Federal Court FLIPS Gun Law—States on Edge

In a decisive victory for constitutional rights, a federal court has struck down New Mexico’s seven-day gun purchase waiting period, sending shockwaves through states that have enacted similar restrictions.

Story Highlights

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period likely violates the Second Amendment.
The court found immediate possession of legally purchased firearms central to constitutional rights, blocking enforcement of the law.
This is among the first federal appellate rulings post-Bruen to find waiting periods unconstitutional, setting precedent for multiple states.
The decision energizes gun rights advocates and could reshape future legal battles over similar gun control laws nationwide.

Federal Appeals Court Blocks New Mexico’s Gun Waiting Period

On August 19, 2025, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a major ruling in Ortega v. Grisham, blocking enforcement of New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases. The law, enacted in May 2024, required all buyers—even those who cleared background checks—to wait a week before taking possession of a firearm. The court found this delay imposed an unconstitutional burden on the right to keep and bear arms, stating that immediate possession is core to the Second Amendment. This decision halts a key provision of New Mexico’s recent gun control agenda pending further legal proceedings. https://www.foxnews.com/us/appeals-court-blocks-new-mexicos-7-day-waiting-period-gun-purchases-saying-violates-2nd-amendment

The ruling comes amid increasing judicial scrutiny of modern gun control measures, especially since the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which requires gun regulations to align with the nation’s historical tradition. The court emphasized that waiting periods are a recent invention, unsupported by the founding era’s understanding of the Second Amendment. The panel’s majority, led by Judge Timothy Tymkovich, concluded that New Mexico’s law failed the new constitutional standard, dealing a blow to policies that delay lawful gun ownership for law-abiding Americans.

Legal Precedent and the Bruen Standard

Federal courts now demand that gun regulations be historically grounded, as clarified in Bruen. The Tenth Circuit’s opinion observed that the right to “immediate possession” is not a modern concept but an inherent part of the Second Amendment’s guarantee. By labeling waiting periods as “modern regulatory inventions,” the court signaled its intention to rein in state laws that add barriers to firearm access without strong historical roots. This approach represents a shift away from deference to state legislatures and toward stricter judicial protection of individual rights, especially for gun owners.

New Mexico’s law was challenged immediately after its passage by the National Rifle Association and Mountain States Legal Foundation. Plaintiffs argued that the waiting period did nothing to stop criminals while punishing law-abiding citizens—many of whom seek firearms for self-defense. The 10th Circuit’s decision not only halted enforcement of the law but also set a binding precedent across its jurisdiction, impacting Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Other waiting period laws, like Colorado’s three-day rule, are now on shakier legal ground as a result.

Broader Impact on Gun Rights and Related Laws

This landmark ruling is one of the first federal appellate decisions to explicitly strike down a waiting period law since the Supreme Court’s clarification of the Second Amendment in Bruen. Gun rights organizations, led by the NRA, have hailed the outcome as a turning point in the fight against what they describe as “radical waiting period laws.” Immediate effects include the suspension of New Mexico’s policy and likely legal challenges to similar statutes in other states. For gun owners and dealers, the decision means no more state-imposed delays after passing a federal background check, restoring constitutional protections that many felt had been eroded by recent legislation.

Opponents of waiting periods argue that such laws undermine self-defense and do little to deter crime, while public safety advocates claim they help prevent impulsive violence and suicides. The court’s majority opinion, however, sided with the view that constitutional rights cannot be sacrificed for speculative benefits. The ruling has triggered renewed debate over the balance between public safety and individual liberty, invigorating efforts to challenge or repeal similar laws elsewhere.

Expert Perspectives and National Implications

Legal experts and advocacy groups are closely monitoring the ripple effects of this decision. The NRA and allied organizations view the ruling as a template for dismantling waiting period laws nationwide, while gun control proponents warn that it could make it harder for states to introduce new gun safety measures. Scholars point out that the court’s reliance on historical tradition, rather than modern policy arguments, marks a decisive shift in Second Amendment jurisprudence. As the case returns to the lower courts for further proceedings, its reasoning is expected to influence both ongoing litigation and legislative strategy in states with similar laws.

For Americans frustrated by policies that chip away at individual liberty, this ruling affirms that constitutional rights cannot be placed on hold by bureaucratic fiat. The Tenth Circuit’s decision is more than a local victory; it is a signal that courts are prepared to defend the foundational principles of the Republic—even when it means overturning popular or “common sense” measures that lack historical support. This outcome is a clear reminder that vigilance remains essential to safeguard freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.