Just over two years ago, the Supreme Court radically reshaped the legal landscape for all gun laws in America. Now, the aftershocks of that decision are toppling gun control measures across the country.
In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court has halted New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases, finding that the “cooling-off” period likely violates the Second Amendment.
The decision is one of the most significant applications yet of the Supreme Court’s new, history-focused test for all gun control legislation, and it signals deep trouble for similar laws in other states.
At a Glance: The New Mexico Gun Law Ruling
- What’s Happening: A federal appeals court has blocked New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period for gun purchases from being enforced while a legal challenge proceeds.
- The Ruling: The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, found the law is likely unconstitutional.
- The Key Reason: The court ruled the waiting period does not align with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the new and stringent legal standard set by the Supreme Court.
- The Constitutional Issue: A major test of the Second Amendment in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
A ‘Cooling-Off’ Period Put on Ice
The New Mexico law, which went into effect last year, required a prospective gun buyer to wait seven days after purchasing a firearm before they could actually take possession of it. The stated goal, according to Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, was to create a “cooling-off” period to help prevent “impulsive acts of violence and suicide.”
But in its ruling, the 10th Circuit majority found that this modern public safety rationale is no longer enough to save a gun law.
“Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms… We conclude that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.” – Judge Timothy Tymkovich, writing for the majority.
The lawsuit was brought by the National Rifle Association and the Mountain States Legal Foundation, who argued the law unconstitutionally delayed a citizen’s ability to acquire a firearm for self-defense.
The ‘Bruen’ Revolution: A New Test for Gun Laws
This entire legal battle hinges on the Supreme Court’s revolutionary 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.
Before Bruen, courts for decades had used a “balancing test” when evaluating gun laws, weighing the government’s interest in public safety against the burden on an individual’s Second Amendment right.
The Bruen decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, threw that entire framework out. It established a new, much stricter test: for a modern gun law to be constitutional, the government must prove that the law is consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation” at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.
“The entire legal battle hinges on a single question posed by the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision: Is there anything like this law in American history? The appeals court’s answer was a firm ‘no’.”
This has sent judges, lawyers, and historians scrambling through dusty 18th and 19th-century records to find historical analogues for modern gun laws. In the case of New Mexico’s waiting period, the 10th Circuit found none.
A Clash of Histories
The ruling highlights the deep divide in how each side approaches the Second Amendment.
Governor Lujan Grisham and the state of New Mexico argued that the waiting period is a modern solution to modern problems like gun violence and suicide. In his dissent, Judge Scott Matheson agreed, writing that it was a reasonable “condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms.”
The plaintiffs, however, argued that the modern-day justification is irrelevant. Under the Bruen test, all that matters is history. Because there were no comparable “cooling-off” periods in the 18th century, they contend, the law must be struck down today, regardless of its public safety intentions.
The Future of Gun Control
The decision in New Mexico is a powerful signal that many common forms of modern gun control – those based on 21st-century public health and safety arguments – are now on incredibly shaky constitutional ground.
The Bruen decision has fundamentally changed the rules of the game. The legal debate is no longer about balancing interests; it’s about a strict historical test.
This case is another clear sign that in the new era of Second Amendment jurisprudence, history – and how judges interpret it – is the only thing that matters.