On August 19, 2025, a panel of federal appellate judges struck down New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period for gun purchases, ruling that it likely infringes on citizens’ Second Amendment rights. The 2-1 decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals immediately put the law on hold, sending the contentious case back to a lower court for further proceedings. The ruling has ignited a fierce debate in New Mexico and beyond, as both supporters and opponents of gun control consider the broader implications for similar laws across the country.
The waiting period law, which took effect in May 2024, required most gun buyers in New Mexico to wait seven days before taking possession of a newly purchased firearm. There were notable exceptions: concealed carry permit holders, law enforcement officers, and immediate family member transfers were not subject to the delay. Violators faced misdemeanor penalties, but the law’s primary intent, according to Democratic lawmakers, was to provide extra time for federal background checks to be completed, thereby reducing the risk of impulsive acts of violence or suicide.
Judge Timothy Tymkovich, writing for the majority, made the court’s position clear: “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 wrote, as cited by the Associated Press and Fox News. “We conclude that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.”
The ruling comes as part of a national trend in which courts are increasingly scrutinizing gun control laws through the lens of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. That landmark case established that, for a gun restriction to be constitutional, the government must demonstrate a historical tradition of similar firearm regulation. In this instance, the appeals court found no analogous law from earlier eras that would justify New Mexico’s modern-day waiting period.
Not all judges agreed. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Scott Matheson argued that New Mexico’s waiting period “establishes a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms that does not serve abusive ends.” He suggested that the law was a reasonable regulation on the sale of firearms, rather than an outright infringement on the right to bear arms.
The legal challenge to the law was spearheaded by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Mountain States Legal Foundation, an advocacy group for gun rights. They filed the lawsuit on behalf of two New Mexico residents, citing deep concerns about delayed access to firearms for individuals facing urgent threats, such as victims of domestic violence. “The court found that there was no analogous law from that era that would support the modern day law that’s at issue,” Michael McCoy, director of the Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms, told Fox News. “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, echoed those sentiments, stating the appeals court decision “serves as a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country.” The NRA has long argued that waiting periods and similar measures do little to prevent crime and instead place undue burdens on law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their constitutional rights.
Democratic lawmakers in New Mexico, however, had enacted the waiting period law with a very different aim in mind. They hoped that the delay would give law enforcement more time to complete background checks and prevent potentially dangerous individuals from acquiring firearms. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, expressed “deep disappointment” following the ruling and warned that it could have dire consequences. “New Mexico’s waiting period law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement reported by the Associated Press. She highlighted additional exceptions for law enforcement officers and transactions between immediate family members, and insisted, “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’s administration has been proactive on gun control since she took office in 2019. She has signed a series of measures designed to restrict access to firearms, including a “red flag” law that allows courts to temporarily remove guns from people deemed a risk to themselves or others, and restrictions on carrying guns near polling places. In 2023, she suspended the right to carry firearms in public parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque after a string of shootings that left children dead. More recently, she declared states of emergency in Albuquerque and Rio Arriba County, citing surges in violent crime and drug trafficking. “This ruling is likely to cost lives,” she warned, underscoring her belief that waiting periods save lives by reducing the risk of impulsive violence.
New Mexico’s law was among the stricter waiting period statutes in the United States, though not the most stringent. According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, only California, Hawaii, and Washington—along with the District of Columbia—have longer waiting periods, some up to 14 days. Rhode Island also imposes a seven-day wait. Legal experts have suggested that the 10th Circuit’s ruling could have ripple effects, potentially undermining similar laws in other states, especially as the courts continue to interpret the Supreme Court’s new standard for evaluating gun regulations.
Supporters of waiting period laws, including many public health officials and some law enforcement leaders, argue that research links these statutes to reductions in suicides and crimes of passion. They contend that even a short delay can prevent tragedies by giving individuals time to reconsider rash decisions. Opponents, however, maintain that such laws are ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst, especially for people who may need to acquire a firearm quickly for self-defense.
For now, New Mexicans seeking to purchase firearms from licensed dealers will not face the seven-day delay, unless the state successfully appeals the decision or enacts new legislation that withstands judicial scrutiny. It remains unclear whether Governor Lujan Grisham and state lawmakers will seek a broader review by the full 10th Circuit Court of Appeals or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome of this legal battle could shape the future of gun control not just in New Mexico, but across the nation.
The debate over waiting periods—a seemingly simple measure—has become a flashpoint in America’s ongoing struggle to balance public safety with constitutional rights. As the legal process continues, both sides are watching closely, knowing that the stakes extend far beyond the borders of the Land of Enchantment.
