Judges SLAM Gun Law—Shockwaves Hit New Mexico

A handgun placed on top of the U.S. Constitution and an American flag

A federal court just struck down New Mexico’s seven-day gun purchase waiting period, delivering a decisive blow to gun control efforts and marking a major victory for Second Amendment supporters.

Story Highlights

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period law likely violates the Constitution and blocked its enforcement.
The court emphasized that immediate possession of legally purchased firearms is essential to Second Amendment rights.
This is one of the first federal appellate decisions post-Bruen to explicitly find waiting periods unconstitutional, impacting other states in the circuit.
The ruling signals shifting judicial scrutiny of modern gun control measures and energizes debates over government overreach and constitutional rights.

Court Strikes Down New Mexico’s Waiting Period Law

On August 19, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that New Mexico’s seven-day “cooling off” period for gun purchases is likely unconstitutional, halting enforcement of the law. The statute, enacted in May 2024, required all firearm buyers—even those who passed immediate background checks—to wait an additional seven days before taking possession of their legally purchased guns. The court’s decision in Ortega v. Grisham blocks the law pending further proceedings and underscores the primacy of the Second Amendment.

The panel’s majority opinion reasoned that waiting periods are a modern regulatory invention, unsupported by the historical tradition that underpins the Second Amendment. By highlighting the importance of taking immediate possession of a firearm after a lawful purchase, the court’s decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires all gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical context.

Constitutional Principles and Conservative Values at Stake

This ruling directly addresses the concerns of Americans who have watched with frustration as state legislatures implemented increasingly restrictive gun laws in recent years. By framing immediate possession as essential to the right to keep and bear arms, the court affirmed that government-imposed delays—even with background checks completed—represent an unjustifiable burden. For many, this is a clear stand against government overreach and a reaffirmation that constitutional rights cannot be suspended to accommodate modern regulatory preferences.

The decision is particularly significant for gun owners and advocates who believe that waiting periods not only erode their ability to exercise self-defense rights, but also set a precedent for further encroachments on individual liberty. The court’s opinion sends a strong signal to lawmakers in other states and circuits that post-Bruen, longstanding American principles—not recent “woke” policy trends—must guide regulations that touch on fundamental rights.

Broader Legal and Political Impact

The 10th Circuit’s ruling may affect similar waiting period laws across its jurisdiction, which includes Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Legal experts note that the decision’s reliance on historical tradition sets a high bar for states defending modern gun control measures. Other waiting periods, like Colorado’s three-day law, remain in effect but now face heightened legal scrutiny. This decision could ultimately shape national policy if adopted by other courts or reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Gun rights organizations, including the NRA and Mountain States Legal Foundation, played a pivotal role in challenging New Mexico’s law, arguing that such waiting periods are unconstitutional. The NRA lauded the ruling as a “victory for gun rights and a blow to radical waiting period laws.” Public safety advocates, meanwhile, warn that suspending these laws removes a tool intended to reduce impulsive acts of violence, highlighting the ongoing debate over how best to balance public safety and constitutional protections.

What This Means for Americans and the Second Amendment

For gun purchasers and dealers in New Mexico, the immediate effect is clear: no more mandatory waiting period after a background check is completed. The broader impact, however, reverberates across the country. Legal scholars point out that this is among the first federal appellate decisions post-Bruen to explicitly strike down a waiting period, suggesting a major shift in judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment. As courts continue to apply the Bruen standard, Americans can expect intensified scrutiny of laws that restrict fundamental rights without deep historical precedent. The ruling is a reminder that, even as national debates rage over gun control and government power, the Constitution remains the supreme safeguard of liberty.

While gun rights advocates celebrate the decision as a restoration of constitutional order, opponents argue it undermines efforts to prevent gun violence. The division reflects the broader national conversation about the limits of government power and the enduring battle over the scope of American freedom. As future cases test similar laws in other states, the consequences of this ruling will likely shape the landscape of Second Amendment rights for years to come.