This morning, I receive an email from the NSSF, the firearm trade association on the status of the 7-day waiting period for gun purchases in New Mexico.
It reads as follows:
New Mexico 7-Day Waiting Period Update
Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in an NSSF®-supported challenge Ortega v. Grisham that New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases infringes on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms by those who had already passed a NICS check. The case was remanded to the district court, which entered a preliminary injunction as to the named plaintiffs. On August 27, the district court determined that it was bound by the Tenth Circuit’s decision that the law is unconstitutional and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs.
It is NSSF’s position that the Tenth Circuit was clear that the law is unconstitutional as to individuals who receive a “proceed” from NICS. However, the New Mexico Governor’s office has advised lawyers handling the Ortega case that the state fully intends to enforce the statute against FFLs who are not a party to the case. While NSSF strongly disagrees with the state’s threat to enforce this unconstitutional law, we recommend that FFLs for the time being refrain from transferring firearms to customers who have passed a NICS before the seven day waiting period expires. Lawyers handling the Ortega case are exploring all available legal options in response to the state’s position, including filing additional legal challenges. NSSF will provide further updates as matters develop.
This is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. You are encouraged to consult with your own attorney before making any decisions.
A New Mexico Federal Court made a decision on the 7-day waiting period that is confusing at best and is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the the U.S. Constitution at worst.
The ruling states that two plaintiffs don't have to be subjected to the waiting period while other New Mexico citizens still are subject to the law. This means we all have to wait for our 2A rights while the plaintiffs get theirs by this decision. Ridiculous!
FEDERAL COURT RULES ON NEW MEXICO’S SEVEN-DAY WAITING PERIOD
Federal court enjoins enforcement of New Mexico’s firearms waiting period law for only the two named plaintiffs in Ortega v. Grisham, but allows government to delay the exercise of Second Amendment rights for all other citizens of New Mexico
LAKEWOOD, Colo. (August 28, 2026) — Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) and its Center to Keep & Bear Arms is disappointed to announce a decision in Ortega v. Grishamthat leaves New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period largely in place.
New Mexico’s waiting-period law requires nearly every firearm purchaser to wait seven days before taking possession of a firearm—even after completing the required background check. MSLF represents New Mexico residents Samuel Ortega and Rebecca Scott, who challenged the law as a violation of their Second Amendment rights.
The case began in May 2024, when MSLF filed a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction on behalf of Ortega and Scott. Two months later, U.S. District Court Judge James O. Browning denied the request, finding that the plaintiffs had not established that the waiting period law was unconstitutional. MSLF appealed that decision.
In August 2025, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a significant ruling in the case. The court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to acquire firearms and concluded that New Mexico had failed to demonstrate a historical tradition supporting its seven-day waiting period law. The Tenth Circuit sent the case back to the district court in Albuquerque for further proceedings.
Yesterday, Judge Browning issued a final judgment in the case. Although the judge stated that he continued to believe that the waiting period law was constitutional, he acknowledged that he was “bound by the Tenth Circuit’s decision and the law of the case.” As a result, he permanently prohibited New Mexico from enforcing the waiting-period law against Ortega and Scott.
So, while this ruling provides a total victory for our clients, it appears to leave millions of other law-abiding New Mexicans seemingly still subject to the same seven-day waiting period.
For that reason, MSLF strongly disagrees with the court’s watered-down ruling.
“Unfortunately, Judge Browning decided to take King Solomon up on his ‘great’ idea to split the baby. Big mistake,” said Michael McCoy, Director of MSLF’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms. “What a mess this is going to cause! All Judge Browning’s decision is going to do is create mass confusion among individual citizens and gun store owners in New Mexico over the status of the law. The decision prevents the state from enforcing the waiting period law against our two named plaintiffs, but leaves open the ability of the state to enforce the law against the other 2.12 million people who live in New Mexico. Will each of them need to bring their own individual lawsuits to acquire a similar injunction? Ridiculous! In trying to reach some sort of middle ground, the district court has failed to do what the 10th Circuit made clear needed to be done … declare New Mexico’s waiting period law unconstitutional and permanently enjoin enforcement of it except as to those individuals whose background checks have not yet cleared.”
MSLF strongly disagrees with the court’s decision. Except for our two named plaintiffs, New Mexico may continue to impose an arbitrary seven-day delay on law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right—even after they have completed the required background check. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms; it does not give the government permission to decide when that right may be exercised.
While this decision is not the clear and complete victory we were hoping for, it is not the end of the fight. MSLF will continue defending the Second Amendment and will consider every available avenue to ensure that the constitutional rights of law-abiding New Mexicans are fully protected.
A proposed "assault weapons" ban was considered in the most recent New Mexico legislative session. Fortunately, the measure failed to pass.
Currently, a proposed assault weapons ban is sitting on the desk of Virginia's governor. Citizens have been rallying to urge a veto of the unconstitutional bill.
The American Rifleman online website discusses the unconstitutionality of semi-automatic assault weapons bans by leftist Democrats.
They begin it with:
If the logical application of the rule of law means anything in this constitutional republic, bans on massively popular semi-automatic firearms will be found unconstitutional.
That might seem a bold claim to Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D), who, as this is being written, seemed poised to sign a ban on yet another political definition of the term “assault weapon.”
This would make Virginia the 12th state with some such ban on some version of the definition of the politically shape-shifting term “assault weapon.”
Before stepping into the semantic and legal rhetoric of the potential Virginia ban on sales of America’s rifle—and the NRA’s coming legal response—some context is always beneficial.
The wacko leftist Democrats in the New Mexico senate passed a bad gun control bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Much of the bill, Senate Bill 17, is seen as already unconstitutional, but that doesn't stop the Democrats from passing it anyway. A lawsuit is guaranteed if it is passed and signed into law.
From the NRA-ILA:
Last night, the New Mexico Senate Judiciary Committee passed Senate Bill 17, an omnibus gun control package that would severely undermine the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Mexicans and threaten the viability of local firearm retailers. SB 17 could come up for a floor vote in the Senate at any time! Use the Take Action link below to contact your Senator and express your strong opposition to SB 17.
Senate Bill 17, introduced by Senators Micaelita Debbie O’Malley, Andrea Romero, and Heather Berghmans, would unconstitutionally strip law-abiding New Mexicans of their Second Amendment rights by banning common gas-operated semiautomatic firearms, .50 caliber rifles, and magazines holding more than ten rounds under the guise of labeling them as “extremely dangerous weapons.”
The bill further targets the firearms industry by imposing excessive and costly bureaucratic mandates on local firearm dealers, including invasive “site hardening” security requirements and unrealistic 24-hour response deadlines for law enforcement trace requests.
The article has a widget for people who oppose the bill to take action.
Slowly, but surely, the courts are striking down California's wacko gun laws.
This time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the state's ban on open-carry of firearms.
Fox News reported:
A federal appeals court on Friday struck down California’s ban on openly carrying guns across most of the state.
In a 2–1 decision, the San Francisco-based Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled California's ban on open carry in counties with more than 200,000 people — covering roughly 95% of the state’s population — violates the Second Amendment, according to Reuters.
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, writing for the majority, said the ban conflicts with the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s "historical tradition of firearm regulation," Reuters reported.
The seven-day waiting period for gun purchases enacted by the New Mexico Democrats has been effectively ruled unconstitutional by the 10th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.
A panel of the court ruled the law was unconstitutional last summer but was sent to the full court. But they decided not to re-hear the case.
From KOB 4:
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – The seven-day waiting period for buying a gun in New Mexico remains on hold due to a Federal Court of Appeals decision.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which oversees New Mexico, upheld a ruling from last summer after two individuals and the National Rifle Association challenged the waiting period law. The law, passed by state legislators last year, was found to violate the Second Amendment.
This is definitely a victory for Second Amendment backers in New Mexico.
Currently under federal statute, a person who regularly uses marijuana cannot possess a firearm.
This goes against the Second Amendment's rights afforded to people.
The Supreme Court will hear a case calling to question the constitutionality of the statute.
Pew Pew Tactical posted:
More than 90 petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration, with the justices only agreeing to hear three – one of which will settle the debate on marijuana use and gun possession.
In a six-page orders list, the Supreme Court said it would hear United States v. Hemani – the only gun-related issue to be argued in front of justices this term.
The case aims to get to the bottom of whether federal statute 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment. The statute currently prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who ‘is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.’
Just as soon as California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law AB1127, which bans some Glock handguns, gun rights groups challenged the law's constitutionality and immediately filed suit.
As I am no longer a resident of California and don't own Glock pistols, I personally have no dog in this fight. But many people do own Glocks and reside in California.
Guns.com posted the following on the lawsuit:
Describing the state's wacky new ban on Glock and Glock-like pistols as "flagrantly unconstitutional," gun rights groups filed a federal lawsuit against the state of California on Monday.
The legal challenge, Jaymes v. Bonta, was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, a licensed firearms retailer, and two individuals, against California Attorney General Rob Bonta in his official capacity.
The suit takes aim at AB 1127, which was passed by the Democrat-controlled state legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Oct. 10. The new law, which becomes effective in July 2026 as California Penal Code § 27595(a), bans the sale or transfer of semi-automatic Glock and Glock-style handguns with cruciform trigger bars under the pretext that they can be illegally converted to full-auto machine pistols.
The groups challenge the ban on the contention that semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars are not different from any other type of semiautomatic handgun in a constitutionally relevant way, and that Glocks and Glock clones are among the most popular designs in modern firearms history, with millions in circulation since the 1980s.
The following came this morning in an email from the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association:
10th Circuit Waiting-Period Case Paused (En Banc Petition Filed)
NMSSA Update:
On August 19, 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit delivered a major win for gun owners in New Mexico. The panel ruled that our state’s seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases likely violates the Second Amendment and directed the lower court to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement.
This was a clear recognition that the law places an unconstitutional burden on the lawful acquisition of firearms. But the fight is not over.
This week, the State of New Mexico filed a petition asking the full Tenth Circuit to rehear the case en banc.
“En banc” means the case would be reconsidered by all active judges of the court, not just the original three-judge panel.
When the State filed this petition, it automatically stayed the mandate — which means the panel’s decision is not currently in effect.
In other words, the seven-day waiting period remains in place until the court decides what to do with the petition.
What happens next
If the court denies rehearing, the mandate will usually issue 7 days later. At that point, the lower court would be required to issue the injunction, blocking the waiting period.
If the court grants rehearing en banc, the panel’s ruling is vacated, and the case will be reconsidered by the full court, which will issue a new decision.
Until then, the status quo continues, and gun owners must remain patient and vigilant.
Why this matters
This case could set an important precedent not only for New Mexico but for the entire Tenth Circuit region. It is another example of how courts across the country are applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard and pushing back against laws that lack historical justification.
NMSSA’s Commitment
Your New Mexico Shooting Sports Association is following this case closely. We will continue to provide timely, accurate updates to keep our members informed. When major changes occur — whether the mandate issues or the full court agrees to rehear the case — you will hear about it from us first.
Thank you for standing with NMSSA in defense of your Second Amendment rights.
— Anthony Segura Executive Director New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
The National Rifle Association (NRA) filed an amicus brief in a court case challenging the constitutionality of Maine's 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases.
Other states have implemented in recent years waiting periods. Last year, for example, New Mexico implemented a seven-day waiting period for gun purchases.
The NRA reported:
On June 5, NRA filed an amicus brief in Beckwith v. Frey, a case challenging Maine’s 72-hour waiting period on firearm purchases.
In March, a federal district court ruled that the waiting-period law likely violates the Second Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. The government then appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. NRA filed its brief in the First Circuit, arguing that the waiting-period law is unconstitutional and that the plaintiffs should ultimately prevail on the merits of the case.
NRA’s brief argues that the Second Amendment’s plain text protects the right to possess arms, and that the right to possess arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them. Therefore, under Supreme Court precedent, the government must justify the law by proving that it is consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
If the Supreme Court should rule (if the case reaches them) that the waiting period law is unconstitutional, that would effectively wipe out similar (and worse) laws in other states.
It looks like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals got one right for a change.
It struck down California's one gun a month (30 days) law first enacted back in 1999. It said it violates the Second Amendment.
According to the NRA-ILA:
Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that California’s law prohibiting people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period violates the Second Amendment.
California enacted its one-gun-a-month law in 1999, at which point it applied only to concealable firearms. By 2024, it applied to all firearms. Several plaintiffs—including six individuals, PWGG, LP, North County Shooting Center, Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, and Second Amendment Foundation—challenged the law in the Southern District of California. After the district court held the law unconstitutional, the state appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Since 18 year olds are adults by law, then they should have all rights that goes along with it. 18 year olds as adults has been around since the early 1970s.
An appeals court has ruled that the federal law banning handgun sales to 18 to 20 year olds is unconstitutional.
CNN reported:
CNN - A conservative federal appeals court said Thursday that a federal law banning the sale of handguns to 18- to 20-year-olds is unconstitutional, elevating a significant question about the Second Amendment’s reach in the wake of recent major Supreme Court rulings on gun rights.
It is the latest major ruling against an age-based firearm restriction and one that comes as the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on how the Second Amendment applies to older teens.
The new ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals pointed to the landmark 2022 Supreme Court ruling known as Bruen that established a historical test for assessing the constitutionality of gun restrictions. It also reviewed the legal challenge against the more recent decision by the Supreme Court that refined the Bruen test while upholding federal restrictions on gun possession for people accused of domestic abuse.
Some good news for California gun owners came from, of all places, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The law limiting gun purchases to one every 30 days has been blocked.
The Desert Sun reported:
A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has blocked enforcement of a longstanding California law limiting residents to one firearm purchase every 30 days.
In March, a federal district court previously struck down the law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but the government sought and obtained a stay on the ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals pending further legal review.
But on Thursday, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit reversed the stay, barring law enforcement without a court's further order.
Above, a card I picked up at Loeffler's Guns in April.
Yesterday, the 7-day waiting period law on gun purchases in New Mexico went into effect.
It was passed by the New Mexico legislature during the 2024 legislative session and signed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.
Yesterday, the National Rifle Association filed suit against this law.
The NRA-ILA posted:
Today, the NRA filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging New Mexico's recently enacted waiting period requirement on firearm purchases. NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch stated:
“The NRA fights every day in Washington, DC, state capitals, and when necessary, the legal arena, to protect the constitutional freedoms of law-abiding Americans and NRA members,” said Randy Kozuch, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “The State of New Mexico’s waiting period law is a clear violation of its citizens' Second Amendment rights – needlessly delaying their ability to acquire a firearm for self-defense or sporting purposes. With this legal challenge, NRA is committed to seeing that this unconstitutional law be wiped from the state statutes.”
2024 is starting out good for California gun owners.
A federal judge has ruled that Californians don't need to pay for and pass a background check every time they buy ammunition.
According to KRCR News:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California residents don't have to pay for and pass a background check every time they buy bullets, a federal judge has ruled.
The Tuesday ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez took effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta asked Benitez on Wednesday to delay the ruling to give him time to appeal the decision. It's unclear if Benitez will grant that request.
Many states, including California, make people pass a background check before they can buy a gun. California goes a step further by making people pass a background check, which cost either $1 or $19 depending on eligibility, every time they buy bullets. A few other states also require background checks for buying ammunition, but most let people buy a license that is good for a few years.
Benitez said California's law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because if people can't buy bullets for their guns, they can't use their guns for self-defense. He criticized the state's automated background check system, which he said rejected about 11% of applicants, or 58,087 requests, in the first half of 2023.
On Monday 1/29, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing both HB27, the red-flag law expansion, and HB129, the house version of a 14 business-day waiting period. The meeting is scheduled for 1:30pm in Room 309 (zoom link). On Tuesday the 30th, the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee will be hearing HB144. The bill would allow the state to funnel taxpayer dollars to gun control organizations. That meeting is scheduled for 1:30pm in Room 317 (zoom link).
Yesterday, HB114, the bill that would make the firearms industry an easy target for litigation that could put them out of business, passed the House Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. The bill now heads for the House Floor. We need everyone to contact their representative and ask them to oppose the bill. The next vote on it is likely our best shot if we are going to stop this from becoming law. Here is a link to a pre-written email to Oppose HB114.
In the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, SB5, the polling place gun ban passed out of the committee on a party-line vote. The bill now heads to the Senate Floor. Here is a link to a pre-written email to Oppose SB5.
While it is frustrating to see gun control bills seemingly roll right through committees, participation from gun owners and Second-Amendment supporters has been noticeably lighter this year. If we are going to stop bad legislation in Santa Fe, we are all need to step up and advocate for our rights.
It was inevitable. The Democrats who control the legislature in Santa Fe, New Mexico have made their move.
From Rep. Stefani Lord at 'X':
🚨They. Are. Coming. For. Your. Guns.🚨
@GovMLG is frothing at the mouth to pass this bill that bans ALL semi-auto rifles, leaving you with only bolt action, lever action, single shot, muzzleloaders, .22 caliber, and mandatory 10-round permanently fixed (cannot be removed without a tool) magazines.
To keep track of this insanity, they WILL need a gun registry!
Here's the bill:
It used to be that Democrats were cautious during an election year. Not anymore. The ultra-left socialists have taken over the Democrat Party and are no longer cautious. They have put ideology over common sense and the constitution.
New Mexico's lunatic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's outrageous anti-Second Amendment proposals are being widely covered in the national media.
Fox News, Yahoo! News, The Gateway Pundit and Associated Press are among others covering the story. It looks like "the fit has hit the shan" over this.
From Yahoo! News:
New Mexico Republicans are accusing Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of undermining the Second Amendment after the Democrat introduced gun control proposals on Friday.
Lujan Grisham announced that a 30-day state legislative session slated to begin Tuesday that will include "the largest and most comprehensive public safety package in our state's history."
The gun control proposals include a 14-day background check waiting period on gun purchases, prohibiting guns in polling places and parks, and a minimum age requirement of 21 years on semiautomatic firearm purchases.
The package also includes the Firearm Industry Accountability Act, which would "amend the state statue [sic] to allow gun manufacturers to be held liable for deceptive trade practices."
"The constitutionality questions are beginning to be very complicated in the arena of gun violence," Lujan Grisham said at a press conference Friday. "We are going to continue this effort, following what is going on around the country.
"There will be others who will follow in our footsteps, creating their own public safety corridors, which in effect also make New Mexicans safer."
State Sen. Greg Baca, the Republican minority floor leader, accused the two-term governor of taking "a hyper-partisan turn."
"Senate Republicans are eager to join the governor in tackling New Mexico’s crime epidemic, and to that end, we have introduced a number of commonsense solutions," Baca said in a release.
It is a given that the Biden Administration is anti-Second Amendment and is willing to do anything to curtail our rights.
Now, they are pressuring Democrat-led states to take action on the state level to further infringe on our rights where they failed on the federal level.
NRA-ILA has posted an article on what all that entails.
They start it with:
Recently, we reported on the establishment of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, an effort by the Biden Administration to funnel taxpayer dollars to the partisan project of gun control. Whatever else can be said of the office, it is at least trying to justify its existence by staying busy, to the detriment of law-abiding gun owners. Last week the office convened a meeting with democrat state legislators in an effort to dragoon them into enacting anti-gun policies that have failed to gain traction at the federal level. Even the U.S. Justice Department – supposedly the executive’s guarantor of civil rights – is now drafting constitutionally dubious “model legislation” that states can use to crack down on gun owners. The effort shows Biden’s weaponization of government for political purposes continues to sink to new lows.
White House propaganda characterized this meeting as part of the “Biden-Harris Administration’s Safer States Initiative.” The details of the initiative can be found in a brochure that lists various actions the White House wants states to take to promote the administration’s goal of normalizing persecution of gun owners. The general thrust of the “initiative” seems to be that anti-gun officials can turn back the U.S. Supreme Court’s development of Second Amendment doctrine and the public’s increasing embrace of the right to keep and bear arms by mass, coordinated action in the opposite direction.
The outline of the administration’s plan for state action is follows:
“Establish a State Office of Gun Violence Prevention”;
“Invest in Evidence-informed Solutions to Prevent and Respond to Gun Violence”;
“Strengthen Support for Survivors and Victims of Gun Violence”;
“Reinforce Responsible Gun Ownership”;
“Strengthen Gun Background Checks”; and
“Hold the Gun Industry Accountable”.
The outline paints a picture of obvious gun control euphemisms interspersed with potential efforts at problem solving. But the details of the plan paint a different story, one replete with the same unconstitutional, failed, or – at best – unproven policies the firearm prohibition lobby has pursued for decades. Little of it has anything to do with crime or safety. Instead, most of it is squarely focused on making life more difficult for anyone who would dare own a gun or operate a firearm-related business.
