SAF Sues New Mexico to Extend Waiting Period Win to Every Member
The Second Amendment Foundation filed suit in New Mexico on October 20, 2026, to kill the state's multi-day waiting period for every SAF member. The case, NSSF v. Torrez, joins SAF with the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Rifle Association, three New Mexico gun industry groups, several retailers, and one private citizen. The target is House Bill 129, which keeps buyers from taking home a firearm even after the state background check approves them. New Mexico officials have said they will keep enforcing the law against everyone except the named plaintiffs in Ortega v. Grisham. SAF calls that position a defiance of a federal appeals court.
Key Details
The filing carries specific facts that matter to anyone buying a gun in New Mexico:
- Filing date: October 20, 2026, in New Mexico.
- Law challenged: HB 129, enacted in 2024.
- Mechanism: A mandatory wait after a buyer passes the federal background check, before taking possession.
- Prior ruling: The Tenth Circuit held the law unconstitutional in the 2025 Ortega case and sent it back to the district court, which entered a permanent injunction.
- Relief sought: A declaration that HB 129 is unconstitutional as applied to sales to buyers who pass the federal check, plus an injunction covering SAF members and their customers.
- Plaintiffs: SAF, NSSF, NRA, New Mexico Firearms Industry Association, New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, Calibers Shooting Sports Center, Omni Tactical USA, Right to Bear Arms, and Peter Hackett.
- Officials quoted: SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut and SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
Gottlieb said the complaint turns on the state's refusal to follow the Tenth Circuit. The filing states that plaintiffs prefer litigation as a last resort, but New Mexico has made clear it will not honor the appellate holding without a court order forcing compliance.
Background
The fight over waiting periods predates this case by more than a decade. In Silvester v. Harris (2014), the Ninth Circuit upheld California's 10-day wait under the older two-step framework that courts used before 2022. That era ended with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Bruen requires the government to show that a firearm regulation fits within the nation's historical tradition of gun regulation. Balancing public safety against gun rights no longer decides the case. The Supreme Court's 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi clarified that courts look for analogous principles, not identical historical laws. In Ortega, the Tenth Circuit applied that test and found New Mexico's wait lacked a sufficient historical foundation. The state's 2024 enactment of HB 129 came after that legal shift, and it now faces a federal appellate ruling directly on point. The new suit tests whether a federal circuit decision binds a state beyond the named parties.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
New Mexico residents who pass a background check today still wait out the clock. That delay hits first-time buyers, people buying for home defense, and anyone who needs a firearm quickly after a threat. Dealers feel it too. A customer who must return later often walks away, and that lost sale hurts small shops in Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Santa Fe. Anyone who owns a New Mexico FFL or represents one should check whether their business qualifies as an SAF member or falls under the NSSF or NRA plaintiffs' coverage. Buyers in the state should document every approval date and pickup date. If a court extends relief, those records prove the wait applied. Watch the docket in New Mexico federal court for any motion for a preliminary injunction. A quick ruling would change the timeline for every buyer in the state, not only the plaintiffs.
DownRange Analysis
This case tests the Tenth Circuit's authority over a state that openly refuses to follow it. The state will need to defend the wait with historical analogues, and Bruen makes that a heavy burden. A 2024 statute has no deep roots in American firearm regulation. The Ninth Circuit's Silvester ruling does not carry the weight it once did, because the court applied the pre-Bruen framework. Expect the state to lean on the 'cooling off' concept rather than any clear historical precedent. That argument has not won under Bruen in the courts that matter most here. For gun owners, the practical move is simple. If you plan to buy in New Mexico, ask your dealer how the state's waiting period works today and get the timeline in writing. Keep your approval paperwork. Join or support the plaintiff organizations if you live there. The Tenth Circuit has already spoken, and the next ruling will show whether that matters to Santa Fe.
