In a highly unusual ruling, a federal judge has struck down New Mexico’s controversial seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases, but the decision applies only to the two people who sued the state.
U.S. District Judge James Browning ruled on Thursday that New Mexico cannot enforce the Waiting Period Act against Samuel Ortega and Rebecca Scott. The duo challenged the law after they were not allowed to take immediate possession of firearms they had attempted to purchase in 2024.
But the ruling stopped well short of the sweeping decision gun-rights advocates had expected. The waiting period remains in effect for some 2.12 million residents of New Mexico, leaving gun owners, firearms dealers, and lawyers wondering what will happen next.
Michael McCoy, director of the Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms, said the ruling essentially means that the state is holding the next move. “The court, in essence, just said, ‘I still think the law is constitutional, but I’m going to issue a permanent injunction as it pertains to the two named plaintiffs in the case,’” McCoy said.
“Unfortunately, Judge Browning decided to take King Solomon up on his ‘great’ idea to split the baby. Big mistake,” McCoy, in a statement posted on social media, wrote. “The decision prevents the state from enforcing the waiting period law against our two named plaintiffs, but leaves open the ability of the state to enforce the law against the other 2.12 million people who live in New Mexico.”
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s administration, meanwhile, said it does not believe the law should be scrapped. Lauren Rodriguez, speaking for the New Mexico Department of Justice, said the state is reviewing the ruling and deciding how to proceed. “The State defended this case, and we firmly stand by our position that the waiting period was lawful and that New Mexico has a legitimate and important interest in protecting the public,” Rodriguez said.
Michael Coleman, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham, said the law remains in effect for everyone except Ortega and Scott. He added that the state will almost certainly appeal.
The governor’s office believes the waiting period is a public-safety measure, arguing that the seven-day delay gives law enforcement ample time for a thorough background check and creates a cooling-off period between the decision to purchase a gun and taking it home.
Coleman said such a pause is particularly important in preventing suicides and other deaths involving firearms. “This is a targeted fix for a specific problem: checks that don’t finish in time and purchases made in a moment of crisis,” he said.
It has changed everything
After the New Mexico lawmakers passed the Waiting Period Act in 2024, it took effect in May of that year. And on the same day the law took effect, Ortega and Scott attempted to purchase firearms, but they were told to wait for seven days.
The two joined the National Rifle Association in challenging the law, naming Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Raúl Torrez as defendants.
Initially, a federal judge rejected their request to halt the law. But the case took a dramatic turn when they brought their case to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, concluding that the waiting period was “likely an unconstitutional burden” on the Second Amendment rights of New Mexicans.
New Mexico asked the appeals court to reconsider. That request was denied.
Then, the case returned to Browning’s courtroom. That is where Thursday’s ruling produced its unusual result.
The federal judge made clear that he personally disagreed with the appeals court’s conclusion. Nevertheless, he was bound by the higher court’s decision. “The Court is bound by the Tenth Circuit’s decision and the law of the case,” Browning wrote.
Instead of declaring the waiting-period law unconstitutional for every New Mexican, Browning issued a permanent injunction preventing the state from enforcing it against the two plaintiffs.
Caught in the middle
The ruling is a new headache for firearms dealers who have spent more than two years trying to deal with the law. Gun-store owners had expected that the court would finally provide a clear answer on whether they could stop enforcing the seven-day delay. They have been left waiting again, instead.
McCoy said gun dealers are effectively “treading water” as they wait to see what the state does next. Gun store owners could face legal risks for not complying if the state continues to enforce the law.
But if they continue enforcing a law that a federal appeals court has already found likely unconstitutional, they could face possible lawsuits.
Erik Rasmussen, a board member and former president of the New Mexico Firearms Industry Association, said his organization has advised firearms dealers to continue following the waiting-period law until the state announces its position.
He said the law has already taken a financial toll on firearms businesses. Rasmussen owns Right to Bear Arms in Albuquerque. Some customers from outside New Mexico are no longer willing to make a second trip to the state to collect their firearms after the seven-day wait. Others have simply abandoned their purchases after learning they have to wait for another seven days.
Dealers have to bear the burden of dedicating additional space to storing firearms while customers wait. “It has certainly had a financial impact on all of our businesses,” Rasmussen said.
What will happen?
The legal battle is not yet over, with gun rights advocates asking why the state enforces the seven-day waiting period against anyone else if the appeals court found the Second Amendment had violated the rights of Ortega and Scott.
Further lawsuits could follow if the state attempts to enforce the waiting period against other residents, McCoy said.
John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, also said the organization intends to keep fighting. “We have a clear decision from the 10th Circuit that this law is unconstitutional,” Commerford said.
The state, however, maintains that the Waiting Period Act is lawful and says it is now weighing its options.
