Court blocks New Mexico's waiting period for gun purchases

In May 2024, New Mexico enacted a law imposing a seven-day waiting period for nearly all firearm purchases, intended to minimize impulsive acts of violence and suicide. However, this law faced legal challenges that culminated in a decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court found the waiting period likely infringed upon the Second Amendment rights of citizens and halted the implementation of the law pending further legal review. The court concluded that the waiting period could not be justified under historical traditions of firearm regulation and ruled in favor of plaintiffs who claimed the law unnecessarily delayed access to firearms for victims of domestic violence. The ruling brought significant attention as it highlighted the constitutional tensions surrounding gun control laws in the United States. It suggested that, while some waiting periods for other purposes (such as marriage licenses) might be permissible, the blanket seven-day cooling-off rule applied to firearm purchases lacked sufficient grounding in historical legal precedents. The names of plaintiffs, backed by the Mountain States Legal Foundation and the National Rifle Association (NRA), argued that the law discriminated against lawful citizens and was a pretext for broader gun control measures. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham expressed disappointment with the court's ruling, asserting that the waiting period was crafted to enhance public safety and prevent impulsive decisions during crises. Despite these arguments, the court ruled that the law did not align with traditionally accepted firearm regulations and encouraged a notion of presumed irresponsibility among all prospective firearm purchasers. Legal experts suggest that the implications of this ruling could extend beyond New Mexico, potentially impacting similar laws in states like California and Illinois. The legal landscape surrounding gun purchases continues to evolve rapidly, and the outcome of this case may serve as a precedent for ongoing debates about Second Amendment rights across the nation.