Image 01 Image 03

New Mexico Democratic Attorney General Won’t Enforce Gov’s Gun Carry Ban

New Mexico Democratic Attorney General Won’t Enforce Gov’s Gun Carry Ban

Scream it from the top of a mountain: “Given that only responsible gun owners are likely to abide, much less recognize your ban, it is unclear how this action will lead to a measurable decline in gun violence in our community.”

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, a Democrat, told Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, also a Democrat, that his office cannot endorse her gun carry ban.

Why not? The Constitution.

Man, I wish the people in D.C. cared about the Constitution as much as the New Mexico officials who won’t enforce the insane “public emergency order.”

“Though I recognize my statutory obligations as New Mexico’s chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence,” wrote Torrez.

“Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster.”

The order only affects Bernalillo County, which is home to Albuquerque, the state’s largest city.

Despite that, Torrez noted that the order “is highly problematic because it purports to alter lawful firearm possession in ways that are inconsistent with the Federal and State Constitution.”

The order violates the Second Amendment. Torrez cited Heller, which says the amendment isn’t “unlimited,” but it does not concern the order.

(For the record, every gun law is unconstitutional. There is a period at the end of the amendment. It lacks the words/phrases “except for,” “but,” and “however”)

Then Torrez brought up Bruen, which states that laws can regulate guns, but the laws “may not infringe upon the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to…carry handguns publicly for their self-defense.'”

“The New Mexico Constitution likewise secures the right to keep and bear arms,” continued Torrez. “New Mexico’s provision specifically applies to ‘security and defense,’ as well as to ‘lawful hunting,’ recreational use,’ and ‘other lawful purposes.'”

Torrez wrote:

The Bruen Court emphasized that the importance of a governmental objective is irrelevant to the constitutionality of a state’s regulation of firearms. If the regulation interferes with an individual’s right to amend self-defense, it is presumptively unconstitutional and can only be upheld if the government is able to “affirmatively prove that its firearm regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.” Bruen, 142 S. CT. at 2127. As indicated above, the novel reclassification of gun violence as a “public health emergency” appears to have been adopted as a pretext to apply the extraordinary but narrowly proscribed powers of the PHERA to prohibit all citizens, regardless of their criminal intent or conduct, to possess firearms in public. Unfortunately, it is the very novelty of this approach that places it outside the “historical tradition” of gun regulation in this country and thus unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny.

Torrez also expressed a problem with the governor relying on the Public Emergency Response Act (PHERA) because it “distorts that law’s meaning beyond its intended purpose of protecting the public from the ‘imminent threat of exposure to an extremely dangerous condition or a highly infectious or toxic agent, including a threatening communicable disease.'”

Torrez reminded the governor that labeling gun violence as a “public health emergency” doesn’t erase the standard to justify “the blanket prohibition against any citizen, regardless of criminal conduct or intent, from carrying a firearm for personal protection.”

Hundreds of Albuquerque residents protested the order. They brought their guns. Some people had those scary looking big guns!

The protest was more peaceful than anything we saw in the summer of 2020. Nothing happened. Absolutely nothing.

Where are these smart people in DC? The county sheriff said the same thing: “Given that only responsible gun owners are likely to abide, much less recognize your ban, it is unclear how this action will lead to a measurable decline in gun violence in our community.”

My goodness…THANK YOU.

Torrez also reminded the governor that people still have reservations about the government using health restrictions due to the COVID pandemic.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Everybody but the governor seems to recognize that trying to enforce her ridiculous decree is the quickest way to turn a blue state bright red.

    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to txvet2. | September 13, 2023 at 1:14 pm

    Yes. Because even hardcore democrats like to remind us mouth breathers that “they also have guns”anytime some a civil war proposal is brought up.

I am glad to be able to say my previous prediction that all the Dems would go along with her is wrong. Maybe there is hope yet.

Seems Gov. Grisham pulled the pin on her tyranny grenade a bit early.
Living in her blue bubble must have given her the impression the Leftist agenda had moved a few years further along than it in fact has.

    amwick in reply to JohnC. | September 12, 2023 at 4:34 pm

    Buzz is it was some kind of trial balloon.. She did not do this on her own. Hope we hear more about that.

      amwick in reply to amwick. | September 12, 2023 at 4:35 pm

      Then again, she might be that dumb..

        alaskabob in reply to amwick. | September 12, 2023 at 5:13 pm

        Another reason she is a puppet. This is a probing attack to see what happens.

        On another front, ATF is “clarifying” regulations on having reloading gun powder. They propose that anyone in possession of gun powder must notify the local fire department on the phone within two days of purchase/possession and with written letter within 4 days … and to notify the ATF so that they can visit the person and verify the “safety” of the powder at a “reasonable” time. That last bit is bordering on a class III requirement. For years Schumer and the rest have tried to collapse reloading…. now with Bruen…. they can’t get firearms…. so reloading is to be highly restricted. With the “zero tolerance” of ATF, guess what happens?

      scooterjay in reply to amwick. | September 12, 2023 at 5:09 pm

      Nothing the party does is by accident. Perhaps she didn’t get the response she hoped for and the FBI goons are compromised.

      MK Ultra in reply to amwick. | September 12, 2023 at 10:26 pm

      That was my first thought, but after watching a couple of interviews with her, she’s plenty stupid enough not only to have done it on her own, but also to believe the dreck coming out of her mouth. The blithering idiots over at BuzzPost were cheering her on like she was a she was a WNBA star in a pink pussy hat.

      It is terrifying how many people are willing to sacrifice their freedoms and smile while doing so.

    henrybowman in reply to JohnC. | September 12, 2023 at 5:52 pm

    Hard to believe, since even her Democrat-controlled legislature didn’t roll over and give her all the gun ban laws she demanded this session. You would think a clue lay therein.

    alien in reply to JohnC. | September 12, 2023 at 7:38 pm

    Hoist by her own petard.

    Hey, somebody had to say it.

Considering the mealy mouthed political ramblings of the Albuquerque police chief and local sheriff deafening silence from Dem Legislator’s in NM I am pleasantly surprised by this straight forward statement by the AG. Even he realizes she went out too far on the limb too fast to realize their total gun ban ultimate end point and pulled the ripcord.
Impeachment should procede full speed and a floor vote forced. This is a winner for Republicans in that state for the weary and fed populace facing more Covid hysteria from the Covid E2 (election) variant soon to come to a place near you with face diaper mandates, lockdowns, voting law suspensions and so on

    alaskabob in reply to diver64. | September 12, 2023 at 5:45 pm

    And she says her oath of office is conditional. Another tyrantita.

    MK Ultra in reply to diver64. | September 12, 2023 at 10:30 pm

    Hopefully her willful attempt to limit citizens’ constitutional rights will negate any claims of qualified immunity when she is sued. We’re not allowed to tar and feather her, but hopefully a few lawsuits will bankrupt the bitch.

      MK Ultra in reply to MK Ultra. | September 12, 2023 at 10:32 pm

      Need an edit button. That I used “hopefully” in consecutive sentences is going to keep me up tonight.

      Louis K. Bonham in reply to MK Ultra. | September 13, 2023 at 8:48 am

      Under federal law, she can’t be sued for damages, period. Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits in federal court for money damages against state officials, and 1983 doesn’t abrogate that immunity. (Under Ex Parte Young, she can be sued for prospective injunctive / declaratory relief, but not money damages.)

      However, this case has an interesting wrinkle, which one of the cases on file recognizes and asserts. Under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act (which Grisham pushed as part of her post-Floyd virtue signaling), both qualified and sovereign immunities were abrogated for state actors who violate NM residents rights under the state constitution. It limits max damages to $2 million, and only allows suits against the state department / agency / subdivision (i.e., no personal liability).

      That potential liability is exactly why the local officials refused to play along. If the court in the case that asserts NMCRA claims decides to adjudicate those claims (it’s a pendant claim, and so the court has discretion not to hear it), the gov will be in for a rough ride.

        henrybowman in reply to Louis K. Bonham. | September 13, 2023 at 3:01 pm

        It’s so refreshing to see yet another leftist virtue-signal almost immediately boomerang right back on its throwers.

        Sanctuary cities.
        Foreign influence offenses.
        Now deprivation of civil rights by state officials.

        Just don’t hold your breath waiting for the logical epiphany:
        “Hey, do you think maybe we aren’t more virtuous than conservatives after all?”

henrybowman | September 12, 2023 at 5:49 pm

A hive-minded Democrat like Lujan must be positively suicidal by now to see that the entire state government seems intent on canceling her, including her Democrat colleagues.

Gremlin1974 | September 12, 2023 at 6:44 pm

I wonder if the AG’s letter has anything to do with he hearing that was postponed. Wouldn’t it have been the AG’s office who represented the Gov. at that hearing?

Louis K. Bonham | September 12, 2023 at 6:45 pm

BREAKING: TRO hearing has been set tomorrow for 1PM. Here we go . . . .

I’d love to see one of the plaintiff’s attorneys call Grisham as an adverse witness at the preliminary injunction hearing (if things get that far). After she’s sworn, my first question would be, “is your oath to tell the truth like your oath of office — “not absolute”?”

Well, probably not. But you get the idea.

CommoChief | September 12, 2023 at 7:12 pm

NM is a strange State politically. They are blue in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Las Cruces, red in the rural areas with a strong libertarian bent that carries over in some respects in Taos. Bottom line is many still view themselves as ‘western/frontier/ranchers’ and that cuts across the political party divide especially on 2A issues.

Subotai Bahadur | September 12, 2023 at 8:29 pm

It is my understanding that the Governor has an immunity from suit for liability for the violation of constitutional rights. However, I also seem to remember that various Attorneys General have been subject to criminal and civil liability for violations of law and rights. IF such is so, Torrez may be trying to save his own tuchus.

Subotai Bahadur

    Milhouse in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | September 12, 2023 at 10:27 pm

    No, because the headline on this article is wrong. The AG didn’t say he wouldn’t enforce the order — since he is not called on to enforce it anyway. What he said was that he couldn’t defend it in court. That is his job and his duty, but he says in this case he just can’t, because he can’t think of anything to say in its defense.

    So he’s not afraid of being sued; he’s afraid of being laughed out of court.

In 2021, Grisham signed HB4 which ends qualified immunity for any government agency or employee. If their actions violate the constitutional rights (federal or state) of any person, they can be sued.

Pretty sure everyone got the memo on that and no one is willing to walk the plank with Grisham.

    Louis K. Bonham in reply to Sanddog. | September 13, 2023 at 8:53 am

    I think the NMCRA is limited to violations of state constitutional rights, and it only allows suits against the state / department / agency / office (no personal liability).

    But I agree — that law (which Grisham pushed) is the primary reason nobody is willing to enforce this EO.

Grisham, who is something of a corrupt airhead, pulled the trigger on gun carry too early. She undoubtedly heard about the idea of a “health crisis ” being used to stop gun carry and then ownership at a Democratic Party training seminar on things to come. She wanted to be first so as to get her name out there as a ground breaker and pulled the trigger before NY or DC could …..and fucked up.
But mind you….this is where the Dems are going.

Someone on X raised the question about why a Soros backed guy would be doing this.. I checked,, quickly,, and it seems he was supported by a Soros PAC.

What if the governor was sued personally, would the AG’s office defend the governor or would she have to pay it out of her own Marxist handbag?

Find out, citizens of AZ, do please find out.

Sounds good, but I hope this isn’t a scheme to get the lawsuits dismissed as moot while keeping the ban on the books for use later.

Michael Gilson | September 13, 2023 at 11:30 am

Just want to thank Mary for making the true statement that all gun control laws are unconstitutional.

inspectorudy | September 13, 2023 at 3:42 pm

“As indicated above, the novel reclassification of gun violence as a “public health emergency” appears to have been adopted as a pretext to apply the extraordinary but narrowly proscribed powers of the PHERA to prohibit all citizens, regardless of their criminal intent or conduct, to possess firearms in public.”

The reclassification of anything to the Public Health Emergency level as with Covid, makes them think they can then control it totally. They got away with it because of Covid and Biden is even now warning of a new lockdown because of a rising public health emergency of a Covid strain. This appears to be the only way to totally control the public. They have tried so many things but health seems to get all of the Karens on their side. I don’t recall the Constitution mentioning anything about public health as a means to suspend the entire Constitution.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.