In a landmark decision that is already reverberating through the national gun debate, a federal appeals court has blocked New Mexico's seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law, enacted in May 2024, "likely infringes on citizens' Second Amendment rights," and sent the case back to a lower court for further action.

The lawsuit was brought by gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Mountain States Legal Foundation, on behalf of New Mexico residents. They argued that the "cooling-off" period was an unconstitutional burden on the right to bear arms, a right that, according to the court's opinion, includes the lawful acquisition of firearms. The court's majority opinion, written by Judge Timothy Tymkovich, stated that waiting periods of this nature "do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions" to the Second Amendment.

The ruling was met with swift and enthusiastic praise from gun rights advocates. The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action declared it a "key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country," emphasizing that the decision affirmed the rights of law-abiding citizens. Advocates for the lawsuit also raised concerns about the negative impact of waiting periods on victims of domestic violence and others who may need immediate access to a firearm for self-defense.

Conversely, the decision drew a strong rebuke from New Mexico's Democratic Governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, who expressed "deep disappointment" and warned that the ruling could cost lives. The governor's office argued that the waiting period was a "carefully crafted" measure designed to prevent impulsive acts of violence, including suicide, and to allow for the proper completion of federal background checks.

The case highlights the stark philosophical divide over gun control. Proponents of the waiting period law, which is similar to measures in states like California and Rhode Island, contend that it is a common-sense safety measure that saves lives. They argue that it provides a necessary buffer for individuals in crisis and allows law enforcement more time to conduct thorough checks. However, opponents successfully argued that such a measure is an arbitrary and unconstitutional delay that burdens a fundamental right for all citizens, not just a targeted group. The ruling is expected to be a major factor in ongoing legal challenges to gun laws in other states.

Source: AP News