NRA Victory! 10th Circuit holds New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period unconstitutional in Ortega v. Grisham, a case brought by NRA and @MSLF, with the support of @NSSF. pic.twitter.com/u9tniwJd5t
— NRA (@NRA) August 19, 2025
Denver, CO — In a major win for gun rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit struck down New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases, ruling it unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in Ortega v. Grisham.
The case was brought by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Mountain States Legal Foundation, with support from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Plaintiffs Samuel Ortega, a retired law enforcement officer, and Rebecca Scott both challenged the law after being forced to wait a full week for their firearms—despite passing federal background checks immediately.
Court Rejects “Cooling Off” Justification
Writing for the majority, Judge Timothy Tymkovich made clear that the law violated the constitutional right to acquire arms. He stated:
“Cooling-off periods infringe on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms. 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”.
The court also emphasized that the law’s one-size-fits-all approach wrongly treated every citizen as dangerous simply for wanting to buy a firearm. Tymkovich compared the burden to imposing a one-week delay on free speech or church attendance, calling such delays obviously unconstitutional.
NRA: A Nationwide Impact
The NRA hailed the ruling as a victory not just for New Mexico, but for all Americans living under similar restrictions.
“In courtrooms across America, the NRA is successfully leading the charge to protect law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” said John Commerford, NRA-ILA’s Executive Director. “The 10th Circuit has sided with the NRA and held that radical waiting period laws are indeed unconstitutional. This decision not only impacts gun owners in New Mexico but serves as a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country.”
Historical Tradition Comes Up Short
New Mexico defended its law by pointing to past restrictions, including intoxication bans and licensing regimes. The court rejected those arguments, noting that historic laws only applied to narrow groups (such as intoxicated individuals) and were not blanket bans on the general population. Judge Tymkovich wrote:
“History is consistent with common sense: legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. New Mexico makes no effort to distinguish the dangerous from the law-abiding”.
What Comes Next
The case now returns to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico for the entry of a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of the law.
For gun owners, the decision is a powerful reaffirmation that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right.” As Judge Tymkovich reminded, “One cannot keep or bear arms if one cannot acquire them”.
