that. And twisting the words trying to make them the same thing isn't going to get you a SCOTUS ruling that can be applied to both.
In this case you absolutely can just walk in and get a gun without waiting (provided you haven't bought one in the last 30 days). This is not the case where waiting periods have been put in place.
This is a volume limit.

A stay balances the possibility of victory with the unreversible damage that may occur before a ruling is made. While it is an indicator of attitude, it is not a ruling on the merits of the case.
The 9th allowed the stay, then on appeal overturned that. One of those indicates a leaning in one direction and the other in the other direction. So nothing clear there.

Don't jump on that internet bandwagon of shouting THIS IS BIG over every stay allowed or not, it's a tiny step, and isn't a final ruling.

 

[watchman]

We’re only one election away from becoming MassNorth.

Everything goes in circles. Maine is just reverting back to it's original state of Massachusetts and Puritan owners.

 

[pastera]

A waiting period to purchase a gun has historically, always, been a delay from when you go to get the gun till when you can take it home. This is not that. And twisting the words trying to make them the same thing isn't going to get you a SCOTUS ruling that can be applied to both.
In this case you absolutely can just walk in and get a gun without waiting (provided you haven't bought one in the last 30 days). This is not the case where waiting periods have been put in place.
This is a volume limit.

A stay balances the possibility of victory with the unreversible damage that may occur before a ruling is made. While it is an indicator of attitude, it is not a ruling on the merits of the case.
The 9th allowed the stay, then on appeal overturned that. One of those indicates a leaning in one direction and the other in the other direction. So nothing clear there.

Don't jump on that internet bandwagon of shouting THIS IS BIG over every stay allowed or not, it's a tiny step, and isn't a final ruling.

Fine - I'm not going to argue the finer points of legal analysis

A 3 day waiting period for each gun or a 30 day wait for your first gun then 30 day wait in between is still a impermissible delay in possession of protected arms.
When looking for case law supporting a position one doesn't look for only mirror images but also views that show strong similarities.
And a delay between purchasing has a lot of similarity to a delay from purchase to possession.


Will the 9th rule in favor of the state? If it is taken en banc it's more likely than not.

As far as click bait jumping to conclusions, you my friend are the one doing that here - I am pointing out that under the still young Bruen doctrine even the 9th circuit is moving the goal post closer to liberty.

Please read the case documents - you might see a crack in the anti 2a courts armor opening up.

 

[G4Y4HK]

1 A and 2 supports what I was told.
It doest say AFTER the NICS check. It just says after “agreement”.


RC

I guess every shop does it differently. Mine this week made me sign a paper and noted time, ran NICS and gave me 3 days to cool my ass off. Didn't have to pay the transfer fee until pickup.

 

[Remote Camper]

I wouldn’t say “does it differently “.
I’d say one has read the law and follows it and another doesn’t understand the law and is just doing what others have told them what to do, or is going overboard in order to cover ALL bases.
Nowhere does it say that a purchase has to be made or a background check has to be done. It only says an agreement to purchase has been made.
Of corse if you just walked in and made a purchase then yes you have a 3 day time-out.


RC