Court Ruling Calls Waiting Period “An Unconstitutional Burden on the Second Amendment”

A federal appeals court has blocked New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period on firearm purchases, calling the law “likely an unconstitutional burden” on the Second Amendment. As reported by Morgan Lee of AP News, the ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals halts enforcement of the law while litigation proceeds. The decision marks one of the most significant wins for gun rights in recent years, with potential ripple effects across the nation.

The Origins of the Waiting Period

New Mexico’s waiting period law took effect in May 2024. According to Lee, the legislation was enacted by Democratic lawmakers in hopes of reducing impulsive acts of violence and suicide while also allowing more time for background checks to be completed. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham strongly supported the law, originally advocating for a 14-day wait before legislators compromised on seven. The law included exceptions for law enforcement officers, concealed carry permit holders, and family-to-family transfers.

The Court’s Majority Opinion

Judge Timothy Tymkovich, writing for the majority in the 2-1 decision, explained that cooling-off periods do not fall within any historically recognized exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms. “We conclude that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens,” he wrote. Tymkovich emphasized that the Second Amendment necessarily covers the acquisition of firearms since individuals cannot keep or bear what they cannot obtain.

A Strong Dissent

Not every judge agreed. Judge Scott Matheson issued a dissenting opinion, as Lee reported, arguing that the law amounted to a reasonable qualification on the commercial sale of arms. In his view, the waiting period did not serve “abusive ends” but instead balanced public safety concerns with constitutional rights. This dissent highlights the ongoing judicial divide over how far courts should extend Second Amendment protections after the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in Heller (2008) and Bruen (2022).

Plaintiffs Who Challenged the Law

The case was brought forward by two New Mexico residents, represented by the National Rifle Association and the Mountain States Legal Foundation. According to Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets, one plaintiff was Samuel Ortega, a retired law enforcement officer, and the other was Rebecca Scott. Both had passed background checks instantly when purchasing firearms but were forced to wait a full seven days solely because of the new law.

How the District Court Initially Ruled

At the trial level, a federal district judge denied their request to block the law. Yanis criticized that ruling harshly, noting that the judge claimed the right to keep and bear arms didn’t necessarily mean the right to immediately acquire them. He also pointed out that the lower court leaned on the argument that waiting periods are “presumptively lawful” under Heller. In his video, Yanis quipped that “somebody should do a drug test on that judge” for suggesting such reasoning.

Why the Appeals Court Reversed Course

The 10th Circuit panel took a very different approach. As Yanis explained, they concluded that the waiting period imposed a direct burden on Second Amendment rights by prohibiting lawful purchasers from possessing a firearm even after clearing a background check. Tymkovich compared it to forcing newspapers to wait a week before publishing or requiring churches to close for arbitrary reasons. Temporary restrictions on constitutional rights, the court said, are still restrictions – and thus unconstitutional.

Historical Tradition Test Under Bruen

The appeals court also applied the historical tradition test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Yanis explained that New Mexico tried to justify the law by citing historical restrictions, such as intoxication bans or group prohibitions. But the judges rejected that argument, noting that waiting periods are a modern invention, only appearing in the 20th century. That lack of historical grounding, they said, makes the law incompatible with the Second Amendment.

Supporters of the Ruling

Michael McCoy, director of the Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms, applauded the decision. In remarks reported by Lee, McCoy emphasized that the court found “no analogous law from that era” to justify the modern waiting period. NRA’s John Commerford echoed the sentiment, calling the decision “a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country.” Yanis, too, hailed the ruling as a “huge step forward” for protecting the right to acquire arms alongside the right to keep and bear them.

The Governor’s Response

Not surprisingly, Gov. Lujan Grisham expressed “deep disappointment” with the ruling. As Lee reported, she insisted the law was carefully crafted to prevent violence while still respecting constitutional rights. “Waiting periods prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide, giving people time to step back and reassess their emotions during moments of crisis,” she argued. The governor also suggested the ruling could “cost lives” by removing an important safeguard against tragedies.

National Implications

Both Lee and Yanis pointed out that the decision could have nationwide implications. Several states – including California, Hawaii, Washington, Minnesota, and Rhode Island – impose waiting periods ranging from three to 14 days. Yanis argued that the 10th Circuit ruling puts those laws on “shaky ground,” since they fail the same historical test. For gun rights advocates, this case could be the opening salvo in a broader campaign to strike down waiting periods coast to coast.

The Tension Between Safety and Rights

From my perspective, this case perfectly illustrates the tension between public safety arguments and constitutional protections. Proponents of waiting periods see them as common-sense safeguards, especially in situations involving emotional distress or domestic violence. Opponents argue that delaying lawful purchases could actually put vulnerable people at greater risk, such as women seeking to defend themselves from abusive partners. The courts are now tasked with balancing those competing claims, but the constitutional baseline, as the 10th Circuit made clear, leans heavily toward protecting immediate access.

A Turning Point for Gun Law Litigation

It’s also worth noting how pivotal this ruling could be under the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard. Courts can no longer simply weigh interests like safety versus rights; they must identify historical analogues. That makes many 20th-century laws, including waiting periods, far more vulnerable. If this ruling holds, we may see a wave of lawsuits dismantling gun control laws that lack deep historical roots. Whether one sees that as a victory or a setback depends on where they stand in the debate, but either way, it signals a turning point.

What Happens Next

For now, the waiting period law in New Mexico is blocked, but not permanently struck down. As Yanis noted, the injunction is preliminary, meaning the case will continue unless the state seeks further review. Gov. Lujan Grisham and lawmakers could ask for an en banc hearing with the full 10th Circuit. If not, the case could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court. Either way, the ruling has already changed the legal landscape by affirming that the right to acquire arms is inseparable from the right to bear them.