Image 01 Image 03

Four Lawsuits Filed Challenging New Mexico 2A Emergency Order

Four Lawsuits Filed Challenging New Mexico 2A Emergency Order

The Queen of New Mexico is getting defensive about criticism from the likes of — checks notes — Ted Lieu.

On September 7, 2023, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued an Emergency *Health* Order suspending concealed and open carry of guns in New Mexico even for concealed carry permit holders. We covered the action in New Mexico Governor Effectively Suspends 2nd Amendment Under “Emergency” Decree.

The pushback was immediate from people you would expect to push back, you know, law-abiding citizens who didn’t appreciate being summarily stripped of their right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment and numerous Supreme Court decisions.

But it also came from some unexpected sources, like California Democrat Ted Lieu – YES, THAT TED LIEU. And Davig Hogg – YES, THAT DAVID HOGG.

The Queen of New Mexico is getting defensive about criticism from the likes of Ted Lieu.

More significantly, over the weekend, at least four lawsuits, two of which seek immediate injunctive relief, have been filed. (The Pacer docket shows four as of this writing, but it’s possible more have been filed and are not yet publicly available.)

National Association For Gun Rights (Complaint, Motion)

We The Patriots (Complaint, Motion)

Randy Donk, Gun Owners of America (Complaint)

Shawn Blas (Class Action Complaint).

We should expect at least one of these cases in which there are pending motions to get a quick hearing. I would not be surprised to see an immediate TRO, pending consideration of the motions for a preliminary injunction.

Here’s the Motion for TRO from the National Association for Gun Rights:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It takes a special kind of moron to get a smackdown of gun control from David Hogg, but relax, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is that special kind of moron.

    4fun in reply to Neo. | September 10, 2023 at 10:27 pm

    They’re probably scared it’ll be used for big donations to GOA, NRA and other gun rights groups. I doubt in their private conversations that they disagree with her methods.

      Concise in reply to 4fun. | September 10, 2023 at 10:45 pm

      Somebody’s writing the script for these morons. They wouldn’t recognize the constitution if they took a tour of the National Archives

        Louis K. Bonham in reply to Concise. | September 11, 2023 at 4:43 pm

        Aaaaaand . . . it begins. PACER shows that the motion for TRO in the case filed by the Gun Owners of America is set for a hearing at 11AM tomorrow.

Never say the quiet part out loud.

Next in the line of critics will be Justin Truedouche.

Hopefully whatever Federal Judge this gets in front of won’t dismiss it as moot at the expiration. This needs a judicial precedent that is very emphatic in spelling out to would be totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats Hell No you can’t do that not ever.

    Voyager in reply to CommoChief. | September 10, 2023 at 9:45 pm

    Yes, and repercussions for the NM gov. Sending the police after armed law abiding citizens is a recipe to get someone killed.

    leoamery in reply to CommoChief. | September 11, 2023 at 1:11 am

    If the 7 federal district court judges in NM, 4 were nominated by Slowy or Obama.

    What do you think of those odds?

    DaveGinOly in reply to CommoChief. | September 11, 2023 at 1:59 am

    Judging by how the 5th Circuit recently opined in Missouri v Biden, having experienced a harm, and there being a realistic possibility that without restraint the harm may recur, this won’t be considered moot.

    I was wondering about the slow motion of the judicial system myself. A court date after the expiration date? Maybe that is what she is counting on.

      Edward in reply to amwick. | September 11, 2023 at 9:13 am

      That is exactly what the plan is, expiration of the order to moot these cases and no arrest and prosecution of people violating the order as those cases would not become moot simply because the order expired. No judge should declare a case moot when a violation of the Constitution’s protections of this level is undertaken, but I believe most judges would jump at the opportunity to declare the case moot and clear it from the docket. I would love to be proven wrong.

        henrybowman in reply to Edward. | September 12, 2023 at 2:21 pm

        Except her problem is that since the damage to “violators” does not also expire in 30 days, she’s just lost her mootness escape hatch.

Also this minor issue of officially sanctioned public oaths sworn [provisionally]:

“After a reporter questioned whether Grisham was upholding her oath to the Constitution, she argued no Constitutional rights were fixed, including her oath.”

    DaveGinOly in reply to Tiki. | September 11, 2023 at 2:13 am

    If the Constitution (including the enumeration of certain rights in the Bill of Rights) wasn’t meant to be literal and absolute, the authors would have used language different from “no state shall,” “shall not be infringed,” and “no warrant shall issue.” These terms. and others like them, are absolute, and were made intentionally so.

    If a government official’s oath wasn’t absolute, it wouldn’t be an oath.

    Milhouse in reply to Tiki. | September 11, 2023 at 5:16 am

    I listened to the recording and it seemed to me that that’s not quite what she said. I think she said, not that her oath was not absolute, but that none of the rights the constitution protects are absolute. If that’s really what she said, it’s not remarkable or controversial. Pretty much everyone agrees with that. The constitution absolutely protects those rights, but the rights themselves are not absolute.

    For instance, the RKBA does not mean that all people may have and/or bear all arms at all times and in all circumstances; reasonable regulations do not infringe the right, and are therefore permitted by the 2A. That’s why the Bruen decision said we must look to the early history of gun regulations in the USA, to see what sort of regulations an ordinary person of the late 18th century would not have considered to infringe the RKBA.

    So yes, she’s correct that some reasonable restrictions on guns are permitted. But this is definitely not one of them. There’s nothing in the historical record to show that anyone in the 1790s would have put up with what she’s done here. It’s well out of bounds.

    What she’s done is the equivalent of what Justice Holmes did with his infamous “falsely crying fire” opinion: the freedom of speech is not absolute, since everyone agrees that we can punish people who falsely cry fire in a theater and cause a panic; therefore we can also punish people who protest against conscription in wartime. It’s pretty much the same thing, after all, isn’t it? And next we can punish those who call the President “Brandon” because that’s not much different either. Thankfully that opinion has since been thoroughly repudiated and has no place in the law today.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 11:12 am

      You make an important distinction in your post.

      The right protected by the constitution are not Granted by the document but Protected by the document. So they exist, regardless of that protection. I have noticed a trend in recent years to speak as if these Rights are Granted instead of protected and I think that is an important distinction to make.

      Also, as usual great analysis.

      dmacleo in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 11:26 am

      The constitution absolutely protects those rights, but the rights themselves are not absolute. (/blockquote>
      and therein lies the problem.

      SDWilson in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 8:18 pm

      I believe you misheard what the gov said.
      She stated no rights are absolute and then explicitly included her oath in that.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | September 12, 2023 at 4:49 pm

      “No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute,” Grisham said in a chilling statement during a news conference.”
      Hard to walk that back.

    Andy in reply to Tiki. | September 11, 2023 at 7:52 am

    irony that the “Oath keepers” were deemed a terrorist group under Biden.

“Hey Ted, conceal and open carry are state laws that I have jurisdiction over. If you’re really interested in helping curb gun violence, I’d welcome you to join our next police academy class.”
Arrogant bitch needs a railback civics lesson

    Mauiobserver in reply to henrybowman. | September 10, 2023 at 10:23 pm

    Ah yes, I read Huck Finn again recently and that great American Literary treasure features a great citizen ride out of town for the notorious rapscallions aka the Duke and the King. The good Governor certainly merits such true justice as well,

Hold on a second here. Democrats don’t give a rat’s __ about the constitution. Something else is underlying this. Maybe the governor just jumped the gun here? Don’t know but I suspect something more when democrats start spouting support for the constitution.

    henrybowman in reply to Concise. | September 10, 2023 at 11:15 pm

    Nobody cares what they spout. At least, not anybody experienced with them.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Concise. | September 11, 2023 at 11:20 am

    Simple, it is a trial balloon for the next step in their ability to “deem things an emergency” and see what response they get.

    Sadly, the response in NM seems to be a bit Meh.

    They have spent decades trying to take guns away from the citizens and have been pitifully unsuccessful. So now they are going the route of most Socialist Tyrants and researching how they can just take them.

    Also, as usual I didn’t hear anyone point out to this lady that her “Emergency Order” will only affect the lawful gun owners, because criminals aren’t going to give a rats arse about her order.

    Also, I would like to ask her how many of the shootings she is using as justification were committed by Concealed Carry holders or Lawful gun owners, because I bet I can already give the answer. Zero, that’s how many.

      henrybowman in reply to Gremlin1974. | September 13, 2023 at 12:32 am

      “Also, as usual I didn’t hear anyone point out to this lady that her “Emergency Order” will only affect the lawful gun owners”

      To the contrary, a reporter did PRECISELY that.

      The reporter continued by inquiring of the Democrat governor whether she thought that criminal offenders with access to black market weapons would obey her directives on the 30-day suspension.

      “Uh, no,” she responded.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | September 10, 2023 at 10:07 pm

What Grisham is doing is a clear and dangerous crime. This is not something where a court slaps her down and everyone just goes back to what they were doing. She is flagrantly abusing the system in order to deprive citizens of our inherent rights. She is a criminal and must be punished, accordingly, not just told that she isn’t allowed to do that. She knows that she isn’t allowed to do that. She knows that guns have nothing to do with “health”.

Grisham, and her co-conspirators, all need to go to prison for long, long, long sentences. People in government CANNOT be allowed to just try and abuse their governmental powers any way that they want and not only never suffer any punishments for that but not even get thrown out of those government positions when they commit their crimes.

The US needs to face the reality of traitors in government and how the abuse of governmental power needs to be dealt with.

    If the courts really cared about things like that, Jack Smith, Fani Willis, and that fat slob in NY would be in jail already.

    No, she is not a criminal. It cannot ever be a crime for an executive simply to make an invalid order.

    Now if anyone should try to enforce this order, they might very well be committing a crime. At the very least they’d be civilly liable, and would not have qualified immunity. But there is no conceivable executive order a governor or president could make that would in itself be a crime.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 3:33 am

      No, she is not a criminal. It cannot ever be a crime for an executive simply to make an invalid order.

      That is utterly ridiculous.

      She is a criminal (of the worst sort) and executives can most certainly not be allowed to try and do anything they want in office, risking nothing more than a rebuff from a court (and only after some period of time and damage done, in almost all cases).

      It is laughable to even try to suggest such an idiotic thing.

        You are wrong. Completely and thoroughly wrong. The law isn’t and never will be as you imagine it to be.


          If a mafia Don orders a hit, he is responsible for the murder, as is everyone else in the gang.

          Blackwing1 in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 10:26 am


          IANAL, nor do I play one on TV. But US Code 18 Section 241 clearly states:

          “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
          If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
          They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

          Yes, she is currently an un-indicted conspirator, and subject to criminal arrest, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment, along with any member of her staff that assisted in the drafting and promulgation of this illegal executive order.. Since the SwampState fully supports her position (she’ll never be impeached by her tame NM Democrats) the federal portion of our government will do absolutely nothing to charge her with her blatantly unconstitutional crimes.

          Your knowledge of the law is as flawed as your deliberate failure to say what she actually stated in her observation of her oath. Since this is at least the second time you’ve misquoted her, I can only assume it is a deliberate attempt to deceive. I don’t normally feed the trolls but I’ll make an exception in your case.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 10:43 am

          A state governor, making an executive order, even an invalid one, is not “conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person”, etc. That is just not what the statute envisages.

          A state government cannot be a criminal enterprise, so RICO is inapplicable. Deeming a state government to be a criminal enterprise would be a serious violation of federalism.

          A state government cannot be a criminal enterprise
          OK, that is one of the highest levels of pedantry you’ve achieved on this blog. The whole point of the Constitutions IS that a gov’t can be criminal. It sets the Constitution (and hence, the oaths thereto) above the other laws of the land. To openly and knowingly violate the Constitution…. Hoo boy.

          slagothar in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 1:16 pm

          “A state government cannot be a criminal enterprise”

          Tell that to the confederate states…

          Blackwing1 in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 2:44 pm

          Milhouse, you are wrong and/or have practiced to deceive again.

          That statute was written for EXACTLY that type of situation, when a city/county/state government has taken control of the legal system for nefarious purposes. One of the things it was intended for was to stop state-sanctioned actions of the Ku Klux Klan, when local law enforcement, prosecutors and judges would allow Klan members to walk away from crimes.

          Yes, it includes governors and their illegal and unconstitutional executive orders, and by definition of a “conspiracy” (two or more persons) anyone aiding, assisting or abetting their actions.

          henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | September 12, 2023 at 2:28 pm

          The city government of San Francisco in 1851 was a criminal enterprise.
          The city government of Las Vegas, NM in 1879 was a criminal enterprise.
          The city government of Athens, TN in 1946 was a criminal enterprise.
          There’s nothing magical that keeps it from happening to states.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 3:34 am

      But there is no conceivable executive order a governor or president could make that would in itself be a crime.


      You’re looking at one, right here.


      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 3:41 am

      It cannot ever be a crime for an executive simply to make an invalid order.

      And you are trying to twist my words, again, which is one of the lowest ways of trying to win an argument atht you are on the wrong side of. I made it very clear, this is not “simply an invalid order”. This is an intentional attempt by the governor to take away the rights of the citiznry through chicanery dressed up as pseudo-legalise. But we all know that it is complete BS. She knows that it is complete BS. There was nothing honest or well-intentioned about this. She set out to take away citizens’ rights, illegally, and THAT IS A CRIME. A very serious crime – extra serious precisely because it is being done by the executive, abusing her governmental powers.

      This ain’t rocket surgery. It’s all quite overt and obvious and the danger is, too.

        No, it isn’t a crime. You are simply making up the most ridiculous nonsense. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

          PuttingOnItsShoes in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 10:46 am

          Democrats would make it a crime if Trump did it, so goose and gander rules apply.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 11:25 am

          Also, I believe the “relief”: to something like this would be Impeachment. That is the mechanism that is prescribed for dealing with “rogue” executives in government.

          Yes, I realize it is an imperfect system, but it is the system.

          Blackwing1 in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 4:18 pm

          See my original response to your nonsensical statement above (10:26 AM) regarding USC 18 Sec. 241. See also the refutation that this Code doesn’t apply to a governor shortly below.

          It is a crime, and the fact that she’ll never be prosecuted for it by the partisan hacks of the DoJ doesn’t make it a non-crime.

          not_a_lawyer in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 9:53 pm

          Yes, Milhouse is being pedantic.

          It is to his credit that he is often, almost always, correct.

          Milhouse needs to let threads go. It is not necessary to respond to every response made to a comment. Just let it go.


        The behavior of the governor is the very textbook definition of that which is prohibited under section 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) and 241, the corresponding conspiracy statute.

      Concise in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 9:25 am

      I think that needs some qualification. Democrats don’t really care about the law. If she were a republican, they’d indict her. Now an appellate court would dismiss or reverse charges but all democrats want is to punish political opponents with the process. Ask Gov. Rick Perry.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 10:46 am

      I think that you are a bit too dogmatic there. Someone below posited a Conspiracy claim, and I think that you might be able to use the 1/6, etc claims against esp Trump and company as a template. Get an illegal arrest for carrying a handgun in violation of the EO, and you could possibly put together a RICO or conspiracy case. I think that your major point is that her act (actus reus) is not, per se, illegal. Someone has to act on it first, and then you have to tie her action (issuing the EO) to the crime. With the example given elsewhere here of a Mafia Don issuing a hit order, we are at the place where the hit has been ordered but no action yet taken to implement it. Once someone takes actions in preparation of the hit, then the Don can be brought in as an accessory of sorts. And esp after the fact, after the hit has been executed. He ordered the hit, and is responsible for its execution. She ordered the seizure, it was executed, was illegal, and she would be legally responsible.

        Blackwing1 in reply to Bruce Hayden. | September 11, 2023 at 2:47 pm

        I’m pretty sure that criminal conspiracies can be prosecuted before the conspiratorial act is accomplished. See my comments above regarding USC 18 Sec 241 and how it defines a conspiracy to deprive persons of Constitutional rights.

      Once again, your pedantry defeats you and the law, Milhouse.
      Yes, she is a criminal, if the Constitution is “the highest law in the land.” And she is absolutely a criminal in the most moral sense of the term.
      If the law fails to take that into account, or (especially) if the procedures fail to account for that, then the failure is there, NOT that “she is not a criminal.”

      sfharding in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 7:25 pm

      “Now if anyone should try to enforce this order, they might very well be committing a crime. At the very least they’d be civilly liable, and would not have qualified immunity”.
      Bull hockey!
      The order is Itself a directive to enforce. It is an Executive “ORDER” from the chief executive of the State binding upon all executive officers and employees of all agencies of the State, including the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Director or Chief of the State Police, and all State Police, etc.
      Your argument is that the German Military and the SS could be held criminally or civilly liable for following orders, but Hitler gets a pass because his executive orders could “never be a crime”.

Dumb-o-crats are gonna act as obnoxious totalitarians, as sure as the day is long. The only thing that’s changing is how brazen these apparatchiks’ lawless antics are becoming.

Will the repub governors declare a health emergency and ban abortion? How about they also declare a health emergency if pedo joe and cacklin’ kamala show up in their state and have them declared mentally unbalanced and toss them in an asylum?

    Milhouse in reply to 4fun. | September 11, 2023 at 5:21 am

    An appropriate response would be to declare crime a “health emergency” and purport to suspend the fourth and fifth amendments. See how quickly and how loudly they howl.

    Then declare mass shootings a “health emergency” and impose censorship on how the news industry reports them. Stock up on ear plugs and popcorn, and sit back and enjoy the show.

The states must pass laws to rein in ‘Executive Orders’ or ‘Emergency Orders’.

Any executive order must be limited to something like two weeks, during which the legislature can convene and deliberate on the issue. If, after two weeks, the legislature fails to act, the order must be declared null, and no substantively similar order may be issued.


    henrybowman in reply to not_a_lawyer. | September 10, 2023 at 11:31 pm

    And yet, Arizona Republicans are currently busy doing exactly the opposite.

    Some years back, our legislators passed a law authorizing the governor to issue emergency regulations, like the COVID shutdowns. The law was absolutely unconstitutional: our constitution gives the governor ZERO powers over civilians, save to enforce laws passed by the legislature when they are violated. Our governor’s emergency powers (according to the constitution) are over other state employees ONLY, and only to ensure continuity of government services for civilians. But the new law stayed on the books, because who was there to complain about it? (And if anyone had noticed, they surely wouldn’t have had “standing.”)

    Well COVID hit the fan. Lots of people pointed out that this law was flawed.

    So the Republicans are “fixing it.” They passed another law (HCR2039) that “limits the amount of time a governor can exercise emergency powers unless renewed by the legislature.” Of course, this still doesn’t make it constitutional… so part of HCR2039 changes the constitution to make it legal (including submitting it to a referendum as required).

    They’re going to LOUDLY sell the referendum question with “This law limits the amount of time a governor can exercise emergency powers,” not, “this law instantiates in the constitution a brand new ‘king’ power the governor never legally had in the first place.”

    And the dumbasses will predictably vote for it.
    And the Democrats had NOTHING to do with it.

    DaveGinOly in reply to not_a_lawyer. | September 11, 2023 at 2:11 am

    The concept of “emergency powers” for an executive date back to a time when it might take days, even weeks, to assemble the legislature for it to consider a response to the emergency that hasn’t already been provided by existing law. With this in mind, I argue that 1.) A governor’s emergency powers should last no longer than it takes the legislature to convene; 2.) that the declaration of emergency powers is a call for an emergency session of the legislature; 3.) that emergency powers may last only for 30 days (or some other, fixed and short period) or until the legislature convenes, whichever comes first; 4. that “emergency powers” extend only to the promulgation of temporary rules or regulations, in the stead of the absent legislature, and said rules and regulation expire within a fixed amount of time after their declaration, or within a fixed amount of time of the assembly of the legislature, whichever comes first; and 5.) that the temporary rules and regulations be consonant with such legislation as the legislature has the authority to make, when it is in session, that is to say that they must be “constitutional.”

      George S in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 11, 2023 at 8:00 am

      The concept of “emergency” for a people is that we all see it.

      It doesn’t count when only the governor does, regardless of what powers are enumerated in any federal, state or local laws.

        henrybowman in reply to George S. | September 12, 2023 at 2:32 pm

        Well, the only practical distinction is that you first have to fly a couple of planes into buildings so your citizens can all “see it.” Then you can do what you want anyway.

      1.) A governor’s emergency powers should last no longer than it takes the legislature to convene;
      Of course, if the state is under lockdown due to the emergency, then it will take as long as the emergency for the legislature to convene.

      3.) that emergency powers may last only for 30 days
      Make that 3 and I might agree to that one.

      4. that “emergency powers” extend only to the promulgation of temporary rules or regulations
      Emergency powers should extend to using external (to that jurisdiction) forces to re-establish law and order, moving money to funding emergency governmental expenditures otherwise authorized by law, restricted movement into the area (except to provide assistance and re-establish order), and setting up governance in the affected area. Period.

Her order is treason in my opinion.

    txvet2 in reply to geronl. | September 11, 2023 at 2:03 am

    You’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid.

    Milhouse in reply to geronl. | September 11, 2023 at 2:51 am

    The constitution says otherwise.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 3:43 am

      Not at all. She is waging war on the citizenry, which is what the Constitution identifies as treason. And a few hundred million people can testify to the overt act.

        Bullshit. You are simply lying. As usual.

        Not only is she not waging war on anyone, you are lying when you claim the constitution identifies “waging war on the citizenry” as treason. it doesn’t.

          ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 6:30 am

          Section. 3.
          Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

          And, in addition to the criminal governor’s war on America, the rest of the dems are all adhering to our Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort in orchestrating the illegal invasion of America.

          They are all traitors, by the letter of the Constitution. You are too cowardly to admit that but it is clearly true and everyone knows it, not least of which the treasonous dems, themselves, who have set out to take down America.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 8:12 am

          Wow, you’re such an idiot that you repeat your lie, while citing the exact words of the constitution that prove you are lying. You claimed that the constitution identifies “waging war on the citizenry” as treason. Then you cite the exact text that doesn’t do that! How stupid do you have to be to do that? The constitution says treason is levying war against the united states, not against “the citizenry”!

          Not that she’s levying war against the citizenry either; she’s not levying war against anyone. But “the united states” is very different from “the citizenry”.

          And no, none of the Dems are adhering to the united states’ enemies.

          They are not guilty of treason, and you are guilty of stupidity, ignorance, and falsehood. Just shut up and stop digging yourself in deeper.

          freespeechfanatic in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 10:19 am

          Pound sand, you contumelious pedant.

          Ooooh! I learned an useful new word!

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 10:45 am

          Get lost, liar.

Prof. Jacobson, please… Hogg and Lieu have identical wording. It isn’t that the frog is being boiled, it’s that the governor turned up the heat way too high, way too soon.

“…being summarily stripped of their right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment and numerous Supreme Court decisions.”

Still and again and again, my broken record: If you or I had egregiously and aggressively violated tHe LaW oF tHe LaNd to deprive others their civil rights, the state AG or fed DOJ would see us in prison, bankrupted, or both.

Unless or until this marxist tyrant, NM Gov. Grisham(D), is criminally prosecuted for her egregious and aggressive actions to deprive millions of citizens their civil rights, it’s all just **clown world**

    CommoChief in reply to LB1901. | September 11, 2023 at 8:01 am

    Or at least in Civil suits for attempting to use her office to violate the constitutional rights of Citizens. Sec 1983 violations ain’t just for police who overstep and violate someone’s rights.

      Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | September 11, 2023 at 8:14 am

      Nope, she can’t be sued civilly either. Anyone who tries enforcing this order, though, is fair game. No qualified immunity. (Except prosecutors, since they have absolute immunity.)

        CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 9:00 am

        She should probably consider waiving any immunity claims so that she is subjected to potential civil penalties within the legal system as an alternative to someone deciding to act in an uncivil and extrajudicial manner which is always a possibility for totalitarian politicians.

        Not encouraging that COA but simply pointing out that our Constitutional order only functions when we all agree to stay inside the lines and those who recklessly and arrogantly chose to step outside the lines can hardly complain if others also make that choice.

          Millhouse, you seem like a decent, learned attorney who well knows the realities of our legal system. Heck, I agree with many of your rebuttals while others are furiously downvoting them.

          “Anyone who tries enforcing this order, though, is fair game.” Ok. Then why not the executive who created/signed the toxic policies/legislation to deprive others their civil rights?

          You see the realities of our legal system through a microscope, and try to work within that system. Many here see the system through a telescope that reveals all its legal fictions, and work to change that reality.

          We either live in a society of “all people are equal before the law”, and are granted freedom of association to navigate society (as long as we do not deprive others life, liberty, or property – for those are crimes), or we live in an oligarchy where those who win a popularity contest to office are above the law to deprive others of life, liberty, or property without punishment for their crimes (lawsuits, impeachment, vote harder are not punishments).

          It is a time for choosing: are we servants or citizens?

          Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | September 11, 2023 at 10:51 am

          First of all, I have never claimed to be an attorney.

          Second, the difference between issuing the order and attempting to enforce it is that the governor is exercising a legitimate executive power, albeit invalidly. Making orders is what she is supposed to do. But since the order is invalid, it can’t be enforced, and anyone who does enforce it is liable. Qualified immunity would not apply, since the right it violates is clearly established.

          Holding the governor liable for making an invalid order would be almost like holding a legislature liable for passing an invalid law, or an individual legislator liable for voting for such a law. That’s just not acceptable in a republican government; for one thing it would violate the separation of powers.

          the governor is exercising a legitimate executive power
          How is it a legitimate executive power when she’s violating two different, applicable Constitutions?

          This is what I mean about your pedantry about the law. You’re so focused on certain words that you miss the overall fabric. You would argue about Justice not actually being blind because she could see if she’d take the dumb blindfold off.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to CommoChief. | September 11, 2023 at 11:34 am

          Which is why the city and the county immediately released statements that they would not enforce the order. Because they realized who would be held liable.

        Louis K. Bonham in reply to Milhouse. | September 11, 2023 at 9:20 am


        While you are correct that the Eleventh Amendment protects state officials from monetary damages for 1983 violations, you might want to read the fourth case linked above.

        This one is *very* interesting. Besides the obvious Bruen challenge, it also asserts claims for violations of the state constitution’s RKBA (which the NM SC has held protects unlicensed open carry, which of course is banned by the EO). It also makes class action claims under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, a 2021 law passed in the wake of the Floyd hoopla that abolished sovereign and qualified immunity for acts of governmental officials who violate NM constitutional civil rights (although it proscribes individual liability, and limits the maximum claim to $2 million).

        So, while we will have the usual suspects doing their thing (NAGR and GOA, with FPC and SAF apparently warming up to file their own or intervene in a case that draws a good judge), we now also have what could be a mercenary plaintiff / plaintiff’s attorney prepared to try and monetize Grisham’s grandstanding. I.e., they’ll ride the big boys’ coattails, and hope one of those parties get favorable findings that are res judicata / collateral estoppel against the defendants, and then go for the brass ring on a damages claim under the NMCRA.

        This potential civil liability is precisely why the local authorities in Albuquerque have stated they will not enforce the EO. If punitive damages are available under the NMCRA (and I have no idea if they are — any NM attorneys in the house?), I could see the right jury pop Grisham with punitives for what is such a transparently unconstitutional act.

          henrybowman in reply to Louis K. Bonham. | September 12, 2023 at 2:41 pm

          “the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, a 2021 law passed in the wake of the Floyd hoopla that abolished sovereign and qualified immunity for acts of governmental officials who violate NM constitutional civil rights”

          Ooh, be still my beating heart!
          To think the old fraud actually left us one positive legacy!

        A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime.

          henrybowman in reply to 4rdm2. | September 12, 2023 at 2:45 pm

          Otherwise, an editor could not be prosecuted for writing an opinion column saying, “Somebody should shoot politician X.” Because it’s his formal job description to write opinions, it’s even protected by an actual amendment, and we should only be able to prosecute the person who followed his advice.

          Somehow I don’t see it. Especially when the written item is an ORDER to people who WORK FOR YOU.

Never trust a Lucy Stoner. These female surname hyphenaters are the biggest narcissists on the planet. They are also fond giving their children names redolent of feudal lords, much as black mothers invent unpronounceable African names. I often wonder about this very selfish, short-sighted naming strategy. Does each subsequent generation’s surname get longer and longer, or is there a lopping-off algorithm?

It is unfortunate that an 11-year-old boy was shot and killed in Albuquerque, but many more children are killed in car accidents each year in New Mexico (ref. the NM Dept. of Health Report). Maybe Governor Lujan should just ban all cars.

    JRD47 in reply to stevie. | September 11, 2023 at 9:07 am

    You make a valid point, and by the way, no one has a constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle on the public streets of NM.

      Blackwing1 in reply to JRD47. | September 11, 2023 at 2:53 pm

      According to (hawk, spit) Giggle, in 2022 there were 466 traffic accident deaths in ALL of New Mexico, compared to 120 murders in Albuquerque (hey, I spelled it right).

      Yup, this lunatic lefty needs to ban all vehicles except bicycles (and maybe even those) in her state. “It’s for the children.”™

This executuive order has been a Democratic wet dream for decades-it will not stand up in Court

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”

Albert Camus

    Which, naturally, begs the introduction of CS Lewis’ quote:

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

    The part about being “cured of diseases” is especially apropos of this being declared a “health emergency.”

Dolce Far Niente | September 11, 2023 at 9:15 am

It seems perfectly obvious that astonishing support for the 2nd by progressives is nothing of the sort.

Instead, they are terrified that this will result in a definitive court decision on the ability of politicians and health officials to suspend the Constitution for an alleged “health emergency”.

There is no question that the UniParty and the Deep State fully intend to repeat the staggering success in oppression they enjoyed during the lockdowns, and that this was premature.

That’s Ted and David’s real concern; a legal decision that will abort these particular fascist intentions.


      henrybowman in reply to Gremlin1974. | September 12, 2023 at 3:05 pm

      I prefer to think they are simply serially deluding themselves. Like the addict who wants just one more hit, and promises himself that’ll be the end of it, but later inevitably decides that he really needs at least one more.

      I have old videos of Handgun Control douchebags swearing on their mothers’ graves that they were interested in laws against handguns only, and absolutely no other firearms; and Mothers Against Drunk Driving who swore that their activism concerned only driving drunk.

      It makes no practical difference to us whether these individuals changed their minds, or their positions were assumed by people with incrementally more destructive ambitions, the result is the same. The earlier ones are equally culpable for the enormities of the later ones, because they enabled the later ones to stand on their shoulders.

      As I once told John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, just because you get off the bus mid-route doesn’t mean that others on the bus won’t ride it all the way to the end of the line.

The Queen may think that no right is absolute.

While she may claim jurisdiction over state law, she cannot unilaterally suspend law. It is the prerogative of the legislature to nullify existing law.

Constitutionally, her view is wrong. She does not have the right to suspend Constitutional Rights.

The Queen’s actions are discriminatory. First, her order only applies to a class legally carrying under state law and various SCOTUS rulings. Second, the order explicitly targets the class in one area of New Mexico.

Further declaring the issue of gun violence a health emergency appears to be an overreach. Can the governor produce statistical evidence that law-abiding citizens of the city commit more gun-related violence than actual lawbreakers?

    henrybowman in reply to William Downey. | September 12, 2023 at 3:07 pm

    It’s a perfect storm situation. Not only has public health / public safety long been touted by the left as simple root passwords to the constitution, but Lujan’s previous position was as state director for public health.

It may be that the push back she got from surprising quarters is simply that she is too far over her skis too fast. She is supposed to stick to the lefty Dem playbook and go gradually.

freespeechfanatic | September 11, 2023 at 10:17 am

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Hogg’s statement is stronger than anything heard so far from a national Republican politician.

While I hope this will backfire on her, and that this unprecedented power grab will be struck down, I hope it will also backfire to the point that any laws restricting concealed carry are shown to be unconstitutional.

Well, this sure will play well in Santa Fe.

One of the things that bothered me about the brief is that it dwells on the historical record. The more powerful argument is probably that Strict Scrutiny applies. Maybe an argument for Compelling State Interest can be made (that was possible questioned in Bruen), but a serious argument about closely tailored solution cannot. Everyone is affected, off their own property. Plenty of reasons why you would need a gun off of your own property, for self defense, from 4 legged and 2 legged predators in NM. The cartels operate there, and people die from the natural predators. It is that the EO sweeps much too broadly is the issue I see. And that fails Strict Scrutiny.

I say this because the historical record aspect is already being used by liberal courts to negate Bruen. They find some evidence of gun restrictions in the past, and use it to effectively ignore Bruen. Rereading Bruen last week, I was struck by the fact that it hit Strict Scrutiny first, and hardest, then added the historical record portion as an additional requirement for legality of gun laws.

    henrybowman in reply to Bruce Hayden. | September 12, 2023 at 3:12 pm

    It’s legal fashion. Until Heller and MacDonald, courts got to use the laxest scrutiny possible to deny gun rights. Then SCOTUS said it was a basic right that required strict scrutiny, no “balancing acts.” Outrageously, some courts continued applying balancing acts despite this clear admonition. Finally, in Bruen, SCOTUS essentially said, screw scrutiny and balancing acts (since you obviously can’t follow basic directions) — instead, if the founders didn’t have an arms law of this type, you can’t either. That was way harder for them to skirt around. So that’s why all the briefs now are oriented in this direction.

I noticed that the attorney in that motion works two miles from my HS. Need to look him up. One of my best friends had his insurance business right there. Wonder if he is a Farmer (HS mascot) made good.

Executive Order 666:

The escalation of gun homicides presents a public health crisis, and since the overwhelming majority of gun homicides are committed by little green men ages 14 to 19, I am hereby ordering their immediate detention to be placed in concentration camps until they reach the age of 40, where the body of research indicates that is the age violent tendencies subside.

No right is absolute and therefore I am absolutely right to enforce this Order forthwith.

    not_a_lawyer in reply to George S. | September 11, 2023 at 10:06 pm

    The number of the beast eh?

    I see what you did there with the ‘little green men’ reference, and it is very good.

    Thank you