Permit to Purchase law is in effect, but under appeal

December 3, 2025

by Senator Bryant Richardson

On December 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a motion for expedited injunctive relief against Delaware’s Permit to Purchase handgun law.

The law, which went into effect on November 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, all of this at the applicant’s expense. 

The Permit to Purchase law, Senate Bill 2, gives an agent of the government unfettered discretion over who to approve and deny for a permit to purchase handguns. 

Delaware’s Permit to Purchase law basically mirrors a Maryland statute that was recently struck down by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for its violation of the Second Amendment. 

Thomas Neuberger, an attorney listed among the plaintiffs challenging the Permit to Purchase law, said the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms. He said Delaware will not be able to meet that burden.

Neuberger, in the past, has been threatened with physical harm due to his pro bono civil rights work. 

Today, with the social fabric unraveling in the country, his fears of violence are even greater. 

Neuberger remembers when Dr. Martin Luther King’s family and home were first bombed in Alabama and Dr. King sought to obtain a handgun to protect his family. 

But Alabama had a handgun permit law then and the governor refused him a permit for a handgun.

The licensing process will make it burdensome for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, especially those of limited economic means.

The law also calls for the warrantless removal from the home of firearms based upon the subjective and nebulous “danger of causing physical injury” standard. 

Neuberger said this violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and contradicts United States Supreme Court precedent.

The heart of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and “there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”

Following the court’s denial of the motion, Neuberger issued the following statement:

“The appeal did not get bounced and we live to continue the fight. The case has not been sent back to the district court where we have lingered for more than 18 months."

“Instead we now have a full appeal pending, before 3 judges, of the denial of an injunction to stop the new law, and on the merits of the dismissal of most of the plaintiffs and me in the second lawsuit."

“This is a victory. Instead of another 18 months or more in the Delaware District Court system and then the right to a long appeal, we now have a new bite at the apple before three disinterested appeal judges and it is being processed immediately.”