NM federal judge refuses TRO on gun waiting period
Published
Modified
A federal judge on Monday refused to grant a temporary restraining order to bar enforcement of a new seven-day waiting period for purchasing firearms in New Mexico.
U.S. District Judge James Browning of sa国际传媒官网网页入口, in an 104-page ruling, sided with attorneys for Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and state Attorney General Ra霉l Torrez in ruling against two gun owners who contended the state鈥檚 Waiting Period Act violated their Second Amendment rights.
The ruling follows an hourslong hearing in June, during which experts on the history of guns in America testified on both sides. Attorneys on both sides couldn鈥檛 be immediately reached for comment Monday evening.
The waiting period, among other gun-related measures supported by the governor and gun control advocates, was presented in federal court as a way to curb impulsive gun violence and address New Mexico violent crime rates. The law went into effect April 15.
While gun-related deaths in the United States were higher in 2022 than in any other year on record, 鈥渢he situation is worse鈥� in New Mexico with gun death climbing significantly in the last few years, the ruling stated.
The age-adjusted gun death rate increased by 87 percent between 2010 and 2021, the judge wrote, citing evidence presented at the June 27 hearing.
鈥淭he Defendants adduce significant evidence that waiting period laws may help reduce this tidal wave of gun violence,鈥� the ruling added.
The judge also noted testimony that the Waiting Period Act is likely to save about 37 lives per year.
鈥淥n balance ... the harm that the Defendants stand to suffer if the Court were to enjoin the Waiting Period Act 鈥� the loss of New Mexican lives 鈥� significantly outweighs the Plaintiff鈥檚 threatened injury,鈥� Browning wrote. 鈥淢oreover, the public鈥檚 interest in the preservation of dozens of New Mexican lives cannot be understated.鈥�
The Waiting Period Act, signed into law March 4 by the governor, makes it a misdemeanor to buy or sell a firearm before the required waiting period, and carves out five exceptions, such as those who hold a valid federal firearms license, concealed handgun license holders, law enforcement agents and sales between immediate family members.
The lawsuit challenging the law is still pending, but Browning found the plaintiffs weren鈥檛 likely to succeed on the Second Amendment claims. That was a factor in his ruling to deny a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
鈥淭he central question the Court must address here is whether the right ... to keep and bear Arms鈥� encompasses the right to obtain firearms,鈥� Browning wrote. 鈥淚n concrete terms, the Waiting Period Act does not limit an individual鈥檚 ability to keep firearms in their home nor carry those firearms with them in public for self-defense.鈥�
Browning wrote that having to wait seven days, as required by the new law, to purchase a handgun is 鈥渕inimally burdensome鈥� on the plaintiffs鈥� ancillary right to acquire firearms. And, he added, the waiting period is a 鈥渃ommercial firearm regulation鈥� that is 鈥減resumptively Constitutional.鈥�
To obtain a court temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must also make 鈥渁 clear and unequivocal showing it will likely suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief,鈥� the ruling stated.
Waiting a week to buy a handgun 鈥渋s insufficient to qualify as irreparable harm,鈥� Browning wrote.
Browing added that 鈥渢here is divergence of opinion among United State District Courts regarding whether the Second Amendment鈥檚 plain text includes only a right to keep and bear arms, not a right to buy them.鈥�
Two appellate courts found that right didn鈥檛 cover 鈥榯he conduct of purchasing a firearm鈥� 鈥� the Ninth Circuit Court and the 5th Circuit Court.
鈥淎pplying this approach, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff鈥檚 Second Amendment Claims fails because it doesn鈥檛 cover the conduct of purchasing a firearm.
鈥淭he Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed that the 鈥榤ost important rule in constitutional interpretation is to heed the text 鈥� that is, the actual words of the Constitution 鈥� and interpret that text according to its ordinary meaning as originally understood,鈥� the ruling concluded.
鈥淭oday and in 1791, the normal and ordinary meaning of 鈥榢eep鈥� is to possess and the normal and ordinary meaning of 鈥榖ear鈥� is to carry,鈥� Browning wrote.
In addition, the historical understanding 鈥減rovides further confirmation that the Second Amendment was not drafted to protect the right to purchase arms.鈥�
A gun owner from sa国际传媒官网网页入口 joined a Farmington woman who owns guns in filing the lawsuit on April 15, the day the law went into effect.
Their attorneys argued in part that in order to keep and bear arms, a prospective gun owner needed to acquire the firearm in the first place and therefore purchasing a gun was covered by the Second Amendment.
Browning found their arguments ultimately 鈥渦npersuasive.鈥�
