‘An absolutely historic victory’: Court Strikes Down Waiting Periods

Will from Copper Jacket TV opened his update in a mood a lot of gun-rights watchers aren’t used to seeing lately: surprised optimism. He told viewers he had “good news,” and not the kind that comes with an asterisk or a narrow procedural dodge.

In Will’s telling, a federal appeals court decision has landed like a brick through the window of “cooling-off” laws – state rules that force a person to wait days after purchase before they can take possession of a firearm, even when the background check is already done.

Attorney William Kirk from Washington Gun Law covered the same development with more legal scaffolding and a sharper edge. He called it a major holiday-season win for New Mexico gun owners, and he made it sound like the state’s leadership saw it coming about as well as a deer sees headlights.

Both men focused on the same case: Ortega v. Lujan Grisham, the challenge to New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period law. 

And both stressed the same turning point: the 10th Circuit refused to rehear the case en banc, leaving a three-judge panel ruling intact and setting the stage for an injunction that makes the waiting period unenforceable.

The Decision Will Didn’t Think He’d See

Will said flat out that he “didn’t see [this] coming,” especially not from courts he believes often treat Second Amendment claims as a minor inconvenience. He framed the moment as a rare circuit-level win that could change how waiting-period lawsuits are argued across the country.

He also laid out why waiting periods are such a flashpoint. In his view, forcing a delay treats every buyer like a potential criminal who needs to “cool off,” even if they have no disqualifying record and even if they’ve already passed the check.

Will’s core line was simple and blunt: “A right delayed is a right denied.” He argued that even short delays are still delays, and in the real world, those delays can matter a lot more than lawmakers admit.

William Kirk, speaking on Washington Gun Law, put the timeline in concrete terms. He said New Mexico passed the law in 2024, and the rule was ironclad: pass your background check instantly or not, you were still waiting seven days “come hell or high water.”

Kirk’s tone made it clear he sees the law as not just annoying but legally flimsy. He said the three-judge panel concluded the waiting period had no historical support and struck it as unconstitutional.

What Ortega v. Lujan Grisham Means In Plain English

Here’s how the two hosts described the mechanics, without burying people in legal jargon.

Will explained that a three-judge panel at the 10th Circuit ruled earlier this year – he pointed to August – that New Mexico’s waiting period likely violates the Second Amendment because it blocks the lawful acquisition of arms. 

He said the court found no meaningful “historical analog,” which is the modern courtroom buzzsaw after Bruen.

Will also emphasized a point that matters for a lot of readers who aren’t lawyers: the waiting period is a blanket burden. It doesn’t require the state to show that you, specifically, are a risk. It delays everyone, regardless of circumstances, and that was part of what the panel found constitutionally suspect.

William Kirk took the same idea and made it even more direct. He said the panel struck the law down as unconstitutional, and then the state tried to drag the case to the full court.

In his version, that full-court move was basically New Mexico panicking. He specifically pointed to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and described the state’s reaction in colorful language, saying the state “completely crapped its pants” and asked for en banc review after losing.

And then, crucially, the 10th Circuit said no.

The En Banc Vote That Shut The Door

Both Will and William Kirk treated the en banc denial as the real headline, because it locks in what happens next.

Will said the 10th Circuit denied rehearing en banc, with only two judges dissenting from that denial – he identified them as Federico and Moritz. In his telling, that denial means the case is heading back down to the district court with instructions to enter an injunction.

That’s not a small procedural note. Will described it as the circuit court effectively telling the lower court, “You need to put an injunction in place.”

And once that injunction lands, Will said New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period won’t disappear from the statute books overnight, but it becomes unenforceable. The law can sit there on paper, but the state can’t use it.

William Kirk added a number that makes the denial feel even heavier: he said the 10th Circuit has 12 judicial positions, and the vote on whether to rehear the case wasn’t close. Kirk said 10 of the 12 judges rejected en banc review.

Kirk also pointed out that Judge Federico didn’t just disagree quietly. He said Federico wrote a 16-page dissenting opinion to what was otherwise a short, per curiam-style “we voted and you lose” kind of order.

Kirk quoted Federico’s dissent to show what the opposition argument sounds like. Federico argued the denial was wrong because it set aside public-safety issues, created tension with prior circuit precedent, and leaned too much on the idea that the Supreme Court might eventually take a related case.

Then Kirk pulled the mask off what he believes was the real fear in the dissent: Federico noted it “appears to be the first time this court has ever struck down a firearm statute” under the Second Amendment. 

Kirk treated that line like an accidental confession – proof, in his view, that the 10th Circuit almost never lets the Second Amendment win, and that’s exactly why this outcome rattled some people.

Why This Win Could Spread Past New Mexico

Will argued this isn’t just a New Mexico story. He said there are roughly a dozen states with some form of waiting period, and he believes this ruling can influence challenges far outside the 10th Circuit.

He also stressed that the decision becomes binding precedent inside the 10th Circuit, meaning lower courts in that circuit have to respect the reasoning going forward. In his view, that’s a big deal because it forces judges to treat waiting-period delays as more than a “minor burden.”

Will went a step further and talked about the national chessboard. He highlighted litigation in California over a 10-day waiting period – he referenced the case as Richards v. Bonta—and argued that if the Ninth Circuit upholds California’s law while the 10th Circuit has essentially rejected New Mexico’s, you could get a circuit split.

And in Will’s framing, a real circuit split is the kind of thing the U.S. Supreme Court has a harder time ignoring, especially when the question affects multiple states and millions of people.

William Kirk was a little more cautious on the geography, but he made the same basic point about momentum. 

He said this ruling has “presidential value” (his word choice in the transcript) in New Mexico right now, and he speculated that if other jurisdictions inside the 10th Circuit have waiting periods, “their days are probably numbered as well.”

Kirk also noted that New Mexico could try to take the denial to the Supreme Court, but he wasn’t selling hope that the state would succeed. His “don’t hold your breath” line made it sound like he expects the case to stay where it is.

The Bigger Argument Behind Waiting Periods

Here’s the part that tends to get lost when people treat this like a sports score.

Waiting periods are often sold as a universal “cooling off” fix – an idea that delaying possession reduces impulsive harm. Will’s complaint is that the law does that by defaulting every buyer into the “maybe dangerous” bucket.

And that’s where this becomes more than a gun-policy fight. It becomes a question about how rights are handled when the government wants a buffer, a pause, or a “just in case” delay.

In a calm, ordinary week, seven days might feel like nothing. But in the real world, delays don’t land evenly. If someone has documented threats, a violent ex, a stalker, or a credible fear, a forced delay can feel like the state is telling them, “Good luck until next week.”

That doesn’t automatically mean every waiting period is unconstitutional. But it explains why this ruling has people fired up. It’s a court finally treating the delay itself as the harm, not just the inconvenience.

Kirk, for his part, hammered the legal foundation: the panel said the law lacked historical grounding, and the full court declined to step in and rescue it. In his view, that’s not “activist judging.” That’s the court applying the framework it’s supposed to apply.

Will seemed to enjoy the irony: he described the 10th Circuit as typically hostile to Second Amendment challenges, and yet this time it ruled “in favor of the Constitution,” as he put it.

What Happens Next

Will said the practical next step is the case going back to the district court, which has been told – directly or effectively, in his telling – to put an injunction in place. Once that happens, the seven-day waiting period is “gone” in terms of enforcement.

William Kirk emphasized the same endpoint: New Mexico’s waiting period is finished “until your next legislative session,” meaning lawmakers could try again with a new approach, but this version is done.

And hanging over everything is the wider waiting-period map. Will argued this ruling is going to matter in other lawsuits, especially if other circuits rule differently and force the Supreme Court to address the issue more directly.

Whether you cheer this outcome or hate it, it’s hard to deny it’s a major moment. Waiting periods have often survived in court because judges treated them as a small speed bump.

Will and William Kirk are telling their audiences that the 10th Circuit just stopped treating it that way—and that shift, more than any single state law, is what could make this decision genuinely historic.