NM’s 7-day gun wait takes another major court hit

New Mexico’s controversial seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases has suffered another major legal defeat, and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Raúl Torrez are now appealing — extending a constitutional fight that has followed the law almost from the day it took effect.

The important wrinkle: despite the federal court ruling against the law, most New Mexicans are still subject to the seven-day waiting period for now.

Here’s what happened, where the case stands, and why the latest appeal matters.

What does the law actually do?

The Legislature passed House Bill 129 in 2024, and Lujan Grisham signed it that March. It took effect May 15, 2024.

Under the law, most firearm buyers must wait seven calendar days before taking possession of a purchased gun. The time spent completing a federal background check counts toward those seven days, but if the check has not been completed after the waiting period expires, the seller generally must continue waiting for the check. State guidance says a seller may transfer the firearm if that federal check still has not been completed after 20 days.

The law includes several exemptions, including for concealed-carry permit holders, certain law-enforcement transactions, federally licensed firearm dealers, and immediate-family transfers.

Lujan Grisham has defended the measure as a way to prevent impulsive shootings and suicides. After an early court victory in 2024, she called the waiting period a “critical buffer against impulsive firearms purchases” and argued that it also gives authorities more time to finish background checks.

Gun-rights advocates saw the law very differently.

The lawsuit started the day the law took effect

New Mexico residents Samuel Ortega and Rebecca Scott sued Lujan Grisham and Torrez on May 15, 2024 — the same day the waiting-period law became effective.

Both had quickly passed federal background checks but were still required to wait before receiving their firearms. Their lawsuit, backed by the National Rifle Association, Mountain States Legal Foundation, and other gun-rights groups, argued that delaying an otherwise lawful firearm purchase violates the Second Amendment.

Initially, U.S. District Judge James O. Browning refused to block the law while the litigation continued.

Then the case reached the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit — and the state’s fortunes changed dramatically.

Appeals court: Waiting period likely violates Second Amendment

In August 2025, a Tenth Circuit panel reversed Browning’s preliminary ruling.

The appeals court concluded that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily encompasses the ability to lawfully acquire them and found no sufficiently comparable historical tradition supporting New Mexico’s mandatory cooling-off period.

“Cooling-off periods infringe on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms,” the court wrote.

The judges concluded that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act was “likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.”

The case was sent back to Browning.

The Tenth Circuit subsequently denied the state’s request for rehearing before the full appeals court in December 2025.

The state loses again — this time at final judgment

Following the appeals-court ruling, Browning issued a preliminary injunction in February 2026 protecting Ortega and Scott from enforcement of the waiting period.

Then came the more consequential ruling.

On Aug. 27, Browning granted judgment to the challengers and entered a final order against the state. Although Browning had previously concluded the waiting-period law was constitutional, reporting on the final decision notes that he determined he was bound by the Tenth Circuit’s earlier ruling.

That gave the gun-rights challengers a final judgment they could point to as a major constitutional victory.

But there is an important catch.

Does this mean New Mexicans can skip the seven-day wait?

No — not generally.

The New Mexico Department of Public Safety currently says the Aug. 27 final order prevents enforcement of the waiting period against Ortega and Scott only.

“The waiting period remains in effect for all other firearm purchasers until further notice,” DPS says.

That limitation has produced an unusual legal situation: the Tenth Circuit has already said the challengers are likely to prevail because the waiting period burdens Second Amendment rights, and a district court has now entered final judgment against the state — but the injunction itself remains limited to the two people who sued.

Even Mountain States Legal Foundation, which represents the challengers, complained that the ruling left the law largely operative despite the constitutional victory.

Now Lujan Grisham and Torrez are appealing

KRQE reported this week that Lujan Grisham and Torrez have now filed an appeal of Browning’s final judgment.

That sends the dispute back into the federal appellate process and means New Mexico’s waiting-period fight is not finished.

The state has consistently argued that the law is a public-safety measure aimed at reducing impulsive firearm violence and suicide. The challengers maintain that the government cannot force an eligible buyer who has passed a background check to wait another week before exercising a constitutionally protected right.

And the state is heading back toward the same federal appellate court that delivered its most serious setback in the case so far.

The bottom line

For New Mexico gun buyers, the immediate practical takeaway is straightforward:

The seven-day waiting period is still being enforced against most purchasers.

For the state, however, the law is on increasingly difficult constitutional ground. The Tenth Circuit has already found it likely unconstitutional, the full court declined to rehear that ruling, and the district judge has now entered final judgment for the two challengers.

Lujan Grisham and Torrez are appealing that latest loss.

So, nearly two-and-a-half years after New Mexico imposed its mandatory waiting period, the state is still defending it in federal court — and the ultimate fate of the law remains unsettled.