Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period is back in federal court. Technically, it never left.
The Second Amendment Foundation, NSSF and several partners have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in NSSF v. Torrez. They want a federal judge to block the state from enforcing its waiting-period law against the plaintiffs, their members and their customers while the new lawsuit moves forward.
That may sound familiar because a federal appeals court already ruled against the same law.
Table of contents
Buyers Still Wait After Passing NICS
New Mexico enacted House Bill 129 in 2024. It generally requires buyers to wait seven calendar days before receiving a firearm, even after passing the required background check.
The law includes exceptions for certain transactions and buyers, including holders of New Mexico concealed handgun licenses.
Violating the waiting period can result in misdemeanor charges for both the seller and buyer.
Supporters call it a “cooling-off” period intended to reduce impulsive violence and suicide. Gun-rights groups argue the state cannot force qualified buyers to wait before exercising a constitutional right.
Didn’t the Courts Already Settle This?
That is where things get a little messy.
In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in Ortega v. Grisham that the waiting period likely violated the Second Amendment when applied to buyers who had cleared their background checks.
The court said New Mexico failed to identify a comparable historical tradition of forcing eligible citizens to wait before obtaining a firearm. It reversed the district court and instructed it to issue injunctive relief.
On remand, the district court entered judgment for the two Ortega plaintiffs. However, the resulting injunction protected only those named individuals.
SEE ALSO: Henry Golden Boy Deadeye Review: .22 LR Gets Sharper
New Mexico therefore continues enforcing the law against everyone else.
That is not technically a violation of the existing injunction because the order was limited to the original plaintiffs. However, SAF and NSSF argue that continuing enforcement ignores the Tenth Circuit’s broader constitutional analysis.
Put simply, the appeals court said the waiting period is unconstitutional in this context, but the original court order did not protect every New Mexico gun buyer.
New Case Seeks Broader Protection
The plaintiffs in NSSF v. Torrez are asking the court to extend protection to a much larger group.
The case includes:
- National Shooting Sports Foundation
- National Rifle Association
- Second Amendment Foundation
- New Mexico Firearms Industry Association
- New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
- Calibers Shooting Sports Center
- Omni Tactical USA
- Right to Bear Arms
- New Mexico resident Peter Hackett
Their motion asks the court to stop Attorney General Raúl Torrez and those under his supervision from enforcing HB129 against the organizations, their members and their customers.
“A motion for preliminary injunction is a way of asking the court for emergency relief,” SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack explained.
NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence Keane said the state should not be allowed to continue enforcing a law the Tenth Circuit has already found constitutionally defective.
Now It Is Back to the Judge
The latest motion does not automatically suspend New Mexico’s waiting period. The law remains enforceable against anyone not protected by the earlier order unless the court grants the new injunction.
Still, the plaintiffs enter this round with a major advantage. They are making essentially the same constitutional argument that already prevailed before the Tenth Circuit.
New Mexico can continue fighting over who is protected by the earlier ruling. The harder question will be explaining why the same seven-day delay should suddenly survive when applied to a different group of otherwise qualified buyers.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
