On August 19, 2025, a federal appeals court delivered a seismic ruling that has sent shockwaves through New Mexico’s legal and political landscape. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a split 2-1 decision, paused the state’s recently enacted seven-day waiting period for gun purchases—a law that had only gone into effect in May 2024. With the law now on hold pending further legal challenge, the debate over gun rights and public safety in New Mexico is once again front and center, drawing nationwide attention and stirring passions on all sides.
The law in question, championed by Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham as a measure to curb impulsive acts of violence and suicide, required most buyers to wait a full week before taking possession of a firearm. There were notable exceptions: concealed carry permit holders, law enforcement officers, and those making transactions between immediate family members were exempted from the delay. Still, for many, the waiting period represented a significant new hurdle to immediate gun ownership.
The legal challenge to the law was swift and pointed. On the very day it took effect—May 15, 2024—two New Mexico residents, Paul Ortega and Rebecca Scott, filed suit against Governor Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Raúl Torrez. Backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Mountain States Legal Foundation, their lawsuit argued that the waiting period violated the Second Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Both plaintiffs claimed they were forced to wait for firearm purchases despite having passed background checks without delay, underscoring what they saw as an unnecessary and unconstitutional barrier.
Initially, a federal district judge declined to grant a preliminary injunction to halt the law while the case proceeded. But the Tenth Circuit’s panel saw things differently. Writing for the majority, Judge Timothy Tymkovich stated, “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, as reported by the Associated Press and other outlets, sends the case back to the lower court for further proceedings, but for now, the law is off the books.
The court’s reasoning leaned heavily on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upended decades of precedent allowing for what had been considered reasonable regulations on gun purchases and possession. The Supreme Court’s new “historically grounded exceptions” framework requires modern gun laws to be justified by historical analogues from the nation’s founding era. In this context, the panel found no such historical precedent for mandatory waiting periods, and thus deemed the New Mexico law likely unconstitutional.
Not everyone on the panel agreed. Judge Scott Matheson, in his dissent, argued that the waiting period “establishes a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms that does not serve abusive ends.” He pointed to a 2024 Tenth Circuit decision upholding Colorado’s law raising the gun purchase age to 21, which effectively requires 18-year-olds to wait three years to buy a weapon. Matheson’s dissent also cited the state’s evidence suggesting that New Mexico’s law could save up to thirty-seven lives per year, emphasizing the potential public health benefits of a cooling-off period.
Governor Lujan Grisham, for her part, was unequivocal in her disappointment. In a statement released shortly after the ruling, she declared, “Today’s decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is deeply disappointing, plainly wrong and likely to cost lives in New Mexico.” She defended the law’s design, stating, “New Mexico’s waiting period law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights.” The governor also criticized the court for ignoring recent Tenth Circuit precedent—specifically, the ruling that upheld Colorado’s age-based gun purchase restriction—and for mischaracterizing the law’s reach, noting its exceptions for certain groups.
“The evidence is clear—waiting periods prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide, giving people time to step back and reassess their emotions during moments of crisis,” Lujan Grisham continued. She signaled that the state is reviewing its legal options and hinted at the possibility of seeking further appeals. Her administration has been active on gun policy in other areas as well, having declared states of emergency in Albuquerque and Rio Arriba County in response to surges in violent crime, and implementing a range of gun control measures including “red flag” laws and restrictions on guns near polling places.
Gun rights advocates were quick to celebrate the court’s decision. John Commerford, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement, “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.” Michael McCoy, director of the Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms, echoed this sentiment, stating, “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.”
The implications of the ruling extend well beyond New Mexico’s borders. Because the Tenth Circuit covers several states—including Colorado, which itself enacted a three-day waiting period in 2023—the outcome of this case could influence the fate of similar laws elsewhere. According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, only California, Hawaii, Washington, and the District of Columbia currently have longer waiting periods than New Mexico’s now-paused statute, with Rhode Island also imposing a seven-day wait.
The debate over waiting periods is hardly new, but the stakes feel especially high in the current climate. Advocates for gun control argue that such measures are a proven way to reduce gun deaths, citing research and expert opinion that delays can prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide. Opponents, meanwhile, frame waiting periods as an infringement on a fundamental constitutional right, one that can have real-world consequences for those seeking firearms for self-defense, including victims of domestic violence.
As the legal battle continues, both sides are girding for a fight that could reshape the landscape of gun regulation in the American West and beyond. The state of New Mexico is weighing its next steps, while gun rights organizations are already touting the ruling as a victory for the Second Amendment. With the case heading back to the lower courts and the potential for further appeals, the final outcome remains uncertain. But for now, New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period is on hold, and the broader national debate over gun rights and public safety rages on.
For New Mexicans and Americans everywhere, the story is far from over. The next chapters will be written not only in courtrooms, but also in legislatures, communities, and households grappling with the enduring question: How best to balance the right to bear arms with the urgent need to protect public safety?
