DELAWARE - The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied a request by the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association and other plaintiffs that could have placed a temporary pause on Delaware’s new Permit to Purchase law.
A lawsuit over the Permit to Purchase law was first filed against the Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security at the beginning of November. The law, which went into effect on Nov. 16, requires anyone looking to buy or transfer a gun in the First State to first obtain a purchaser permit. The process to obtain that permit includes fingerprinting, a background check, and taking a firearms safety course.
Guns rights activists in Delaware have criticized the law since it was first proposed, arguing it violates Delawareans’ Second Amendment rights.
As part of the federal lawsuit, plaintiffs sought expedited injunctive relief to keep the law from taking effect while its constitutionality was debated in U.S. District Court. Less than two days before the Permit to Purchase law was set to begin in Delaware, on Nov. 14, a federal judge declined to grant the injunctive relief.
Following that decision, plaintiffs, who include the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, the Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club, and BKK Firearms, filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The decision by the U.S. District Judge to not to place injunctive relief, they argued, allowed a “de facto ban” on handgun purchases through the requirement of a permit and the “chaotic rollout of the permit scheme.”
“The trial court’s denial of injunctive relief did not include an analysis of all the reasons the status quo results in a de facto ban, nor did it address the validity of the permit requirement itself, both of which are violations of the Second Amendment,” the plaintiffs argued in their appeal of the District Court decision.
“Challengers will suffer imminent actual harm—such as the risk of injury due to an inability to use a handgun in self-defense—without an injunction to prevent enforcement of the Permit Bill,” the plaintiffs went on to say.
In their response on behalf of the state, Delaware’s Department of Justice argued that the plaintiffs’ claim that the Permit to Purchase law constituted a “de facto ban” was unfounded.
“In reality, [Delaware] had already implemented the necessary ‘infrastructure’ well before Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and had already issued over 200 permits by the time Defendants filed their response to the Proposed Order, as evidenced by a declaration and copies of redacted issued permits,” the DOJ wrote in their opposition to an expedited relief.
As of the date of their opposition’s filing in the appellate court, Nov. 19, the DOJ said Delaware had issued over 300 permits.
State officials also refuted the plaintiffs’ claims that there was potential harm due to the possibility of a permit not being issued within 30 days, which the Permit to Purchase law mandates. The DOJ said most permits are issued to applicants within 1-3 business days.
The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered Delaware to file a supplemental briefing to outline their opposition to the expedited injunctive relief by Nov. 24. The plaintiffs were given until Nov. 25 to file a response.
On Dec. 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for expedited injunctive relief, saying the appeals case would continue in “the ordinary course” and leaving the Permit to Purchase law in effect while the legal challenges continue.
For more information on the Permit to Purchase law and its requirements, you can click here.