Connect with us

Southwest

NRA and conservative legal group sue Democrat governor over 7-day waiting period to buy guns

Published

on

NRA and conservative legal group sue Democrat governor over 7-day waiting period to buy guns

FIRST ON FOX — A conservative legal group and gun rights activists have teamed up to challenge a newly enacted seven-day waiting period to buy a gun in New Mexico.

The Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) has partnered with the National Rifle Association (NRA) in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that claims New Mexico is denying citizens their Second Amendment rights and their natural right to self-defense. The groups allege in court documents that the waiting period law passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is unconstitutional. 

“This arbitrary law is just the latest attempt by Governor Grisham and her anti-gun comrades in the New Mexico legislature to limit the Second Amendment rights of their law-abiding constituents,” said Mike McCoy, director of the Center to Keep and Bear Arms at MSLF. 

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico names Grisham and New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez (D) as defendants. 

TOP GOP LEADERS IN NEW MEXICO SENATE AND HOUSE OPT OUT OF RE-ELECTION

Advertisement

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham speaks at the New Mexico State Capitol on Jan. 30, 2024, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Grisham signed HB 129 into law in March, establishing a mandatory 7-day waiting period to purchase firearms. (Sam Wasson/Getty Images)

Grisham signed House Bill 129 into law in March, and it went into effect on Wednesday, enacting a mandatory seven-day waiting period for the purchase of firearms. During this time, sellers are required to conduct a federal instant background check of the buyer. Should the background check take longer than seven days, the seller must wait to transfer the firearm to the purchaser until the background check is completed.

Violators would be found guilty of a misdemeanor, according to the New Mexico Department of Public Safety.

READ THE LAWSUIT BELOW. APP USERS: CLICK HERE

“This legislation strikes at the heart of issues that are keeping New Mexicans up at night,” Grisham said in a statement after signing the bill. “We are losing far too many lives when guns get into the wrong hands and violent criminals are allowed to recommit again and again. This legislation addresses both.”

In court documents, plaintiffs Paul Samuel Ortega and Rebecca Scott, both residents of New Mexico, assert the Waiting Period Act “burdens the right to keep and bear arms.” Plaintiffs also claim the state government “could never meet its burden to establish a historical analogue to justify its regulation.” 

Advertisement

SEMI-AUTOMATIC GUN BAN NIXED IN COLORADO’S DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED STATEHOUSE AFTER HISTORIC PROGRESS

Several AR-15 style rifles are displayed for sale at a gun store. Under New Mexico law, firearms dealers must wait seven days and conduct a federal background check before transferring over a purchased firearm to a buyer. (REUTERS/Bing Guan)

The lawsuit references the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new standard to determine whether a gun restriction is unconstitutional. To meet that standard, the government must show there is a “historical tradition of firearm regulation” that supports the sort of law in question. 

Since Bruen, a multitude of federal and state gun control measures have been challenged in courts with mixed results. 

“The Second Amendment protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense; but this ridiculous waiting period law delays the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise this God-given right,” McCoy told Fox News Digital. 

Advertisement

TEXAS AG FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST BIDEN ADMINISTRATION FOR NEW GUN SALE REQUIREMENTS: ‘COME AND TAKE IT’ 

Guns are displayed in a store during the Rod of Iron Freedom Festival on Oct. 9, 2022 in Greeley, Pennsylvania. The Mountain States Legal Foundation and the National Rifle Association have partnered to challenge the New Mexico waiting period law on constitutional grounds. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

“Forcing domestic violence victims in need of a firearm to protect themselves to wait seven days to acquire one is wrong, and let’s hope their abusers ‘wait a week’ too before they attack again,” he added. 

“The NRA is proud to team up with the Mountain States Legal Foundation to challenge New Mexico’s waiting period law,” said Randy Kozuch, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “This new law is a clear violation of the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Mexicans, and the NRA is committed to seeing that this unconstitutional law be wiped from the state statutes.”

Advertisement

The MSLF stated that plaintiffs “seek nothing short of a complete invalidation of the law by the federal courts, and a return to constitutional sensibility.” 

The offices of the governor and the attorney general did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Los Angeles, Ca

Watch Project Angel Food's 'Lead with Love' telethon on KTLA

Published

on

Watch Project Angel Food's 'Lead with Love' telethon on KTLA

The star-studded feel-good giveback event of the summer has returned. KTLA 5 is teaming up once again with Project Angel Food for the annual “Lead with Love: Going the Distance” telethon to raise critical funds for medically tailored meals delivered to people living with serious illnesses throughout Los Angeles County. The seventh annual telethon airs […]

Continue Reading

Los Angeles, Ca

Woman ambushed, violently attacked by robber in downtown Long Beach

Published

on

Woman ambushed, violently attacked by robber in downtown Long Beach

A woman was hospitalized with serious injuries after she was violently attacked by a robber in downtown Long Beach. On June 18, Jennifer Silva, 34, was attending a World Cup watch party at a Hooters restaurant at 90 Aquarium Way. After the game ended, she left the restaurant just before 11 p.m. As she walked […]

Continue Reading

Los Angeles, Ca

Jury says it is deadlocked in trial of man accused in Palisades Fire

Published

on

Jury says it is deadlocked in trial of man accused in Palisades Fire

Jurors deliberating the fate of the man accused of starting the Palisades Fire, one of the most destructive wildfires in California’s history, failed to reach a verdict Thursday afternoon, telling the judge they were deadlocked.

A spokesperson from the United States Attorney’s Office told KTLA that jurors will continue to deliberate until they reach a verdict or give up.

Jonathan Rinderknecht, 30, a former Uber driver and one-time Pacific Palisades resident, is accused of starting the Lachman Fire on New Year’s Eve. The fire continued to smolder underground for about a week, even after Los Angeles firefighters believed it had been extinguished.

Flames reignited on Jan. 7, erupting into the deadly Palisades Fire that killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes in the upscale community, authorities said.

  • A courtroom sketch of Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, during his initial court appearance on Oct. 23, 2025.
  • Palisades Fire Suspect

Prosecutors argued that Rinderknecht deliberately set the fire, claiming he had grown increasingly resentful of wealthy residents and viewed Pacific Palisades as a symbol of that frustration.

“Their case, though circumstantial, is strong,” KTLA legal analyst Alison Triessl said. “The defense is relying on, can they (prosecutors) show beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rinderknecht actually started this fire and it wasn’t the result of fireworks or some intervening cause.”

Advertisement

The defense argued there is no direct physical evidence tying Rinderknecht to the fire and said the prosecution’s case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence. Rinderknecht did not testify during the trial.

Defense attorney Steve Haney spoke outside the courthouse Wednesday about why he believes it will be difficult for prosecutors to prove how the fire started.

“The lack of scene preservation. The fact that they got there after a lot of the evidence was missing. Not a lot of direct evidence. This is a circumstantial case, which is always difficult as a prosecutor to prove,” Haney said.

Rinderknecht, who was arrested and indicted last October, faces up to 45 years in prison if found guilty of three arson counts, including destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and timber set afire.

Tony Kurzweil contributed to this report

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending