logo
Judge denies AG's request to reinstate Maine's 72-hour law on gun purchases pending appeal

Judge denies AG's request to reinstate Maine's 72-hour law on gun purchases pending appeal

Yahoo12-03-2025

Mar. 12—A federal judge in Maine has denied the state's request to temporarily restore a 72-hour waiting period on gun purchases while it waits for a federal appeals court to decide if the law is constitutional.
Maine lawmakers enacted the 72-hour law along with several other gun safety reforms following the October 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston that killed 18 people and wounded more than a dozen others. It required any gun seller who violated the waiting period to pay fines of $200 to $1,000, depending on the nature of the violation.
Chief U.S. District Judge Lance Walker sided with a group of gun rights advocates who sued the state over the law in November, asking Walker to immediately pause it.
The Office of the Maine Attorney General quickly appealed Walker's decision to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which has yet to take up the case.
Aaron Frey's office had also asked Walker to hold off on halting the 72-hour waiting period, arguing that his decision contradicts orders in other states, and that the law saves lives by "meaningfully reducing both suicides and homicides."
Walker wrote Wednesday that he was not swayed by either argument and that he still feels the plaintiffs' rights under the Second Amendment would be irreparably harmed if the 1st Circuit decides to overturn the law.
"If the Act is unconstitutional — which it likely is — it will curtail the exercise of rights preserved under the Second Amendment ... on a regular, steady, and ongoing daily basis (measured by nearly every firearm sale in Maine during the pendency of this litigation)," Walker wrote.
But his decision to pause the law, he said, "may or may not result in a loss of life that could have been avoided by the enforcement of the Act."
While the state's "loss of life" arguments were "indeed potentially weighty," Walker wrote, he felt that the attorney general's arguments ignored a 2022 United States Supreme Court decision that struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry a concealed gun in public.
Before that ruling, "the alleged lifesaving benefits of a three-day waiting period may have been relevant to the merits of a constitutional challenge ... but that has not been the law of the land for nearly three years," he said.
"This is an unsubtle point that nevertheless appears lost in the shuffle, apparently to persuade me of the wisdom of the law to compensate for its potential constitutional shortcomings," wrote Walker.
Copy the Story Link

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Maryland Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession in some non-felony cases
Maryland Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession in some non-felony cases

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Maryland Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession in some non-felony cases

(Photo by U.S. Customs and Border Protection) The Maryland Supreme Court upheld a state law banning gun possession by people who have been sentenced to two years or more in prison, calling it comparable to a ban on gun possession by felons, whether the underlying crime was a felony or not. Despite a string of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have greatly strengthened gun rights, the high court has not suggested that the Second Amendment 'prohibits the enactment of laws banning the possession of guns by categories of persons thought by a legislature to present a special danger of misuse,' the Maryland court said Friday. Maryland's law is such a law, said the opinion by Maryland Chief Judge Matthew Fader. 'Based on our conclusion that § 5-133(b)(2) [the challenged law] is the equivalent of a prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons, and the United States Supreme Court's repeated references to such prohibitions as presumptively constitutional, we conclude that it satisfies Second Amendment scrutiny and is facially constitutional,' Fader wrote. But in a lengthy dissent, Justice Jonathan Biran said that the U.S. Supreme Court rulings rely on historical context, and that the majority could not point to any previous law that 'disarmed a citizen who violated a legal norm of society but was not viewed as a threat to public safety.' 'The logical conclusion of the Majority's historical analysis is that the General Assembly may make infractions such as jaywalking or exceeding the posted speed limit the basis for permanent firearms disqualification by increasing the maximum penalty for those offenses to imprisonment for more than one year,' Biran wrote in a 65-page dissent, 22 pages of which were a history of British and U.S. gun laws. The law was challenged by Robert L. Fooks, who was charged in Wicomico County in 2021 with allegedly stealing firearms from relatives to sell at pawn shops. Included in the 14-count indictment were two gun possession charges based on Fooks' 2017 conviction for 'constructive criminal contempt,' for which he received a sentence of 4 years and 6 months. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The 2017 conviction was for 'willful failure to pay child support,' according to court records. The ruling said constructive criminal contempt is a common law offense that is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor and does not some with a minimum or maximum sentence. Fooks pleaded guilty in 2021 to the gun charges and agreed to pay restitution to a relative, in exchange for the other charges being dropped. But he retained his right to challenge the gun conviction on Second Amendment grounds. Fooks claimed on appeal that his conviction runs afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that say the burden is on the state to prove the need for gun restrictions, not on the individual to protect gun rights. Banning gun possession for the conviction of a nonviolent crime is not the same as banning someone convicted of a violent crime or a felony, he argued. The Appellate Court of Maryland disagreed, upholding the law affirming Fooks' convictions. The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed, saying there is 'no magic to … the word 'felony,'' but that courts must look to the intent of lawmakers who decided which crimes should merit a ban on gun possession. 'The common thread among felon dispossession statutes is thus not any magic afforded to the use of the word 'felony' but a general intent to prohibit the possession of firearms by individuals who have committed offenses the respective legislative body has deemed serious enough to be eligible for a significant term of imprisonment,' Fader wrote. In major Second Amendment rulings over the last 16 years, 'Justices constituting a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States have identified laws like § 5-133(b)(2) as presumptively lawful,' Fader wrote, and Maryland should, too. 'The General Assembly, like the United States Congress and other state legislatures around the country, has concluded that individuals convicted of serious criminal offenses should not be permitted to possess firearms, regardless of whether the particular offenses they previously committed are themselves violent,' he wrote. Biran said the majority opinion was 'well written and its conclusions may be proven to be correct after the Supreme Court decides a case like this one,' but he disagreed. The recent history of U.S. Supreme Court cases have taken the permanent disqualification of a person from gun ownership because of a nonviolent criminal conviction 'off the table,' he wrote. 'When the State seeks to prosecute a person for possessing a firearm based on a prior conviction, the State meets its burden … if it shows that the predicate conviction was for an offense that is violent in nature,' Biran wrote in dissent. 'Mr. Fooks's predicate conviction is for constructive criminal contempt. That offense is not violent in nature,' he wrote. 'It follows that, as applied to Mr. Fooks, PS § 5-133(b)(2) violates the Second Amendment.'

Canada to hit NATO defense target early - The Globe and Mail
Canada to hit NATO defense target early - The Globe and Mail

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Canada to hit NATO defense target early - The Globe and Mail

-- Prime Minister Mark Carney is preparing to announce Canada's largest increase in defense spending since World War II, a move that will accelerate the country's alignment with NATO's military investment targets. According to The Globe and Mail, the spending surge will enable Ottawa to hit the 2% of GDP threshold this fiscal year, years ahead of the previous government timeline. The policy shift is expected to be detailed during a speech Monday at the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs, where Mr. Carney will unveil a wide-ranging defense and security investment plan. Two senior government officials told The Globe and Mail that the initiative will include rapid procurement of military equipment and technology aimed at strengthening Canadian sovereignty and NATO obligations. The spending increase, reportedly amounting to tens of billions of dollars, marks a dramatic change from earlier federal projections that targeted 2032 as a realistic timeframe for achieving the NATO benchmark. The measures come amid mounting geopolitical tensions and criticism from allies that Canada has not kept pace with global defense commitments. In a recent report, NATO estimated Canadian defense spending at 1.45% of GDP for 2024, still well below the alliance's current 2% target. The U.S., particularly during Donald Trump's presidency, has often pressed Canada and other members to increase their military outlays, accusing allies of under-contributing to collective defense. The proposed investment will cover a broad range of priorities, including improved compensation for Armed Forces personnel, acquisition of new aircraft, drones, and Arctic monitoring systems, and upgrades to naval and air capabilities. Health care infrastructure and support for military families will also be expanded under the plan. Carney's plan is also expected to contain substantial funding to enhance domestic defense manufacturing and develop advanced technologies in cyber, artificial intelligence, space, and quantum computing. The strategy aims not only to meet NATO's current 2% guidance, but to prepare for potential future benchmarks discussed for the June 24-25 summit at The Hague that could raise the bar to 3.5% of GDP. The sudden acceleration contrasts sharply with former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's stance, who in 2023 projected Canada wouldn't reach 2% until 2032. He had previously referred to the NATO target as a 'crass mathematical calculation,' suggesting it overlooked qualitative contributions to the alliance. Related articles Canada to hit NATO defense target early - The Globe and Mail Carney launches 'One Canadian Economy' Act to unify trade, approvals US job growth in May tops forecasts, but Macquarie warns cracks are emerging

States, sheriffs puzzle over Trump's error-filled list of immigration sanctuaries
States, sheriffs puzzle over Trump's error-filled list of immigration sanctuaries

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

States, sheriffs puzzle over Trump's error-filled list of immigration sanctuaries

Immigration officials, their backs turned to hide their identities, pose with an Australian citizen who faces possible deportation back to his home country. A list of "sanctuary" jurisdictions accused of failing to cooperate with immigration arrests, including the state of Colorado, was taken down after protests about its accuracy. (Photo by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) A list of 14 states, 298 counties and 200 cities deemed immigration sanctuaries by the Trump administration has disappeared from a government website but continues to hang over the heads of officials who face threats of losing federal funding. 'We were placed on a list with many other sheriffs across the nation for no clear reason and no clear cause,' said Sheriff Charles Blackwood of Orange County, North Carolina, a heavily Democratic county that nevertheless complies with a new state law requiring cooperation with immigration arrests. 'The list is gone. Am I satisfied that it was rectified? Yes. Am I satisfied that it's over? No,' Blackwood said. The list went up May 29. It called out the 'cities, counties, and states that are deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws and endangering American citizens.' The White House had already threatened 'suspension or termination' of federal funds to them. Along with counties and cities, the list named the whole states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia as 'state sanctuary' areas. We were placed on a list with many other sheriffs across the nation for no clear reason and no clear cause. – Sheriff Charles Blackwood of Orange County, N.C. There was immediate reaction from some areas, not only Democratic states and counties with court-tested legal policies of declining cooperation with deportation, but also conservative areas mystified by their inclusion. 'We figure it must be some kind of mix-up. We certainly support our fellow law enforcement agencies,' said James Davel, administrative coordinator for Shawano County, Wisconsin, which was included despite no apparent immigration sanctuary policy. The county voted for President Donald Trump in 2024 by more than 67%. One possible explanation: The county board passed a resolution in 2021 declaring Shawano a 'Second Amendment Sanctuary County' as a sign of 'vigorous support of the peoples' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.' States are telling sheriffs whether they can — or can't — work with ICE The list disappeared from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security website in a matter of days, after the National Sheriffs' Association complained that many counties were erroneously included. 'It was quite the debacle,' said sheriffs' association spokesperson Patrick Royal. 'We are working with the administration to resolve as much as we can.' But Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a television appearance that the list would come back and was largely accurate. 'That list is absolutely continuing to be used and it is going to be identifying those cities and those jurisdictions that aren't honoring law and justice,' Noem said in a Fox News interview June 1. Courts have so far upheld local laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration arrests. California won a lawsuit on the issue in 2017 under the first Trump administration, and the same federal judge issued an injunction saying federal funds couldn't be withheld on the basis of immigration cooperation during a new trial on the issue. The national sheriffs' association president, Sheriff Kieran Donahue of Canyon County, Idaho, said in a May 31 statement that the list 'was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation.' He said it was 'an unfortunate and unnecessary erosion of unity and collaboration with law enforcement.' Canyon County was not on the list, though the city of Boise was. For-profit immigration detention expands as Trump accelerates his deportation plans The pushback from sheriffs was a sign of how seriously flawed the list was, said Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an associate policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. 'The real problem is, how are they defining sanctuary?' Putzel-Kavanaugh said. 'To have pushback from an association that is typically quite supportive of this administration and their agenda points to problems with definition.' Watauga County, North Carolina, was on the list when it first appeared May 29 but came off before it was taken down. The county's congressional representative, Republican Virginia Foxx, said in a Facebook post that she intervened. In the post, Foxx called it 'a mistake … made during the Biden administration that resulted in Watauga County being listed incorrectly as a sanctuary county.' She also said that 'Watauga County is no longer listed' after she 'contacted DHS.' Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group favoring less immigration, said her list of sanctuary jurisdictions included Watauga based on a June 2024 report from U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement listing it as among hundreds of others as 'non-cooperative institutions.' Even sanctuary policies can't stop ICE arrests Vaughan said data she requested from ICE shows some counties in North Carolina were still not complying with all detainers this year through early February, but Watauga is not one of them. 'They should probably come off the list,' she said. 'None of those sheriffs has contacted me about reviewing their policies or taking them off the map. I would be happy to do so, and have done so frequently with sheriffs in other states.' Sheriff Len Hagaman of Watauga County told Stateline via email that he had contacted federal immigration officials and confirmed that his county, which voted Democratic for president last year by a 52% to 46% margin, had a solid record of cooperating with immigration arrests. Hagaman alluded to an April Facebook post by U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, calling out Watauga and eight other North Carolina counties as immigration sanctuaries. 'For several weeks now, I, along with other North Carolina sheriffs have had to endure gross and inaccurate misinformation regarding false allegations,' Hagaman wrote. Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store