Judge knocks down NM waiting period

[Rye Miles #13621]

Here’s good news

 

https://sourcenm.com/2026/08/28/federal-judge-rules-against-new-mexicos-7-day-waiting-period-for-gun-purchases/

[Eyesa Horg]

Even if only for two people, it's a good start.

[Rye Miles #13621]

28 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Even if only for two people, it's a good start.

I’m sure that applies to everyone, I guess we’ll see…….

[John Kloehr]

It is written for just the plaintiffs, another ruling affected by SCOTUS limitations on district court orders. The state is expected to appeal.

 

The background on this case is the plaintiffs initially lost and appealed to the 10th Circuit. The court overturned the opinion and sent it back with instructions to reverse and find for th plaintiffs. The district judge still expresses his disagreement. From (with my bold):

 

https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1512221/2026-ortega-dct-msj-order.pdf

 

"

 

Although the Court continues to believe the Waiting Period Act is constitutional, the Court is bound by the Tenth Circuit’s decision and the law of the case.

 

"

[Eyesa Horg]

11 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

I’m sure that applies to everyone, I guess we’ll see…….

I was going by the article. Still a great start.

[Rye Miles #13621]

17 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

It is written for just the plaintiffs, another ruling affected by SCOTUS limitations on district court orders. The state is expected to appeal.

 

The background on this case is the plaintiffs initially lost and appealed to the 10th Circuit. The court overturned the opinion and sent it back with instructions to reverse and find for th plaintiffs. The district judge still expresses his disagreement. From (with my bold):

 

https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1512221/2026-ortega-dct-msj-order.pdf

 

"

 

Although the Court continues to believe the Waiting Period Act is constitutional, the Court is bound by the Tenth Circuit’s decision and the law of the case.

 

"

 

16 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

I was going by the article. Still a great start.

 

17 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

It is written for just the plaintiffs, another ruling affected by SCOTUS limitations on district court orders. The state is expected to appeal.

 

The background on this case is the plaintiffs initially lost and appealed to the 10th Circuit. The court overturned the opinion and sent it back with instructions to reverse and find for th plaintiffs. The district judge still expresses his disagreement. From (with my bold):

 

https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1512221/2026-ortega-dct-msj-order.pdf

 

"

 

Although the Court continues to believe the Waiting Period Act is constitutional, the Court is bound by the Tenth Circuit’s decision and the law of the case.

 

"

I guess i didn’t read it carefully. Oh well it is a start.

[John Kloehr]

15 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

I guess i didn’t read it carefully. Oh well it is a start.

Most of my info is not in the article. I am following various cases across the country but there is too much for me to write up and post in a tracking thread. Just keeping up with SCOTUS is a job in itself. I am tracking the lower-court NFA challenges as best I can as there are only (I think) two more decisions pending in two other courts for that question.

 

What we can take away from the waiting period decision is the district court judge is not a friend of the 2nd on the waiting period question, a certain 3-judge panel is a friend. It is a good win and it is likely not over. Another good thing in this challenge is the decision is on summary judgement.

 

The waiting period question has different history in the 1st Circuit where a district court found it likely unconstitutional at the preliminary junction stage; this is very early in the appellate process. The 1st reversed finding is was likely constitutional and remanded back to the district court with instructions to lift the stay while the challenge proceeds.

[Eyesa Horg]

3 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

 

 

I guess i didn’t read it carefully. Oh well it is a start.

No worries 😁 

[Eyesa Horg]

A continued "Thank You" John for the immense effort you put into this to keeps us all informed. 

EH

[Blackwater 53393]

The final ruling from the district judge is plainly a spiteful act on his part!!

 

Hopefully, an “Equal Justice” ruling will follow and be upheld!

[John Kloehr]

6 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

I guess i didn’t read it carefully. Oh well it is a start.

Don't worry about the "careful" read. Catching up on stuff today after getting home from picking up a couple lowers (those GOA fundraiser lowers from PSA).

 

Waiting periods just increased in significance. There is now a waiting period petition at the Supreme Court. Filed on 8/25, I am now tracking:

 

26-258     Beckwith v Frey (AG Maine)    72 hour waiting period

 

The Maine AG has until 9/28 to respond, which happens to be the first conference day. Unless the state waives response or responds early, it will not be in conference that day. It will likely be in a conference soon afterwards. 

 

Your report of this decision in a district court within the 10th district is now more significant as it can be cited at the Supreme Court (maybe not as precedent, at least persuasive). Even though this ruling is from the district court, it is at the command of the Court of Appeals. This increases significance and I expect to see it cited at the Supreme Court in a later filing.

 

On edit: Trying to summarize, Beckwith is suing as the 1st Circuit found a 72 hour waiting period constitutional. Your reported decision in the 10th at least hints at a developing circuit split if not an outright circuit split (as it did follow from the court of appeals); I'm not sure how this granular detail gets weighed. But SCOTUS is more likely to hear a case when there is a split than when there is not.

Edited Monday at 10:26 PM by John Kloehr