Court Ruling Claims There Is No Right to Buy a Firearm — Here’s Why That Matters

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit building from https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/

In a decision that is already sending shockwaves through the Second Amendment community, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that the Constitution does not protect the right to acquire a firearm. Let that sink in. Not restrict. Not regulate. Not protect at all.

The Case: Waiting Periods Turn Into Something Bigger

Beckwith v. Frey Case

The case, Beckwith v. Frey, centered on a Maine law requiring a 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases—passed after the 2023 Lewiston tragedy. Gun owners and businesses challenged the law, arguing something that should be obvious. That being you cannot exercise the right to keep and bear arms if you are denied the ability to acquire them.

A federal district court agreed and blocked the law, applying the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. However, the First Circuit reversed that decision—and in doing so, went much further than just upholding a waiting period.

The Court’s Claim: Buying a Gun Isn’t Protected

The court’s reasoning comes down to this.  They state that the Second Amendment protects the right to “keep and bear arms” but not the process of acquiring them.

According to the ruling, laws affecting purchases happen before someone possesses a firearm—so they fall outside constitutional protection. That logic creates a dangerous precedent: If the government can control when, how, or even if you can acquire a firearm… Then the right itself becomes meaningless.

At 2 If By Sea Tactical, we see this for what it is, a direct attempt to redefine the Second Amendment without amending it. Because if there is no right to acquire arms, then lawmakers can impose indefinite waiting periods, limit where firearms can be sold, and regulate purchases out of existence. 

They can also create de facto bans without ever saying the word “ban”. This isn’t about a 72-hour delay. This is about whether the right itself can be slowly regulated into extinction.

A Clear Break From Other Courts

The First Circuit’s decision doesn’t just raise concerns—it directly conflicts with other federal courts. Courts in multiple circuits have already recognized that the right to bear arms includes the right to acquire them. Without acquisition, the right cannot exist in any meaningful way nor can you “bear them”. Cases like:

• Ezell v. City of Chicago

• Teixeira v. County of Alameda

• Nguyen v. Bonta

…have all affirmed that principle. This creates what’s known as a circuit split—and that’s exactly the kind of conflict that often forces the Supreme Court of the United States to step in.

Ignoring Bruen’s Standard

What’s even more concerning is how the court reached its conclusion. Under Bruen, courts are supposed to rely on “Text, History, and Tradition”.

Instead, the First Circuit leaned on modern policy arguments and advocacy group opinions—the exact type of reasoning Bruen rejected. That raises a serious question: Are some courts simply ignoring Supreme Court precedent when it conflicts with their preferred outcome?

What Happens Next

This fight is far from over. The plaintiffs now have options. They can request a full rehearing by the entire First Circuit (en banc). Or petition the Supreme Court to take the case. Given the national implications, this case has a strong chance of heading to the highest court.

Why This Matters Beyond Maine

This ruling doesn’t stay in Maine. If left unchallenged, it provides a roadmap for lawmakers nationwide—including here in Minnesota—to expand waiting periods. Or restrict access points for firearm purchases. Minnesota could even attempt to justify new regulations by claiming acquisition isn’t protected. It’s the same strategy we’re seeing play out across the country: Redefine the right… then regulate everything around it.

The Second Amendment is not a theoretical right. It is a practical one. It is a right that cannot be exercised is not a right at all. If courts can say you have the right to “keep and bear arms” but no right to obtain them, then what they’re really saying is: You have the right— as long as the government allows you to use it. That’s not freedom.

This is a fight we’ll continue to follow closely—because what happens in cases like this will shape the future of the Second Amendment for generations to come.

Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world.  As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube and Rumble channels and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance. We are proud to be Southern Minnesota source for all things 2A.

Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.