A federal appeals court on Tuesday halted New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period for gun purchases, ruling that it likely infringes on citizens’ Second Amendment rights. The 2-1 decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily paused the law, leaving it in limbo while a legal challenge continues. The waiting period, which took effect in May last year, requires a seven-day waiting period between a buyer’s purchase and the delivery of a firearm. Democrats in the state enacted the measure as part of efforts to improve the completion of background checks for gun buyers. The court has ruled that the law likely violates the Second Amendment rights of New Mexico citizens.
Legal proceedings on the issue began when the Mountain States Legal Foundation and National Rifle Association took the case to court on behalf of two New Mexico residents, arguing that the law was unconstitutional and delayed access to firearms for victims of domestic violence. The court cited landmark Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen as part of its legal reasoning. In the majority opinion by Judge Timothy Tymkovich, it was noted that cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms. The court has stated that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.
Supporters of the law, including Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, have argued that waiting periods prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide, allowing people time to step back and reconsider their actions during moments of crisis. Lujan Grisham, a Democrat who has signed several gun control measures since taking office in 2019 including a ‘red flag’ law and restrictions on firearms near polling places, has expressed disappointment with the ruling and warned it will likely cost lives. She cited other exceptions for law enforcement and family transfers, arguing the law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights.
This ruling could have significant implications for other states, including California, Hawaii, and Illinois, which have also imposed similar restrictions on gun purchases. The court has not yet decided whether to refer the case to a higher court or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal experts predict that the decision may lead to broader changes in gun control laws nationwide. As of now, the law remains in a state of legal uncertainty, with no immediate direction on its future implementation.