Starting on Sunday, most Delaware residents who don't possess a valid concealed carry license will be forced to get one or apply for a permit-to-purchase if they want to buy a handgun. Late Friday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika declined to grant an injunction that would halt enforcement of the law, writing that the plaintiffs "failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits." Given that, the judge opined that she "need not evaluate the other factors of the analysis: irreparable harm, balancing of the equites, and public interest."
The state of Delaware had argued that the permit-to-purchase scheme is a "shall issue" system akin to a license to carry, which the Supreme Court okayed in Bruen. The plaintiffs, meanwhile had argued the "burdensome and time-consuming permitting scheme" lacks any analogue in our nation's history and tradition of gun ownership.
I haven't had a chance to review Noreika's decision, so I can't report on what made her decide the plaintiffs aren't likely going to succeed in their legal challenge, but I suspect that the State's argument about SCOTUS essentially blessing permits-to-purchase in Bruen may have proved persuasive.
I don't think Bruen can be read that expansively, but even assuming the state is correct here, wouldn't that make the need for a carry permit redundant? In fact, concealed carry licensees are exempt from the Delaware permit-to-purchase law. Why shouldn't it work both ways; one shall-issue permit that covers both keeping and bearing arms?
Tha'ts actually how it works already in a handful of states, and I'd argue that even if "shall issue" licensing regimes are constitutionally compatible, that doesn't mean that redundant schemes that impose addition costs on would-be gun owners comply with the Second Amendment. In Bruen, the Court noted that excessive fees and inordinate wait times could render "shall issue" regimes unconstitutional. I think there's a case to be made that duplicative schemes can be as well.
Ironically, since concealed carry licensees are exempt from the permit-to-purchase provisions, we'll probably see a spike in the number of residents who are lawfully carrying. If you've gotta take a training class anyway, might as well apply for the concealed carry permit and save a little bit of money instead of first getting a permit-to-purchase and then applying for a carry license later on.
Still, I disagree with Judge Noreika that the plaintiffs aren't likely to ultimately prevail in their challenge. Even if the state of Delaware wants to be assured that people buying pistols are safe and responsible, there is simply no tradition that citizens demonstrate proof of their firearm proficiency before they could own a gun. The Second Amendment says the right "of the people" to keep and bear arms, not those people who've been well-trained in their use. Training was actually a reason why the people had a right to keep and bear arms, not the other way around.
I'm optimistic that Noreika's decision will ultimately be overturned or discarded once the case is fully heard on the merits, but even if that happens, would-be gun owners in Delaware are still going to have to live with what amounts to a 30-day waiting period on the purchase of a pistol in the meantime. For the sake of those folks trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights I hope the transition will be smooth, but I'm not at all confident that will be the case.
Editor's Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats' gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member