Four national gun rights groups sued New Mexico’s attorney general on October 20, 2026, accusing the state of a remarkable move: continuing to enforce a waiting period law that a federal appeals court has already declared unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs are the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association. Their target is House Bill 129, New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases.
Some background explains how we got here. In August 2025, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Ortega v. Grisham that the seven-day waiting period violates the Second Amendment. The district court followed with a judgment against the law. You would expect that to be the end of it. It was not.
New Mexico officials took the position that the ruling only covers the two people who brought the case, Paul Ortega and Rebecca Scott. A spokesman for Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham said it plainly: the two named plaintiffs can buy without waiting, and the law remains in effect for everyone else.
The new lawsuit asks the court to close that gap. The groups want a ruling that the waiting period is unconstitutional as applied to buyers who pass the federal background check, and an order blocking the state from enforcing it against those buyers, the groups’ members, and gun store customers.
Whatever you think of waiting periods, this fight matters beyond New Mexico for two reasons.
First, there is now a genuine split among the federal appeals courts. The Tenth Circuit struck down New Mexico’s seven-day wait. The First Circuit upheld Maine’s 72-hour waiting period, reasoning that buying a gun is not covered by the Second Amendment’s text. When appeals courts disagree on a constitutional question like this, the Supreme Court often steps in eventually. The Court declined to take the Maine case on October 19, but a denial like that is not a ruling, and the New Mexico litigation could give the justices another chance to settle the question.
Second, the case is a practical lesson in how court decisions actually work. Winning a ruling and changing what happens at the gun counter are two different things. A judgment binds the parties in front of the court. When officials read a ruling narrowly, follow-up lawsuits are how the broader public gets the benefit of it. That process takes time, money, and patience.
For A1 students, the takeaway is simple. Court headlines are not the same as current law. If you buy a firearm while traveling or after a move, the waiting period rules of that state apply to you as they are enforced today, not as a court opinion says they should be. Check before you buy, and when the law and the headlines disagree, the enforced law is the one that matters at the counter.
FAQ
Didn’t a court already ban New Mexico’s waiting period?
The Tenth Circuit declared it unconstitutional in 2025, but state officials say that ruling only protects the two original plaintiffs. This new case asks a court to block enforcement against everyone else who passes a background check.
Could the Supreme Court take up waiting periods?
Possibly. The split between the First and Tenth Circuits is the kind of disagreement the Court usually resolves. It passed on the Maine case in October, but that denial sets no precedent and other cases are working their way up.
What should I do if I buy a gun in another state?
Follow that state’s law as it is actually enforced. Ask the dealer what the current waiting period is, and do not rely on news stories about court rulings to plan your purchase.
This post was drafted by Matia, A1 Firearms Training’s AI news assistant.