A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period on firearm purchases. In the Ortega v Grisham case, the 10th Circuit panel ruled that the law infringes on Second Amendment rights. Judge Tymkovich, writing for the court, determined that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the lawful acquisition of firearms and, therefore, “cooling off” waiting periods infringe on Second Amendment-protected conduct. The court noted that waiting periods are a modern invention that are unsupported by our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The case has been sent back to a lower court for injunction specifics. CLICK HERE for full 10th Circuit Decision.

Background: New Mexico enacted a law requiring a 7-day waiting period for firearm purchases. The law was challenged by the NRA and Mountain States Legal, arguing it infringed on the Second Amendment. The lawsuit cited concerns about delayed access to firearms for victims of domestic violence and other crimes.

After the Second Amendment victory in Ortega v. Grisham, John Commerford, NRA-ILA Executive Director, released the following statement:

“In courtrooms across America, the NRA is successfully leading the charge to protect law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights. The 10th Circuit has sided with the NRA and held that radical waiting period laws are indeed unconstitutional. This decision not only impacts gun owners in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma, but serves as a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country.”

History of the case
On May 15, 2024, the NRA, in coordination with the Mountain States Legal Foundation, filed Ortega v Grisham, a lawsuit challenging New Mexico’s radical seven-day waiting period law.

On Monday, July 22, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against New Mexico’s law requiring individuals to wait seven days before taking possession of any firearm they purchase.

Today, August 19, 2025, the 10th Circuit Court reversed and remanded this decision, ruling the law is unconstitutional and ordered a preliminary injunction to ensure the rights of law-abiding citizens are no longer infringed. The full ruling can be found HERE.

This ruling was based on the landmark NRA-backed Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that gun control laws are unconstitutional unless they are consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

With the oppressive Washington House Bill 1240 (HB 1240) being signed into law on 4/25/23 by Washington state Governor Jay Inslee, a legal action has been filed in Federal District Court (Eastern Washington) by several plaintiffs to combat this overreaching legislation. The case, Banta et al v. Ferguson seeks a temporary and permanent injunction based on the unconstitutionality of HB 1240. There is an additional action filed by the Second Amendment Foundation. That other lawsuit, named Hartford v. Ferguson, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Full Lawsuit Complaint .PDF Version HERE »

Banta et al vs. Ferguson
The action contesting HB 1240 was filed in the Eastern District of Washington, U.S. District Court. Plaintiffs include Amanda Banta (2012 Olympian Sport Shooter), Sharp Shooting Indoor Range & Gun Shop, The Range LLC, Aero Precision LLC, and the NSSF. The complaint is filed against defendants Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington State, and John R. Batiste, Chief of the Washington State Patrol.

“We do not agree with this law and we do not think it is constitutional,” said Scott Dover, CEO of Aero Precision. Dover explained: “HB 1240 bans some of the most common firearms and parts available. It impacts the lawful ownership of products we manufacture and sell to thousands of our customers in the State of Washington. It also restricts the rights of the individuals, Aero Precision employees, who make these parts. We will fight this law in the courts and are confident in the outcome given the clear rulings in multiple Supreme Court cases, including Heller and Bruen.”

Banta et al vs Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington State

Description: Aero Precision has filed a lawsuit in conjunction with several other plaintiffs to combat the overreaching semi-auto rifle ban legislation by the state of Washington.

About Aero Precision
Aero Precision is a firearms manufacturer based in Tacoma, Washington. Aero Precision has been in business in Washington since 1994, originally starting in the Aerospace industry. Today, Aero Precision is the largest firearms manufacturer in Washington, employing roughly 650 employees in Washington and over 200 in other states. Aero Precision manufacturers AR Parts and components, bolt-action rifles, suppressors and more.