Ruled Unconstitutional, Still Enforced on Everyone but Two People: SAF, NSSF and NRA Ask Federal Judge to Stop New Mexico’s 7-Day Gun Waiting Period

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

ALBUQUERQUE, NM — The Second Amendment Foundation, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Rifle Association and six other plaintiffs asked a federal judge on Oct. 22 to stop New Mexico from enforcing its seven-day firearm waiting period against them and their members. The Tenth Circuit has already held that law unconstitutional for buyers who pass a federal background check. The motion was filed in NSSF v. Torrez, Case No. 1:26-cv-03514, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. It names Attorney General Raúl Torrez in his official capacity.

SAF announced the filing on Oct. 23. The motion asks for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order blocking enforcement of a law while the lawsuit is still being decided. The other plaintiffs are:

• New Mexico Firearms Industry Association
• New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
• Three Albuquerque-area-linked gun dealers: Calibers Shooting Sports Center, Omni Tactical USA and Right to Bear Arms
• Retired Albuquerque police sergeant Peter Hackett

The law at issue started as House Bill 129 in 2024 and is codified at N.M. Stat. §30-7-7.3. It requires a waiting period of seven calendar days between the sale of a firearm and its transfer to the buyer. The clock includes the time for the federal background check. According to the motion, most of those checks clear within minutes, yet the buyer still waits the full week. If seven days pass without a completed check, the dealer cannot hand over the gun until the check is done or 20 days have gone by. Violating the law is a crime for both buyer and seller. The statute exempts:

• Buyers with a federal firearms license
• Buyers holding a valid New Mexico concealed handgun license
• Law enforcement agencies
• Sales between officers
• Sales between immediate family members

This law has already lost in court. In Ortega v. Grisham, two New Mexicans sued, and in August 2025 the Tenth Circuit held HB129 unconstitutional. It called the law “obviously unconstitutional” as applied to people who pass the federal background check. The court remanded the case, meaning it sent it back to the trial court with instructions. It then denied the state’s request for rehearing by the full court. On Aug. 26, 2026, the district court granted summary judgment for the Ortega plaintiffs, a final ruling in their favor without a trial.

“That should have been the end of any contention by New Mexico that it can continue enforcing HB129,” the motion says. “New Mexico has chosen a different path.”

The Ortega case had two plaintiffs, Samuel Ortega and Rebecca Scott. The motion says that when the plaintiffs’ lawyers asked whether the state would stop enforcing the law, the state’s counsel said New Mexico can and will enforce HB129 against everyone except those two people. The motion also says state officials, publicly and privately, warned that buyers and sellers who don’t comply should be prepared to face criminal charges in state court.

Here is what that looks like at the counter. Two people in New Mexico can pass a background check and take a handgun home that day. Every other qualified buyer outside the statutory exemptions waits seven days, under threat of prosecution, for the same transaction a federal appeals court has already said the state cannot delay.

Hackett is the individual face of the new case. According to his declaration, he served more than 20 years with the Albuquerque Police Department and retired in 2013 as a sergeant. He carries identification as a qualified retired officer under the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. He does not hold a New Mexico concealed handgun license, so the waiting period applies to him. He planned to buy a Glock 21 Gen 5 MOS for self-defense on or about Oct. 24 from Right to Bear Arms in Albuquerque. He says that but for the law, he would take possession the day of purchase, as soon as the federal check cleared.

Under this law, a man who wore an Albuquerque police badge for two decades waits a week for a pistol he has already been cleared to own.

The dealers describe the business side. Declarations filed with the motion say customers regularly come in to buy a firearm and leave without one because of the seven-day wait. Because the state cannot be sued for money damages here, the motion argues, that lost business is irreparable harm, meaning damage a court cannot fix later with a check. The brief also argues that dealers have standing, the legal right to bring the claim, on behalf of their customers. It says the organizations have standing on behalf of their New Mexico members.

The core legal argument is short: the Tenth Circuit already decided this. The motion also leans on the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Wolford v. Lopez. It argues that any law burdening people who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights must be justified by the nation’s history of firearm regulation. On that history, the brief draws a line between older waiting periods and HB129. It says earlier waiting periods existed to give authorities time to check whether a buyer was prohibited. By contrast, it says cooling-off laws like HB129 “simply delay the exercise of Second Amendment rights for the sake of delay.”

That distinction matters. A background check answers a question about the buyer. Once it is answered and the buyer is cleared, the remaining days of HB129 answer nothing.

“A motion for preliminary injunction is a way of asking the court for emergency relief,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And when citizens are being forced to adhere to a law that violates their fundamental rights, that is the very definition of an emergency. The state has announced both publicly and privately that anyone refusing to comply with the waiting period law will face charges.”

“It takes a special kind of arrogance to ignore a court order and continue enforcing a law that has been ruled to be unconstitutional, yet here we are,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

More from USA Carry:

• Congress Zeroed the $200 Tax and Kept the Registry. A Federal Judge in Texas Just Ruled It Cannot Have Both
• Two DUIs From the Early 2000s, a Lifetime Gun Ban He Never Knew He Had: Third Circuit En Banc Rules the Felon Ban Unconstitutional as Applied to a Pennsylvania Man
• Judge Rules USPS Gun Bans Unconstitutional At “Ordinary” Post Offices
• Tennessee Fights to Revive Two Gun Laws a Court Already Called Unconstitutional
• Justice Department Says You Can Carry for Self-Defense in a Post Office, and the Postal Service Ban Cannot Be Enforced

The court has not ruled on the motion, and the state has not yet responded. According to the filing, New Mexico Solicitor General Aletheia Allen said the state Department of Justice had not entered the case and would not take a position on any motions yet. The plaintiffs presume the state will oppose. The relief requested covers the plaintiffs, their customers and their members while the case proceeds, not every buyer in the state. Until a judge acts, the seven-day wait remains the rule at New Mexico gun counters for anyone not covered by Ortega or the statutory exemptions. The right mindset for a buyer there right now is to plan for that wait, not test the state on it.

I will continue tracking NSSF v. Torrez as the motion moves through the District of New Mexico.

Read the original story: Ruled Unconstitutional, Still Enforced on Everyone but Two People: SAF, NSSF and NRA Ask Federal Judge to Stop New Mexico’s 7-Day Gun Waiting Period