Anytime you upset the status quo, people need to be careful. Now, sometimes, the status quo needs to be upset. However, when that upset involves infringing on people’s rights, there is an issue.

Sure, you can make the argument that the law is necessary to prevent certain kinds of violent crime or whatever, but there are always going to be constitutionality questions to be settled. Those defending the Constitution are going to ask for an injunction on enforcing the new law because if it turns out that yes, it’s unconstitutional–as we know all gun laws are–then no one should have been denied their rights in the first place.

Unsurprisingly, states simply don’t care. They want the laws enforced right away, especially knowing they likely won’t survive a challenge.

The Office of the Maine Attorney General has filed a motion requesting that a federal judge deny a gun rights advocacy group’s attempt to block the state’s implementation of a 72-hour waiting period on gun sales.

A group of firearms advocates filed a lawsuit challenging the three-day waiting period in November, arguing that the new law violates the U.S. Constitution. The suit has been backed by firearms groups Gun Owners of Maine and the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine.

As part of their lawsuit, the group motioned to have the law’s implementation put on pause until the suit is settled. But in a filing on Friday, the state argues that the lawsuit is unlikely to win on its merits, and the injunction should be denied.

The state argued in its motion that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep arms but “does not apply to a law regulating the acquisition of arms unless the law is so burdensome that it effectively prohibits keeping and bearing arms.”

That’s quite a bold prediction by the state, especially in light of the Bruen decision.

In that decision, the Supreme Court created a test for the constitutionality of gun control laws. There has to be some kind of historical analog to a gun law from around the time of the nation’s founding if it’s to be considered constitutional.

However, nowhere in any law book from the time of our nation’s creation will anyone find a law that creates a waiting period for a gun purchase. Nor will you find any such law in place from around the time of incorporation, either.

So how does the state figure that the case is unlikely to win on its merits? Because you can still buy a gun after the waiting period is over?

I’m sorry, but while a 72-hour waiting period might not be the most burdensome gun control law on the books, that’s not the standard laid down by the Supreme Court of late. Further, a right delayed is a right denied. The idea that someone should be forced to wait just to buy a gun wouldn’t be tolerated for any other right, so why is it acceptable for guns?

And let’s be real here, this is a response to Lewiston, yet the killer there had owned his guns for years. It wouldn’t have stopped anything.

So my hope is that the judge dismisses their request, issues the injunction, and this stupidity is struck down once and for all.