Gun Groups Sue New Mexico to Enforce Tenth Circuit's Waiting Period Ruling
A coalition of gun rights groups sued New Mexico to stop the state from enforcing its 7-day waiting period against everyone except the two people who won the earlier case. The plaintiffs include the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, the New Mexico Firearms Industry Association, and the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, joined by several individuals. The defendant is New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, and the case is captioned NSSF v. Torrez. The waiting period sits in HB129 and covers nearly every firearm transfer in the state. The Tenth Circuit has already called that law 'obviously unconstitutional.' The state keeps enforcing it against everyone outside the original case. The complaint asks a court to block enforcement against the plaintiffs, their customers, and their members.
Key Details
The fight traces back to Ortega v. Grisham. The Tenth Circuit granted an injunction that stopped enforcement of the waiting period against the plaintiffs in that case. The injunction covered only them.
- In late August, the district court granted summary judgment to the Ortega plaintiffs and entered a permanent injunction.
- The Tenth Circuit found the waiting period unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the two named plaintiffs.
- New Mexico has appealed the summary judgment to the Tenth Circuit.
- The NSSF-led plaintiffs include federally licensed firearms dealers in New Mexico.
- One plaintiff is a former law enforcement officer who plans to buy a firearm within days.
- The plaintiffs want a declaration that HB129 is unconstitutional for sales to buyers who pass the federal background check.
- They also want an order barring enforcement against them, their customers, and their members.
State officials have said publicly and privately that buyers and sellers who skip the waiting period should expect criminal charges in state court. The plaintiffs say New Mexico will not honor the Tenth Circuit's holding unless a court orders it to. They describe litigation as a last resort. Separately, the plaintiffs point to the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, which limits universal injunctions from lower courts.
Background
New Mexico's waiting period covers almost all firearm transfers under HB129. Challengers argued it burdens the Second Amendment without a valid justification. The Supreme Court's New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision in 2022 set the test. Under Bruen, the government must show that a gun regulation fits the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Courts have since sorted modern laws against that standard case by case.
The Ortega ruling created a split between the law on the books and the law in practice. A court found the statute unconstitutional, but the injunction only protected two people. Everyone else still faces the delay. The federal government faced a similar problem with the National Firearms Act. In the Jensen and Silencer Shop lawsuits, the Justice Department lost and chose not to appeal. It stopped enforcing the registration requirement against the plaintiffs, their members, and their customers. The plaintiffs argue Torrez should follow that model. Instead, New Mexico appealed the Ortega judgment. That appeal keeps the statewide enforcement question open.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
If you live in New Mexico, the waiting period still governs your purchase unless you fall within an existing court order. Buyers who pass a background check at a dealer still face the delay. Private sellers also face exposure, since the statute reaches nearly all transfers. Dealers who want protection need to know whether they belong to one of the plaintiff groups or hold an individual injunction. Ask your dealer directly how they handle the waiting period and whether they are relying on a court order. Keep your paperwork, receipts, and dates. If you get charged, those records matter. If you are a dealer, talk to your counsel before you change your sales process. Watch three things: a preliminary injunction in NSSF v. Torrez, the Tenth Circuit's handling of the state's appeal, and any new prosecution announced by the Attorney General's office. Each one changes your risk.
DownRange Analysis
This case is strong. The Tenth Circuit has already ruled, and the statute's text does not fit a historical tradition of delay on lawful purchases. Under Bruen, New Mexico must produce historical analogues, and a general interest in cooling-off periods does not satisfy that burden. The state's appeal is an uphill climb. Torrez's position depends on the idea that a court win for two people leaves the law intact for everyone else. That reasoning hurts the state more than it helps. A preliminary injunction covering the NSSF plaintiffs, their dealers, and their members would reach most gun shops in the state. That would end the practical damage for most buyers. Dealers should treat the injunction as the key event to watch. Buyers should not assume the law is dead, though. Until a judge signs an order that covers you, the statute stays on the books, and the state has said it will enforce it. Keep your records clean and your questions specific.
