“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”.
While this is good news for now, it was a 2–1 decision by a three-judge panel, and New Mexico will very likely appeal to the full Ninth Circuit en banc.”
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.
By NRAHQ
