Beckwith v. Frey: First Circuit Holds 2A Does Not Protect Right to Acquire Firearms

On April 3, 2026, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a preliminary injunction against Maine's 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases, holding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not encompass the right to acquire them. The decision is the first time a federal appellate court has squarely adopted the "acquisition is outside the Second Amendment's text" theory after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and it has direct implications for how Massachusetts Chapter 135 will be defended in the pending Hanlon v. Campbell and Granata v. Campbell cases.

The Case

Maine's 2024 firearms law imposed a 72-hour waiting period between the purchase and transfer of a firearm. The Beckwith plaintiffs (a Maine dealer and prospective purchasers) sued to enjoin enforcement, arguing that the waiting period infringed the Second Amendment by preventing law-abiding adults from acquiring firearms for lawful purposes. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the text of the Second Amendment at least presumptively covered acquisition and that Maine had not met the historical-tradition burden required by Bruen.

The First Circuit reversed. Writing for the unanimous panel, the court held that the Second Amendment's operative text ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms") protects possession and use, but does not confer an affirmative right to obtain firearms in any particular manner or on any particular timeline. Because the plaintiffs' challenge targeted the means of acquisition rather than possession, the court concluded that Bruen's text-and-history framework did not apply, and the law could be sustained under ordinary rational-basis review.

Why This Matters for Massachusetts

The First Circuit is the controlling federal appellate court for the District of Massachusetts. Beckwith therefore becomes binding precedent in the two pending Massachusetts cases challenging Chapter 135:

- Hanlon v. Campbell: challenges Chapter 135's assault-style firearms ban and related provisions
- Granata v. Campbell: Challenges the Approved Firearms Roster and the 940 CMR 16.00 regulations governing which handguns may be sold in Massachusetts.

Both cases rely, in part, on the argument that registration, roster, and waiting-period requirements impermissibly burden the ability to acquire firearms. After Beckwith, that argument faces a controlling adverse precedent in the very circuit hearing the cases. The Commonwealth's defense briefs, already prepared before the ruling, are expected to cite Beckwith as a complete answer to the acquisition theory.

Broader Significance

Since Bruen, most Second Amendment challenges to firearm laws have centered on whether the modern law fits within the "historical tradition of firearm regulation." Courts have divided on exactly how to apply that test, and most circuits have treated the threshold question -- whether the conduct is covered by the text of the Second Amendment at all -- as the easy step. Beckwith is notable because it takes the threshold question seriously, concluding that whole categories of regulation (acquisition-focused rules) fall outside the Second Amendment's text entirely, without needing to reach the historical analysis.

The ruling creates a circuit split. The Ninth Circuit and several district courts have treated acquisition as covered by the Second Amendment's text; the First Circuit now disagrees. The Supreme Court may be asked to resolve the split in a future term.

What to Watch

Plaintiffs in Beckwith may petition for rehearing en banc before the full First Circuit, or seek certiorari at the Supreme Court. Neither step is guaranteed to succeed. For Massachusetts-specific cases (Hanlon and Granata), the immediate question is how the district court and First Circuit panel will apply Beckwith to the Chapter 135 provisions now under challenge.