Gun Laws And 2a
10th Circuit Court Lets N.M. Ruling That Waiting Periods Are Unconstitutional Stand
10th Circuit Court Lets N.M. Ruling That Waiting Periods Are Unconstitutional Stand
📅
✍️By ZRIntel Editorial Team📍Santa Fe, New Mexico
The Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has decisively denied New Mexico's petition for an en banc rehearing regarding a significant legal challenge to the state's seven-day waiting period for gun transfers. The ruling confirms that an earlier judgment which invalidates this law will remain in effect.
This case, Ortega v. Griffin, directly targets a recently enacted New Mexico law set to come into force in 2024, which mandates that individuals must wait seven days before taking possession of any newly purchased firearm. This rule applies even to those who have successfully completed a background check and are cleared to own firearms. Additionally, the law stipulates that in instances where the required federal instant background check is not finalized within twenty days, a seller may still transfer the firearm to the buyer. In contrast, under current federal regulations, if a background check via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is delayed and the system does not respond within three days, a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) may proceed with the sale.
Challenged immediately upon its enactment, the National Rifle Association (NRA) alongside the Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) filed a lawsuit to contest this new law. Earlier in August, a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit ruled unanimously that the waiting period constituted a violation of Second Amendment rights.
The court articulated that such waiting periods infringe upon the constitutional right to acquire firearms, emphasizing that they impose unnecessary delays on law-abiding citizens eager to exercise their rights. “Cooling-off periods infringe on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms,” the panel ruled. The judges went on to clarify that historically understood rights to bear arms do not accommodate such universal and indiscriminate burdens on lawful purchasing practices. This decision rests on the principle that acceptance of arbitrary limitations fundamentally contradicts the existence of the Second Amendment itself.
Moreover, the ruling predicates that allowing the government to impose waiting periods would open the door for indefinite limitations on citizens' rights to acquire firearms, effectively disarming the populace based on hypothetical misuse of firearms by others.
Several studies, including reports from the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), posit that waiting periods fail to affect rates of suicide, homicide, or mass shootings, often designating them as arbitrary and burdensome for lawful gun owners. In reality, these regulations predominantly inconvenience law-abiding citizens without mitigating the risks associated with criminal access to firearms.
The 10th Circuit's recent refusal to grant an en banc hearing has been welcomed by the NRA-ILA, who heralded it as a pivotal restoration of rights for New Mexicans. The outcome resonates beyond New Mexico, impacting gun owners in neighboring states including Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma, thus signaling a broader movement against legislative restrictions on Second Amendment rights that are viewed as unconstitutional.
In summary, this ruling marks a noteworthy position in the ongoing conversation around gun rights and regulatory frameworks across the United States.
As the implications continue to unfold, it remains crucial for the firearm community to stay attuned to developments that challenge or reinforce the boundaries of Second Amendment rights. ShoQ's Take: This ruling represents not just a local victory in New Mexico, but potentially sends ripples across the Tenth Circuit and beyond. The growing sentiment against arbitrary waiting periods could influence further legal challenges to similar laws nationwide. However, observers should note that the dialogue around gun rights remains complex and filled with nuances. As always, the landscape could shift based on both social pressures and legislative actions, indicating that what is settled today may not hold true tomorrow. Lawmakers and the Second Amendment community must brace for continued scrutiny and legal challenges as they advocate for gun rights in varying climates.