Two Buyers Beat New Mexico's Waiting Period. Everyone Else Waits.
Two New Mexico buyers won a federal judgment against the state's seven-day firearm waiting period, and every other buyer still has to wait. The Second Amendment Foundation and NSSF have asked a federal judge in NSSF v. Torrez for a preliminary injunction. The motion would stop Attorney General Raúl Torrez and those under his supervision from enforcing House Bill 129 against the plaintiff groups, their members and their customers while the new case moves forward. Nothing has been suspended yet. The state keeps enforcing the law against anyone outside the earlier order, and the court has not ruled on the request.
Key Details
The filing puts specific numbers and names on a fight that has been running since 2024. Here is what the record shows:
- House Bill 129 became New Mexico law in 2024.
- The law requires a buyer to wait seven calendar days before taking possession of a firearm, even after passing the required background check.
- Exceptions exist for certain transactions and buyers, including holders of New Mexico concealed handgun licenses.
- Violations carry misdemeanor exposure for both the seller and the buyer.
- Supporters describe the delay as a cooling-off period meant to reduce impulsive violence and suicide.
- In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in Ortega v. Grisham that the waiting period likely violates the Second Amendment when applied to buyers who cleared background checks.
- The panel found New Mexico offered no comparable historical tradition of forcing eligible citizens to wait before obtaining a firearm. It reversed the district court and directed injunctive relief.
- On remand, the district court entered judgment for the two Ortega plaintiffs. The injunction protects only those two individuals.
- The new motion comes from the Second Amendment Foundation, NSSF and several partner organizations.
SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack described a preliminary injunction as a request for emergency relief. NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence Keane argued the state should not keep enforcing a law the Tenth Circuit has already found constitutionally defective.
Background
The Supreme Court set the current test for gun regulations in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022. Under that ruling, the government must justify a firearm restriction by pointing to a historical analogue from the nation's founding-era tradition. The Court refined the approach in United States v. Rahimi in 2024, emphasizing principles over exact historical twins. Either way, the burden sits with the state.
New Mexico's position in Ortega rested on the idea that a short delay for a qualified buyer fits within American tradition. The Tenth Circuit disagreed. It reviewed the state's historical support and found it lacking for a rule that forces otherwise eligible adults to wait before exercising a constitutional right. That reasoning now sits in published appellate law, which is the piece the new plaintiffs want the district court to apply more broadly.
The gap between the appellate ruling and the district court's injunction is the core of this case. An appellate opinion can declare a law likely unconstitutional. A district court injunction controls who gets relief. Those two things do not automatically line up, and New Mexico is exploiting that gap today.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
If you buy a handgun or long gun in New Mexico without a concealed handgun license, the seven-day wait applies to you right now. Dealers must follow the statute, and a seller who skips the delay faces the same misdemeanor exposure as the buyer. Plan around the clock, not around the background check result. A check that clears on Monday does not mean you walk out with the firearm on Monday.
Holders of New Mexico concealed handgun licenses fall within the statute's exceptions, so the wait does not reach them the same way. Anyone who relies on that exception should carry proof of licensure and confirm with the dealer before the transaction. Dealers handle paperwork differently, and a mistake lands on the buyer as well as the seller.
Members of SAF, NSSF or the partner groups should ask whether the motion's protection extends to their membership status and purchase records if the court grants relief. Do not assume coverage. Watch the NSSF v. Torrez docket for a ruling on the preliminary injunction, because that ruling will define who gets the same treatment as the two Ortega plaintiffs.
DownRange Analysis
This motion has a strong legal core. The plaintiffs make essentially the same constitutional argument the Tenth Circuit already accepted. Under Bruen, New Mexico must show a historical match for a rule that delays a qualified buyer's access to a firearm. The appellate court found no match. Unless New Mexico produces new historical evidence, the state argues over scope, not merits.
New Mexico's best move is procedural. The state can argue that the earlier judgment covers only the two named plaintiffs and that broader relief requires its own showing. That argument will likely win on the narrow point and lose on the big question. A court that agrees the waiting period is unconstitutional has little reason to let it operate against a large class of buyers who did nothing different.
What should a gun owner do right now? Treat the waiting period as enforceable until a judge says otherwise. Keep your CHL current if you have one. If you are a New Mexico buyer without that license, build the seven days into any purchase plan. Donate to or join the groups fighting the case if you want more plaintiffs in the fight.
