Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down New Mexico's Seven-Day Firearm Waiting Period

Court Ruling Details

The Decision

A federal appellate court delivered a significant blow to New Mexico's firearm waiting period legislation this week, with the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the state's seven-day mandatory delay for gun purchases. The decision came through a three-judge panel hearing the case Ortega v. Grisham, marking a constitutional victory for Second Amendment advocates.

Majority Opinion Analysis

The court's 2-1 ruling, authored by Judge Timothy Tymkovich—appointed to the bench in 2003 by President George W. Bush—declared that mandatory waiting periods fall outside historically established exceptions to Second Amendment protections.

"Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment's scope," the majority opinion stated.

Judge Allison Eid, appointed during the Trump administration, concurred with Tymkovich's constitutional analysis.

The panel's conclusion was unambiguous: "We conclude that New Mexico's Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens."

Dissenting Perspective

Judge Scott Matheson, an Obama-era appointee, issued the lone dissent in the ruling. His opposition cited the prevalence of similar legislation, noting that approximately a dozen states currently maintain waiting period requirements for firearm purchases.

Legislative Background

Passage and Implementation

New Mexico's Democratic-controlled state legislature successfully enacted the waiting period measure during the 2024 legislative session. The bill received swift approval from Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D), who has received endorsements from Everytown for Gun Safety, a prominent gun control advocacy organization.

The law mandated that firearm purchasers wait seven full days before taking possession of their newly acquired weapons, regardless of background check completion times.

Legal Challenge Origins

Plaintiff Organizations

The constitutional challenge emerged through collaborative efforts between multiple pro-Second Amendment organizations:

• National Rifle Association (NRA) - Lead plaintiff organization
• Mountain States Legal Foundation - Co-plaintiff providing legal support
• National Shooting Sports Foundation - Supporting organization

These groups argued that the mandatory delay violated citizens' constitutional rights under the Second Amendment.

Broader Legal Implications

Regional Impact Scope

Legal experts and advocacy groups emphasize that this ruling's influence extends far beyond New Mexico's borders. The Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction encompasses multiple states where similar legislation could face challenges.

NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford highlighted the decision's potential reach: "The 10th Circuit has sided with the NRA and held that radical waiting period laws are indeed unconstitutional. This decision not only impacts gun owners in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma, but serves as a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country."

Precedential Significance

The ruling establishes important precedent within the Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction, potentially affecting future legislative efforts and existing laws in the region. Gun rights advocates view this as a strategic victory that could influence similar challenges nationwide.

Government Response

Executive Branch Reaction

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham expressed strong disagreement with the appellate court's decision, characterizing the ruling as "deeply disappointing" in her public statement.

The governor's office indicated that her administration is actively "reviewing our legal options," suggesting potential plans for further legal action, possibly including an appeal to the Supreme Court or other legal strategies to preserve the waiting period requirement.

Constitutional Context

The ruling represents another significant development in ongoing national debates over firearm regulation and Second Amendment interpretation, particularly following recent Supreme Court precedents that have emphasized historical analysis in determining the constitutionality of gun control measures.