The Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied New Mexico’s petition for an en banc rehearing of the lawsuit challenging the “Land of Enchantment’s” seven-day waiting period for gun transfers. Consequently, an earlier ruling that invalidates the law will stand.
The case Ortega v. Griffin targets a 2024 New Mexico law requiring individuals to wait seven days before taking possession of a newly purchased firearm—even after passing a background check and demonstrating that they are not prohibited from owning firearms. The law also states: “If the required federal instant background check has not been completed within twenty days, the seller may transfer the firearm to the buyer.” Under current federal law, if there is a NICS delay and the system doesn’t respond within three days of the background check, the FFL may complete the transaction.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) filed a lawsuit challenging the law the same day it was enacted.
On August 19, a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court ruled that the waiting period violated the Second Amendment.
“Cooling-off periods infringe on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms,” the court ruling stated. “Cooling off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment’s scope. In this preliminary posture, we conclude that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens. We also conclude the other preliminary injunction factors are met and that Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction.”
The ruling further explained: “Nothing in the record suggests that the historically understood right to keep and bear arms tolerated universal and indiscriminate burdens on purchasing or acquiring firearms with no way to enjoy the full right. This principle cannot clarify the Second Amendment’s scope because the principle itself contradicts the Second Amendment’s existence. No meaningful limitation could be placed on the government’s power to regulate firearms, disarm the citizenry, or criminalize firearm use if we accepted every regulation that is based on a fear that someone somewhere would likely misuse a gun.”
As we’ve pointed out before, according to a fact sheet on waiting periods from the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), there is no evidence that waiting periods reduce suicides, homicides, or mass shootings. In fact, no studies that identify causal effects have been identified by any of the independent literature reviews conducted since 2004.
“Waiting periods are arbitrary impositions with no effect on crime or suicide, introduce no additional investigative avenues and only burden law-abiding gun owners without changing how or when criminals obtain firearms,” the fact sheet states.
NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) lauded the 10th Circuit’s recent refusal to grant an en banc hearing and let the earlier ruling stand.
“This decision restores the rights of New Mexicans and also impacts gun owners throughout the Tenth Circuit, including those in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma,” NRA-ILA wrote in a December 23 news item.
