NM governor "suspends" open & concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque

Status
Not open for further replies.
roscoe said:
I actually think it is useful in the long run when politicians overreach in a very public way. It reminds the normally dormant and self-absorbed populace of the importance of paying attention and that it is possible to hold politicians accountable.

In the USA, politicians are just citizens and subject to law and the Constitution just like the rest us us. Try holding Mohammed bin Salman or Vladimir Putin accountable. You would end up dissolved in a barrel or being poisoned by thallium or dioxin.
Click to expand...
They aren't really subject to the law or constitution. Both sides in all 3 branches of government have their ideology and the finish line they want to end up at. What they have been and are currently doing is "interpreting" existing law and the constitution to fit their narrative and ideology, so that they can reach a predetermined outcome. The simple text of the law means nothing.

Politicians, the judicial branch, FBI, ATF, IRS, and the President can interpret the constitution and existing laws however they wish, and a partisan SCOTUS can the interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to me irregardless of the plain text. There's no need to go through Congress anymore. It's already has been going on for decades. That's how we ended up with constitutionality protected abortion (even though the constitution doesn't mention it), Chevron Deference, and gross overreach of interstate commerce for only three of many examples. One side sees the Constitution as a living document that the plain text meaning can evolve to mean something else entirely vs what the founders intended it to mean.

There seems to be a disconnect between those who are idealistic and focus on how things should be in a perfect world, and those who are realist who focus on how things actually are, have been, and likely will continue to be in the real world. The writing is already on the wall when it comes to gun rights. One side will viciously attack gun rights when they're in power in any capacity. The other side won't push for favorable gun rights when their in power, AND they won't undo all the antigun legislation, regulations, and/or Executive Orders from the opposition. Even Glenn Youngkin in my state hasn't undone any of the antigun legacy E/O left from Terry McAuliffe. He, like Trump and most all other Republicans haven't introduced any E/O, used "emergency powers," or used the full power of their position to further gun rights, and to force antigun groups to speed hundreds of millions of their war chest funds fighting them.
 
Last edited:
Styx said:
They aren't really subject to the law or constitution. Both sides in all 3 branches of government have their ideology and the finish line they want to end up at. What they have been and are currently doing is "interpreting" existing law and the constitution to fit their narrative and ideology, so that they can reach a predetermined outcome. The simple text of the law means nothing.

Politicians, the judicial branch, FBI, ATF, IRS, and the President can interpret the constitution and existing laws however they wish, and a partisan SCOTUS can the interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to me irregardless of the plain text. There's no need to go through Congress anymore. It's already has been going on for decades. That's how we ended up with constitutionality protected abortion (even though the constitution doesn't mention it), Chevron Deference, and gross overreach of interstate commerce for only three of many examples. One side sees the Constitution as a living document that the plain text meaning can evolve to mean something else entirely vs what the founders intended it to mean.

There seems to be a disconnect between those who are idealistic and focus on how things should be in a perfect world, and those who are realist who focus on how things actually are, have been, and likely will continue to be in the real world. The writing is already on the wall when it comes to gun rights. One side will viciously attack gun rights when they're in power in any capacity. The other side won't push for favorable gun rights when their in power, AND they won't undo all the antigun legislation, regulations, and/or Executive Orders from the opposition. Even Glenn Youngkin in my state hasn't undone any of the antigun legacy E/O left from Terry McAuliffe. He, like Trump and most all other Republicans haven't introduced any E/O, used "emergency powers," or used the full power of their position to further gun rights, and to force antigun groups to speed hundreds of millions of their war chest funds fighting them.
Click to expand...
Without wading into the weeds too much, I will observe that, in the US, citizens currently have more gun rights than at any time since 1877. When Reconstruction ended, Jim Crow was permitted to systematically disenfranchise an enormous part of the population (former slaves) in a large portion of the country and that most certainly included firearm ownership. Gun control expanded throughout the country over the next 100 years, peaking in the 70s. But over the last 40+ years gun rights have expanded dramatically.

The last substantial effort at large- scale gun control was literally 29 years ago. It was an acknowledged failure and there haven't been any since. Even under Obama gun rights were permitted to expand.

But admittedly I am a glass half-full kind of guy.
 
Last edited:
roscoe said:
Without wading into the weeds too much, I will observe that, in the US, citizens currently have more gun rights than at any time since 1877. When Reconstruction ended, Jim Crow was permitted to systematically disenfranchise an enormous part of the population (former slaves) in a large portion of the country and that most certainly included firearm ownership. Gun control expanded throughout the country over the next 100 years, peaking in the 70s. But over the last 40+ years gun rights have expanded dramatically.

The last substantial effort at large- scale gun control was literally 29 years ago. It was an acknowledged failure and there haven't been any since. Even under Obama gun rights were permitted to expand.

But admittedly I am a glass half-full kind of guy.
Click to expand...
More gun right before the NFA ammendments, the Brady Act, and NICS? Really? Before all the ammo and importation bans and 922R Compliance? Because states had AWB laws?

What I have seen is gun rights slowly become more restrictive thus the need for 3 SCOTUS rulings to stop the taking of what most already have or had in the past. Even still, SCOTUS rulings pertaining to firearms often go ignore or state enact stricter gun laws to get around SCOTUS rulings, e.g., increase the number of prohibited places.

I believe you maybe confusing the fact that more people are buying and carrying guns AND maybe because states that already allowed those to carry outside the home now allow it without going through the permitting process with as actually having more gun rights today. Need I remind you at that same time, many imported rifles and affordable ammo, pistol braces, 80% receivers kits, and bumpstock stocks have been banned, more states now than in the past have implemented AWB, capacity limits, and red flag laws, and Biden just signed a gun control bill into law not too long ago. Now they're going after private sales.

All of that is not really the crux of my post that you originally quoted. Seems like gun grabbers have been slowly but surely limiting rights while bypassing Congress. The only gains we had stemmed from 3 SCOTUS rulings that took over a decade in-between. My point is, in the next 4 or 8 years at least 2 Conservative Justices may not be there anymore. All the gains you think we made via Heller, McDonald, and Bruen will all likely be promptly overturned. Then what?
 
Last edited:
Styx said:
More gun right before the NFA ammendments, the Brady Act, and NICS? Really? Before all the ammo and importation bans and 922R Compliance? Because states had AWB laws?

What I have seen is gun rights slowly become more restrictive thus the need for 3 SCOTUS rulings to stop the taking of what most already have or had in the past. Even still, SCOTUS rulings pertaining to firearms often go ignore or state enact stricter gun laws to get around SCOTUS rulings, e.g., increase the number of prohibited places.

I believe you maybe confusing the fact that more people are buying and carrying guns AND maybe because states that already allowed those to carry outside the home now allow it without going through the permitting process with as actually having more gun rights today. Need I remind you at that same time, many imported rifles and affordable ammo, pistol braces, 80% receivers kits, and bumpstock sticks have been banned, more states now than in the past have implemented AWB, capacity limits, and red flag laws, and Biden just signed a gun control bill into law not too long ago. Now they're going after private sales.

All of that is not really the crux of my post that you originally quoted. Seems like gun grabbers have been slowly but surely limiting rights while bypassing Congress. The only gains we've had have stemmed from 3 SCOTUS rulings that took over a decade in-between. My point is, in the next 4 or 8 years at least 2 Conservative Justices may not be there anymore. All the gains you think we made via Heller, McDonald, and Bruen will all likely be promptly overturned. Then what?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am taking a slightly longer view. I perceive an inflection point in the late 70s/ early 80s. Before 1986 you could be arrested for simply crossing a state line transporting an unloaded and cased firearm, a condition changed by FOPA, which passed by large bipartisan majorities in both houses. Before 1987 no state had a CCW law but by the mid 2000s a majority did. These changes had nothing to do with SCOTUS. It was simple expression of political will. Legal scholars have observed that SCOTUS tends to follow, not lead, so their decisions largely reflected changes in societal attitudes.

I think that the changes occured in the center. In 1968 Ronald Reagan brought modern gun control to California by signing the Milford Act. By the time he was president he was expanding gun rights.

I personally come from a center-left family that has come to strongly believe in gun rights. Almost every male in my family owns guns and has a CCW permit (and most females own or are comfortable using guns). I can promise you that it reflects real progress in changing attitudes.
 
Last edited:
Eventually there will be an attempt at accountability. It won't be pretty.

Tyrannical governments throughout history disarm their populations. Hence the 2nd Amendment.
 
I see this thread has wandered afield a bit, but I personally am enjoying this whole thing hugely.

So far Gov. Lujan Grisham has:

1. No law enforcement agencies willing to enforce the order.
2. New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, a fellow Democrat, saying he won't/can't defend this emergency order in court because it is facially unconstitutional and will also not have any impact on violence. So Lujan Grisham will have no one to defend her order in court.

Now here's a delicious idea. In 2021, Lujan Grisham signed a qualified immunity reform law, making it possible for citizens to sue government agencies without qualified immunity being a defense to the suit.

BETTER CALL SAUL, IT'S TIME FOR A CLASS-ACTION SUIT!
 
After her press conference she asked by a reporter if her executive order would do anything to help with the problem. Her answer was "No". o_O Why put in place an executive order that only affects law abiding citizens and then openly admit it will do nothing to solve the problem that is caused by juvenile criminals in the making? Because she is power mad and not very smart is why.

The law put in place by former governor Richardson giving her the power to issue a public.health order has already been sorted out during covid and she has the power with no way for it to be counteracted. She is simply using the law to try toover reach her power and knows that she will suffer no consequences except having a court tell her she can't do what she is doing. Only the legislature can remove her from office by impeaching her. Since it's in the control of Democrats the only chance of this happening is for the serving members being bombarded by calls from constituents telling them if it doesn't happen they will be out of a job come their next election if they don't get it done. I see voters being too apethectic to do this. I also see no need to contact either my representative or senator as they would really like to be rid of her just as much as I and most everyone in this area would.

As to suing her it would drag out until she leaves office at the end of her term. Would she still be liable for her action after leaving office? A practicing NM attorney will have to answer that. Also she will be fighting the suit with taxpayer funds, not her own money.
 
Last edited:
A good outcome would be if this blatant attempt to curtail rights (even acknowledged by folks not generally gun friendly ) will wake the gun positive folks on Scotus to realize their procedural, slow place, majesty of the court, scolding the Circuits to 'do their job', etc. is not suitable for modern times and the strong attacks on gun rights. I agree Scotus is at risk for personnel changes. The 2nd Amend. is not what we think it is for all justices and legal scholars. Since it is not a law of physics (as some think), it can be reinterpreted by the next court majority change. One just has to look at rights coming and going to understand this.

Funny about Richardson, I had thought he was relatively gun friendly and reportedly a Glock 19 fan. But Gabby Giffords was also.
 
I doubt she was under any illusion that it was constitutional or that anyone would enforce it. If I had to guess why she did it- a publicity stunt. She wants the notoriety across her base.

It's going to be interesting to see if her base is as far left as she is. She might win big from this- her political career isn't necessarily over- she might be vying for a Senate seat or something in the White House.

David Hogg recently started a new PAC to get progressive candidates under 30 into office. He denounced the order as unconstitutional and at least one of the candidates did as well, copy and paste. If Hogg and his guys backed away from it, it was out there.
 
I'm actually confused by the order and what happened. The child which died from being shot, was that due to a LEGAL CCL holder? I never saw this mentioned in the 2 articles I read on the topic. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it wasn't. I can't image if this was the case this wouldn't be trumpeted by the antis in every news release.

And if it wasn't, then why suspend legal carrying for lawful citizens?

I concur with some previous reply's that this governor is doing something to further her downstream political ambitions or fund raising.

I'm wondering at what point the 'from my cold dead hands' line in the sand kicks in for people in New Mexico.
 
doubleh said:
After her press conference she asked by a reporter if her executive order would do anything to help with the problem. Her answer was "No". o_O Why put in place an executive order that only affects law abiding citizens and then openly admit it will do nothing to solve the problem that is caused by juvenile criminals in the making? Because she is power mad and not very smart is why.

The law put in place by former governor Richardson giving her the power to issue a public.health order has already been sorted out during covid and she has the power with no way for it to be counteracted. She is simply using the law to try toover reach her power and knows that she will suffer no consequences except having a court tell her she can't do what she is doing. Only the legislature can remove her from office by impeaching her. Since it's in the control of Democrats the only chance of this happening is for the serving members being bombarded by calls from constituents telling them if it doesn't happen they will be out of a job come their next election if they don't get it done. I see voters being too apethectic to do this. I also see no need to contact either my representative or senator as they would really like to be rid of her just as much as I and most everyone in this area would.

As to suing her it would drag out until she leaves office at the end of her term. Would she still be liable for her action after leaving office? A practicing NM attorney will have to answer that. Also she will be fighting the suit with taxpayer funds, not her own money.
Click to expand...
My take on it is that a child died, and she saw an opportunity to grandstand thinking she'd only get the usual pushback from the evil NRA and "gun nuts" who care about their guns more than they care about dead children all while getting praised by the mainstream media and Democrats voters and politicians for doing something about "gun violence." That's what all this books down to. It all stems from being about her and her political career, and NOT about "gun violence" or trying to protect public interest.

Boy did she miscalculated how things would play out. Other Democrats are only coming out against her because of the backlash she received, and because she said the quiet part out loud. No doubt in my mind that secretly David Hogg and the others really support the Governor's actions.

The Democrats, gun control advocates, and the liberal law enforcement officers coming out against the Governor are hypocrites and liars. It is not logical that they all were against or highly critical of Heller AND Bruen which together set the frame work for law abiding citizens to carry outside of the home, but then now claim that they support carry outside of the home and what the Governor did was unconstitutional??????? Make it make sense! They all are fake opportunistic snakes who will sell each out, the American people, and the Constitution out to further their own careers and to gain power.
 
Last edited:
Mk-211 said:
Maybe she should get out on the streets and talk to people.
Click to expand...
That would be beneath her as she only talks down to people and orders them around. I watched her early weekly Covid appearances on TV. She talked like we were all first graders and repeated every statement at least three times. It made for long boring claptrap and I soon quit watching as it was the same thing every week. We were all going to die a painful death and cause others to also if we didn't follow her orders to the letter. She followed the "science" but had no advisers that were scientists. She sees herself as the all knowing queen of NM and everyone else is just an uneducated serf.
 
doubleh said:
That would be beneath her as she only talks down to people and orders them around. I watched her early weekly Covid appearances on TV. She talked like we were all first graders and repeated every statement at least three times. It made for long boring claptrap and I soon quit watching as it was the same thing every week. We were all going to die a painful death and cause others to also if we didn't follow her orders to the letter. She followed the "science" but had no advisers that were scientists. She sees herself as the all knowing queen of NM and everyone else is just an uneducated serf.
Click to expand...
Her response to the Sherrif after he refused to enforce her order was a piece of work. Gas lighting, holier than thou, sickening.
 
Styx said:
The Democrats, gun control advocates, and the liberal law enforcement officers coming out against the Governor are hypocrites and liars. It is not logical that they all were against or highly critical of Heller AND Bruen which together set the frame work for law abiding citizens to carry outside of the home, but then now claim that they support carry outside of the home and what the Governor did was unconstitutional??????? Make it make sense! They all are fake opportunistic snakes who will sell each out, the American people, and the Constitution out to further their own careers and to gain power.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. You could disagree with a SCOTUS decision but vow to follow the laws that are a result of that decision. I am sure police do exactly this every day.
 
Last edited:
Hartkopf said:
Her response to the Sherrif after he refused to enforce her order was a piece of work. Gas lighting, holier than thou, sickening.
Click to expand...
I had to look it up.

Lujan Grisham concluded her statement by urging Allen to enforce the order.

nmpoliticalreport.com

‘Stop being squeamish’: Guv responds to BCSO not enforcing 30-day gun ban

On Monday, Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen held a press conference wherein he said his office would not enforce Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s public health order banning guns in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County for 30 days as a response to a recent rash of gun violence there. Allen called...
nmpoliticalreport.com nmpoliticalreport.com

“I don’t need a lecture on constitutionality from Sheriff Allen: (she might want to rethink that statement)

“We’ve given you the tools, Sheriff Allen — now stop being squeamish about using them. I will not back down from doing what’s right and I will always put the safety of the people of New Mexico first,” Lujan Grisham said.
 
I imagine the Polish police officers were given the same sort of speech back in the 1940's. Don't be so squeamish smash these people's rights.
 
The Governor might not "back down", but just like THAT SAF gets a temporary injunction from the District Court and shuts down her temporary suspension of the 2A in NM.

A federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order in a Second Amendment Foundation challenge of New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s Sept. 8 edict suspending the constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County.



District Judge David H. Urias issued the TRO, which extends to Oct. 3, when a hearing on the preliminary injunction request will be held. The TRO was effective immediately.



SAF is joined in this action by the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and a private citizen, Zachary Fort, who resides in Bernalillo County. They are represented by Jordon George of Aragon Moss George Jenkins, LLP. The lawsuit and motion for the TRO were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.



In addition to Gov. Lujan Grisham, defendants in the lawsuit are Patrick M. Allen, cabinet secretary for the New Mexico Department of Health; Jason R. Bowie, cabinet secretary for the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, and W. Troy Weisler, chief of the New Mexico State Police.



“We are delighted that the court wasted no time in clamping down on Gov. Lujan Grisham’s clearly unconstitutional suspension of Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “No governor has the authority to arbitrarily deny constitutional rights, especially on the flimsy argument this is a public health emergency.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
hso said:
The Governor might not "back down", but just like THAT SAF gets a temporary injunction from the District Court and shuts down her temporary suspension of the 2A in NM.
Click to expand...
There is some great expression about "busier than a _________", I can't remember the part where I drew the blank, but it definitely applies to SAF right now. I think they had three updates on different cases today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

nwilliams
  • Locked
New Mexico Governor Suspends Carry Rights
Replies
3
Views
595
4v50 Gary
4v50 Gary
LiveLife
  • Locked
New Mexico governor's carry ban lawsuits
Replies
13
Views
859
Robert
Robert
Erich
  • Locked
NM Gov packs a Glock!
Replies
10
Views
826
Don Gwinn
D
F
  • Locked
(NM) Concealed handgun bill sent to governor
Replies
7
Views
496
Gray Peterson
G
D
  • Locked
(NM) Lawyer May Fight Concealed-Gun Law
Replies
5
Views
527
Jim March
J
Back
Top