On August 19, 2025, a federal appeals court delivered a significant blow to New Mexico’s recent efforts to tighten gun regulations, halting the state’s seven-day waiting period on firearm purchases. The 2-1 decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has not only reignited the national debate over gun rights and public safety but also left the future of the state’s gun control measures hanging in the balance.
The law, which went into effect in May 2024, required most gun buyers in New Mexico to wait seven days before taking possession of a firearm. Exceptions were made for concealed carry permit holders, law enforcement officers, and transactions between immediate family members. According to the Associated Press (AP), Democratic lawmakers had championed the measure as a way to provide more time for federal background checks, hoping to prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide.
But the law faced swift opposition. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Mountain States Legal Foundation, an advocacy group for gun rights, filed a lawsuit on behalf of two New Mexico residents. Their chief concern? That the waiting period could delay access to firearms for those in immediate danger, such as victims of domestic violence. As the case wound its way through the courts, the stakes became clear: Was the waiting period a reasonable safeguard, or an unconstitutional barrier to the right to bear arms?
In Tuesday’s ruling, Judge Timothy Tymkovich, writing for the majority, concluded that "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." He continued, "We conclude that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens." The court’s decision puts the law on hold pending a full legal challenge and sends the case back to a lower court for further proceedings.
Not all the judges agreed. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Scott Matheson argued that the waiting period "establishes a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms that does not serve abusive ends." In his view, the law was a reasonable regulation rather than an infringement.
The decision has drawn sharp reactions from both sides of the debate. Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham expressed "deep disappointment" with the ruling, warning that it was likely to cost lives. "New Mexico’s waiting period law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights," she said, underscoring the exceptions built into the law for law enforcement and family transactions. "Waiting periods prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide, giving people time to step back and reassess their emotions during moments of crisis." As of Tuesday, it remained unclear whether the governor and state legislators would seek a broader review by the full panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Advocates for gun rights, meanwhile, celebrated the decision. Michael McCoy, director of the Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms, praised the ruling, noting that "the court found that there was no analogous law from that era that would support the modern day law that’s at issue. For now, it means New Mexicans can go buy their firearms without an arbitrary delay imposed." John Commerford, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, described the ruling as a "key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country."
This case is far from an isolated skirmish. According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, only California, Hawaii, Washington, and the District of Columbia have longer waiting periods than New Mexico, with delays ranging up to 14 days. Rhode Island also enforces a seven-day wait. The Mountain States Legal Foundation is currently challenging Colorado’s three-day waiting period for gun purchases, enacted in 2023, suggesting that the ripple effects of the New Mexico decision could be felt well beyond the state’s borders.
The waiting period law was just the latest in a string of gun control measures enacted in New Mexico since 2019. Governor Lujan Grisham has signed legislation imposing a so-called "red flag" law, which allows courts to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others. She has also backed restrictions on guns near polling places, and in 2023, she suspended the right to carry firearms at public parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque after a series of shootings left children dead.
The governor’s broader efforts to tackle gun violence and crime have included declaring states of emergency in response to rising crime rates. In April 2025, she declared a state of emergency in Albuquerque, citing a significant increase in crime and calling in the New Mexico National Guard for assistance. Just last week, she declared another emergency in Rio Arriba County, targeting violent crime and drug trafficking in the region.
For supporters of the waiting period, the law was a crucial tool to help stem the tide of gun violence. The argument is straightforward: giving people a few days to cool off before obtaining a firearm can prevent tragedies, particularly in moments of crisis or emotional distress. Governor Lujan Grisham has repeatedly argued that such measures "prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide." The law’s supporters point to research suggesting that waiting periods can reduce rates of suicide and homicide, though the evidence remains a point of contention in policy circles.
Opponents, however, see the waiting period as an unnecessary and potentially dangerous obstacle. The NRA and its allies have argued that delays can leave vulnerable individuals—such as victims of domestic abuse—without the means to protect themselves. Michael McCoy, speaking for the Mountain States Legal Foundation, emphasized that "for now, it means New Mexicans can go buy their firearms without an arbitrary delay imposed," framing the law as more of a bureaucratic hurdle than a life-saving measure.
The broader legal landscape is shifting, too. In recent years, federal courts have increasingly scrutinized gun control laws, often requiring that any restrictions have clear historical analogues dating back to the nation’s founding. Judge Tymkovich’s majority opinion reflects this trend, suggesting that without a historical precedent for waiting periods, such laws may not withstand constitutional challenges.
As New Mexico’s case returns to the lower courts, the outcome could have far-reaching implications—not just for the state, but for similar laws across the country. With legal challenges mounting in other states, and with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent interest in Second Amendment cases, the national debate over gun rights and public safety is unlikely to cool off any time soon.
For now, New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period is on hold, and the state finds itself once again at the crossroads of constitutional rights and the quest for public safety. Both sides are bracing for the next round, knowing that the stakes—for individuals and for the nation—remain as high as ever.