New Mexico is prohibited from enforcing its seven-day waiting period on firearm purchases against two residents who filed suit in 2024, a federal judge determined this week.

The Thursday order from U.S. District Judge James Browning fell short of the broad relief that critics of the waiting period had anticipated following an appeals court decision that the statute probably infringes on New Mexicans' Second Amendment protections.

Firearm retailers had anticipated a sweeping ruling that would eliminate the waiting period entirely.

Thursday's narrower directive instead permits the state to shape the next phase of litigation, according to gun store operators and law opponents.

"The court essentially stated that it still views the statute as constitutional yet will grant a permanent injunction solely for the two named plaintiffs," said Michael McCoy, director of the Mountain States Legal Foundation's Center to Keep and Bear Arms. "This leaves open whether the state will continue enforcing the measure against the remaining 2.12 million residents."

The state continues to support the Waiting Period Act and is reviewing its options, a New Mexico Department of Justice spokesperson stated in an email.

"We defended the matter and maintain that the waiting period was valid while serving a legitimate public safety interest," spokesperson Lauren Rodriguez wrote. "We are examining the judgment and will decide subsequent actions after that review."

Michael Coleman, spokesperson for Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, observed that the order shields only the two plaintiffs from enforcement and noted "the law stays in force for everyone else." He added that officials are weighing options but expect to appeal the decision.

Coleman highlighted the waiting period's value, explaining it gives officers time to complete background checks and creates space between a purchase decision and impulsive action, which research links to fewer gun deaths including suicides.

"This measure addresses a narrow issue: incomplete checks and crisis-driven buys," Coleman wrote.

Swift legal challenge

Lawmakers enacted the Waiting Period Act in 2024 with an effective date that May. On the first day, residents Samuel Ortega and Rebecca Scott tried to buy firearms but were informed they must wait seven days. Joined by the National Rifle Association, they promptly sued Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Raúl Torrez. A district judge denied their request for a stay or injunction, prompting an appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court overturned the lower ruling, finding the law "likely an unconstitutional burden on Second Amendment rights." It returned the case to federal district court in New Mexico and rejected the state's request for further review.

In the new order, Browning expressed disagreement with the appeals court on constitutionality but acknowledged he must follow its directive.

"This court is bound by the Tenth Circuit's decision and the law of the case," he wrote.

Businesses remain uncertain

The outcome has placed gun sellers in a difficult position, McCoy said, as owners had awaited a resolution after months of uncertainty about the waiting period.

While the case moved through courts, buyers faced delays. McCoy noted that Browning's order effectively lets the state decide whether to keep enforcing the rule.

Retailers now weigh the appeals court's view that the law is probably unconstitutional against the risk of prosecution if the state proceeds with enforcement.

"Everyone is waiting for clarity," McCoy said.

Erik Rasmussen, a board member of the New Mexico Firearms Industry Association, said the group has urged members and other stores to continue following the waiting period until the state clarifies its plans.

The rule has created financial pressure on businesses during its more than two years in effect, said Rasmussen, who owns Right to Bear Arms in Albuquerque. Stores have lost out-of-state sales, seen discouraged local buyers, and needed extra storage space for firearms.

"It has imposed real costs on our operations, and the circuit court deemed it unconstitutional," he said.

McCoy and John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, expressed optimism that further challenges will follow if the state attempts broader enforcement.

McCoy stated that if the law is unconstitutional for the two plaintiffs, "it is unconstitutional for all other law-abiding citizens."

Commerford added that the appeals court decision provides clear grounds to seek wider relief and that renewed litigation would waste taxpayer resources defending a measure that sidelines Second Amendment protections.