NRA, SAF, NSSF Sue New Mexico Again Over 7-Day Gun Waiting Period After Court Defeat
New Mexico is facing another federal lawsuit over its seven-day firearm waiting period after state officials refused to stop enforcing the law against most gun buyers, despite a federal appeals court ruling that found the restriction unconstitutional.
On October 19, 2026, the National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), and six additional plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against Attorney General Raúl Torrez. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the state from continuing to enforce a mandatory waiting period that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has already determined violates the Second Amendment when applied to firearm purchasers who pass their federal background checks.
The 20-page complaint, filed as National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Raúl Torrez, Case No. 1:26-cv-03514, follows the gun-rights victory in Ortega v. Grisham. In that case, the Tenth Circuit rejected New Mexico’s constitutional justification for forcing law-abiding citizens to wait seven days before taking possession of a firearm. Despite that ruling and a subsequent final judgment in federal district court, New Mexico officials have maintained that the restriction remains enforceable against nearly everyone in the state.
As AmmoLand previously reported, U.S. District Judge James O. Browning entered final judgment in favor of plaintiffs Samuel Ortega and Rebecca Scott on August 27, 2026. However, the injunction protects only those two individuals, leaving other New Mexico residents subject to the same seven-day delay. Rather than voluntarily ending enforcement against other qualified gun buyers, state officials have insisted that everyone outside the original judgment must continue complying with the law.
According to the new complaint, attorneys representing the plaintiffs contacted New Mexico’s legal counsel following the Ortega decision to determine whether the state would stop enforcing the restriction. The attorneys hoped to avoid additional litigation, but the state’s response eliminated that possibility. The complaint alleges that New Mexico’s attorneys confirmed the state would continue enforcing the waiting period against everyone except Ortega and Scott, even after the Tenth Circuit had characterized the restriction as unconstitutional.
NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane criticized New Mexico officials for continuing to enforce the waiting period despite the previous federal court decisions.
“New Mexico’s Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Raúl Torrez are blatantly and unconstitutionally enforcing New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period law, despite it having twice been held to violate Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Mexicans,” stated Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “Criminals do not purchase firearms at retail and do not submit to a waiting period before illegally obtaining a gun. This unconstitutional law only impacts law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their constitutional rights to purchase and possess a firearm for lawful purposes. Twice now federal courts have ruled this law is unconstitutional. It is outrageous that the governor and attorney general are still moving ahead to enforce an unconstitutional law. It is a grotesque misuse of government power, a waste of taxpayer money and puts law-abiding citizens at risk while doing nothing to punish criminals. NSSF is confident we will be victorious in court.”
Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut also condemned New Mexico’s decision to continue enforcing the waiting period, arguing that state officials are disregarding the authority of the federal judiciary and forcing gun owners into additional litigation to secure rights already recognized by the Tenth Circuit.
“It’s incredibly concerning that state officials would flaunt a federal circuit decision and publicly boast of their intentions to continue to enforce an unconstitutional law,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “This is a slap in the face to the judicial system simply because the attorney general in New Mexico feels the Second Amendment is a second-class right. SAF is thrilled to be joining the plaintiff organizations from Ortega in this new challenge to get the rights of as many New Mexico residents vindicated as absolutely possible.”
The statements reflect the central dispute driving the new lawsuit. The Tenth Circuit has already rejected New Mexico’s constitutional justification for its mandatory waiting period, yet the state continues enforcing the restriction against purchasers outside the original injunction. Rather than voluntarily bringing its enforcement practices into line with the appellate ruling, New Mexico has left additional gun owners, firearm retailers, and Second Amendment organizations seeking protection through another federal lawsuit.
New Mexico Continues Enforcing a Waiting Period the Tenth Circuit Rejected
New Mexico enacted its seven-day waiting period in 2024 when Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed House Bill 129. The law requires most firearm purchasers to wait seven calendar days before taking possession of a gun, regardless of whether they have already passed the required federal background check. Exemptions exist for certain transactions involving federally licensed firearm dealers, individuals with valid New Mexico concealed handgun licenses, law enforcement, and immediate family members. Buyers and sellers who violate the statute can face misdemeanor charges.
New Mexico lawmakers justified the seven-day waiting period by claiming that forcing gun buyers to undergo a mandatory cooling-off period would reduce impulsive violence and suicides. But the Second Amendment does not give the government authority to suspend a constitutional right for seven days based on speculative public-safety benefits. There is no historical tradition dating to the Founding that supports forcing law-abiding Americans to wait before taking possession of firearms. As the Tenth Circuit recognized in Ortega, the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them, and a mandatory delay directly burdens that right. New Mexico cannot manufacture constitutional authority for its waiting period simply by declaring that lawful gun owners need time to cool off.
That justification failed before the Tenth Circuit in August 2025. The appellate court recognized that the Second Amendment protects more than the ability to possess firearms someone already owns; it necessarily encompasses the right to acquire them. A law that prevents an eligible individual from taking possession of a firearm burdens the exercise of that constitutional right, even when the restriction is temporary. The court also rejected New Mexico’s attempts to justify its waiting period through historical laws addressing intoxication, permitting requirements, and other firearm restrictions, finding that those regulations were not sufficiently comparable to the state’s blanket delay.
New Mexico sought rehearing before the full Tenth Circuit, but the request was rejected by a 10-2 vote. The case subsequently returned to federal district court, where Judge Browning entered judgment for Ortega and Scott. Although the state has appealed that judgment, the Tenth Circuit’s published constitutional ruling remains controlling precedent within its jurisdiction unless overturned.
The latest lawsuit challenges the state’s decision to continue enforcing HB 129 against other purchasers rather than recognizing the implications of that ruling. The plaintiffs argue that New Mexico cannot simply ignore binding appellate precedent because the original lawsuit involved only two gun owners. They are now seeking relief that would protect additional purchasers, firearm retailers, and members of the organizations bringing the challenge.
Former Police Officer Among Plaintiffs Challenging the Waiting Period
The lawsuit brings together several major Second Amendment organizations and New Mexico firearm businesses. Alongside the NRA, SAF, and NSSF are the New Mexico Firearms Industry Association, New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, Calibers Shooting Sports Center, Omni Tactical USA, and Right to Bear Arms. These organizations and retailers contend that the state’s continued enforcement exposes their members, customers, and businesses to potential criminal prosecution for firearm transfers that would otherwise be lawful.
The complaint also identifies an individual plaintiff whose circumstances demonstrate how broadly the waiting period operates. Peter Hackett is a former Albuquerque Police Department officer who served for more than 20 years and currently holds a federal Q security clearance, equivalent to a Top Secret clearance, through the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. According to the filing, Hackett intends to purchase a Glock 21 Gen 5 MOS handgun for self-defense from Right to Bear Arms in Albuquerque on or about October 24, 2026.
Despite Hackett’s law enforcement background, federal security clearance, and legal eligibility to possess firearms, New Mexico’s law would prevent him from taking immediate possession of the handgun. The state does not allege that he is dangerous or otherwise disqualified from owning a firearm. The delay exists solely because the legislature imposed a mandatory waiting period on purchasers who do not qualify for one of the statutory exemptions.
Hackett’s situation illustrates the fundamental problem with a blanket cooling-off requirement. The state is not responding to evidence that a particular individual poses a threat. Instead, it is delaying the exercise of a constitutional right by people who have already satisfied the government’s eligibility requirements. Under that approach, even individuals with extensive law enforcement experience and federal security clearances are treated as though they cannot be trusted to acquire a firearm without additional government-imposed delay.
Waiting Periods Lack the Historical Justification Required by Bruen
The new complaint also challenges the historical foundation of mandatory firearm waiting periods under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling requires the government to demonstrate that firearm regulations burdening conduct protected by the Second Amendment are consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, rather than relying on judicial assessments of whether a restriction might produce desirable public-policy outcomes.
According to the complaint, mandatory firearm waiting periods did not appear in American law until the twentieth century, long after the ratification of the Second Amendment. Early waiting-period requirements were generally associated with the time needed for authorities to conduct background investigations before computerized records and instant-check systems became available. States such as California and New Jersey adopted delays that allowed law enforcement officials to investigate prospective purchasers, rather than imposing cooling-off periods on people whose eligibility had already been established.
The development of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System substantially changed that process. Federal statistics cited in the lawsuit indicate that more than 90% of background checks are completed within seconds or minutes, eliminating the original investigatory justification for lengthy delays in most transactions. Congress itself moved away from the Brady Act’s temporary five-day waiting period when NICS became operational, allowing qualifying firearm transfers to proceed under federal law after three business days even when a background check remains unresolved.
New Mexico’s law takes a different approach. Even when a background check produces an immediate approval, the purchaser generally must wait until the seven-calendar-day period expires before receiving the firearm. If a required background check remains unresolved after seven days, the state imposes additional restrictions on when the transfer may proceed. The result is a statutory delay that operates independently of whether the government has identified any reason to prohibit the purchaser from possessing a firearm.
The plaintiffs argue that this type of restriction has no meaningful historical analogue and cannot be justified simply by labeling it a commercial regulation. The Tenth Circuit already agreed that New Mexico’s waiting period was not comparable to longstanding conditions governing firearm sales. Instead, the court found that preventing law-abiding individuals from taking possession of firearms for a fixed period directly burdens the right protected by the Second Amendment.
New Lawsuit Follows Supreme Court’s Decision Not to Hear Maine Waiting-Period Challenge
The new challenge arrives during an important period for Second Amendment litigation involving firearm acquisition. On October 19, the same day the New Mexico complaint was filed, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Beckwith v. Frey, a challenge to Maine’s mandatory 72-hour firearm waiting period.
As AmmoLand reported, the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the case leaves unresolved a disagreement between federal appeals courts over the constitutional protection afforded to firearm purchases. The First Circuit upheld Maine’s waiting period under an interpretation that treated firearm acquisition as falling outside the Second Amendment’s plain text, while the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Ortega, recognizing that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily protects the ability to obtain them.
The Supreme Court’s denial of review does not establish that waiting periods are constitutional, nor does it erase the Tenth Circuit’s decision. Instead, firearm purchasers remain subject to differing interpretations of the Second Amendment depending on which federal judicial circuit has jurisdiction over their state. In New Mexico, the problem goes further because state officials continue enforcing a waiting-period statute against most purchasers even after the controlling appellate court rejected its constitutional justification.
Gun Rights Groups Seek to End Continued Enforcement
The new lawsuit asks the federal court to declare HB 129 unconstitutional as applied to law-abiding citizens whose background checks clear in less than 72 hours. It also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing Attorney General Torrez and officials subject to his supervision, direction, or control from enforcing the law against the plaintiffs, their members, and their customers. The plaintiffs are additionally requesting attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing the litigation.
The requested injunction would extend protection beyond the two individuals who prevailed in Ortega, although the new court has not yet ruled on those requests. The complaint makes clear that the plaintiffs are seeking additional relief because New Mexico has chosen to continue enforcing the waiting period despite the Tenth Circuit’s decision and the district court’s subsequent judgment.
The Second Amendment does not grant state officials the authority to impose arbitrary delays on lawful firearm ownership simply because they believe Americans should be forced to wait before exercising a constitutional right. A purchaser who has passed the required background check has already satisfied the process designed to determine whether the individual is legally eligible to possess a firearm. Requiring that person to wait another seven days does nothing to establish eligibility; it merely prevents the immediate exercise of a right the Constitution protects.
New Mexico has already lost the constitutional argument supporting its waiting period in the Tenth Circuit, yet state officials have continued enforcing the restriction against residents who were not parties to the original lawsuit. Now, nine additional plaintiffs are asking a federal court to stop that enforcement against them, their customers, and their members.
The right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them. Americans should not have to file lawsuit after lawsuit to exercise a constitutional right that the courts have already recognized.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.