Image 01 Image 03

New Mexico Federal Judge Grants Temporary Restraining Order on Gun Carry Ban

New Mexico Federal Judge Grants Temporary Restraining Order on Gun Carry Ban

The lawyer representing the state said the gun carry ban argued “that the order isn’t a law it’s an executive action, and therefore should be allowed.”

U.S. District Judge David Urias granted the motion for a temporary restraining order on New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s gun carry ban.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, a Democrat, told the governor he cannot endorse or defend her gun carry ban because it is unconstitutional.

Therefore, Torrez did not represent the state in court.

The attorney representing the state called it an executive order instead of what it actually is: public health emergency order.



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Boy, did that grenade explode in a hurry.
I see GOA got it done. Where is the NRA? Wayne, are you on another Italian vacation?

    alien in reply to diver64. | September 13, 2023 at 5:35 pm

    There were six organizations that filed suit — how many more did you need?

      One might expect that the NRA – whose grifting leader LaPierre – claims it self to be the essential bulwark for rights of gun owners would be a part of this suit. The NRA is not and that says everything about LaPierre and his ilk.

      Like the ACLU, SPLC and the ADL, the NRA squandered decades of good will and work to “leaders” who care little about the mission of the organization and a great deal about their personal agenda. In LaPierre’s case, it’s all about the grift.

      henrybowman in reply to alien. | September 13, 2023 at 10:11 pm

      We needed the one that should be doing its damned job, to show up, which is 80% of success (as Woody Allen taught us).

        Who says it’s their job? I’m constantly being told that the NRA exists only to fund-raise and take credit for other organizations’ legal victories.

        It’s not like the NRA isn’t the largest and oldest gun-rights organization that spends the most money to promote policy and inform about legislators’ voting records, or sponsors school safety courses, or training new and experienced shooters, or promotes women’s and minorities’ civil rights, or trains and certifies instructors, or represents clients in gun-rights cases.

        Who sponsored the action in the Bruen case? The Heller case? McDonald? FOPA? PLCAA? Permitless carry?

Thanks, your honor, but apparently nobody was taking that gun ban seriously enough to either obey or enforce it

    1073 in reply to MarkS. | September 13, 2023 at 5:25 pm

    Very important for a Federal Judge D) and an Attorney General (D) both set precedent that this is unconstitutional.

    This was a test.

    4fun in reply to MarkS. | September 13, 2023 at 9:12 pm

    Police officers in New Mexico should remember that their qualified immunity was removed in 2021 by Gov. Grisham.

    So, if you enforce her 30 day gun ban, you WILL be personally held accountable for your actions, in addition to being a trash human being.
    — Feni𝕏 Ammunition (@FenixAmmunition) September 9, 2023

the Attorney representing New Mexico Governor Grisham concedes that “no law” may infringe the Second Amendment, instead arguing that the order isn’t a law it’s an executive action, and therefore should be allowed.

Oh, so you mean nobody who doesn’t work for the government has to obey it? That if someone carries in Albuquerque no government employee will harm them in any way? Cool. You could have said that in the first place and we wouldn’t have been here.

    McGehee in reply to Milhouse. | September 13, 2023 at 5:37 pm

    Apparently the lawyer didn’t know that “executive action” nevertheless must have statutory authority behind it.

    What kind of idiots are our law schools turning out??

      Casey M in reply to McGehee. | September 13, 2023 at 5:58 pm

      He really should have been sanctioned for that, for thinking the judge was stupid.

        jagibbons in reply to Casey M. | September 14, 2023 at 8:10 am

        She, not he, at least it sounded like a woman (although she probably can’t define what a woman is). The oral argument for the defense was pathetic. It was a word salad devoid of logic and full of contradiction.

        The judge deferred to Bruen, Heller and McDonald, as he should have.

          Louis K. Bonham in reply to jagibbons. | September 14, 2023 at 6:23 pm

          It was Holly Agajanian, Gov. Grisham’s Chief General Counsel.

          Her argument was embarrassingly bad, and probably did more harm than good. Note that while Judge Urias had previously said he’d let counsel for plaintiffs have a chance to respond, once she finished he simply announced he’d take a ten minute recess and come back with his decision.

          When he said that, I knew it was over for defendants.

      Subotai Bahadur in reply to McGehee. | September 13, 2023 at 6:11 pm

      Totalitarian idiots.

      Subotai Bahadur

      C’mon, what was the poor attorney going to say? I hope he or she was paid well for having to play the fool.

      For a long while it was affirmative action idiots.

      henrybowman in reply to McGehee. | September 13, 2023 at 10:12 pm

      “The lawyer representing the state said the gun carry ban argued “that the order isn’t a law it’s an executive action, and therefore should be allowed.”
      So they DID call Lionel Hutz! 🤣🤡

      DaveGinOly in reply to McGehee. | September 14, 2023 at 12:20 am

      An “executive order” from a governor who breaches her oath of office in order to violate the state’s constitution is simply indefensible.

      diver64 in reply to McGehee. | September 14, 2023 at 4:45 am

      I wouldn’t be that hard on him. When everyone including the AG says the executive order is unconstitutional, he was placed in a position where he couldn’t win. He had to try something and that was the best he could come up with.

      coyote in reply to McGehee. | September 14, 2023 at 8:44 am

      What kind of idiots elect these trolls?

      johnny dollar in reply to McGehee. | September 14, 2023 at 8:44 am

      To quote the hapless hotel clerk in Home Alone Two, when asked “What kind of idiots run this hotel?”, she replied:
      “The finest in New York City”.
      I submit these are the kind of idiots turned out by our law schools.

    It still is chilling to think that the Governor can issue an executive action that turns people into criminals in *any* case. Just wave the magic pen and phone…

      Milhouse in reply to georgfelis. | September 14, 2023 at 2:27 am

      A governor (or president) can only do that if the legislature has authorized her to do so. She acts pursuant to a power granted her in a a statute. Which is what she purported to do here. The thing is, authority extended by the legislature can only achieve what the legislature itself is authorized to do. The legislature can’t make a law banning carry, therefore nobody acting on its authority can do so either.

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

        Right. No state can supersede the constitution except in the areas where the constitution clearly cedes authority to the states.

        coyote in reply to Milhouse. | September 14, 2023 at 8:46 am

        That’s a really good point.

        I would think – of course, this is based on basic moral principles of the law, not parsing words and such – that ANY act by the legislature that would allow the executive to turn people into criminals at her whim would be in violation of basic justice and equal treatment under the law.

          Milhouse in reply to GWB. | September 14, 2023 at 8:05 pm

          No. After all, that’s what regulations do, and nobody questions the legislature’s power to authorize the executive to make regulations. The non-delegation doctrine (if you believe in it, which not everyone does) merely says that the legislature must set out some “intelligible principle” by which the executive can tell which regulations it is authorized to make and which it isn’t. It can then make any regulations that conform to that principle.

          The same applies to orders such as this one.

        Ironclaw in reply to Milhouse. | September 14, 2023 at 10:43 am

        Wow, somebody should tell them that in Albany, Sacramento, Chicago and Boston…

    rebelgirl in reply to Milhouse. | September 14, 2023 at 7:36 am

    So we don’t need a legislative action to make unconstitutional laws…we can just have our ‘duly-elected’ dictators decree it…makes sense

The lawful who are not the ones out there killing people are the only ones who had any likelihood of obeying the order. All this order would have accomplished was to disarm the innocent rendering them even more unable to defend themselves. Whose side is this idiot governor on?

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Cleetus. | September 13, 2023 at 6:13 pm

    She is on the side of criminals, enemies of this country, and she is against Americans and the Constitution, She is a Democrat.

    Subotai Bahadur

    JimWoo in reply to Cleetus. | September 13, 2023 at 6:20 pm

    Take a look at her past history of sex harassment and using state funds for personal items. Not surprised at her stupidity.

    All this order would have accomplished
    Oh, I disagree. It would also have demonstrated the power of the state over its subjects. And that would be a huge win for the totalitarians.

Stunningly stupid arguments. The type that partisan Democrat judges generally concede to.

So, if the governor issues an “executive action” banning free speech, everybody’s okay with it?

The stupid is strong with this one.

I feel there’s something more underlying this idiocy. Don’t know exactly. I’m sure we’ll find out next Fall.

    henrybowman in reply to Concise. | September 14, 2023 at 1:51 am

    Right now I suspect it was just frustration that not even her (Democrat) legislature would consent to be logrolled into passing the score of outrageous gun bills her toadies shoved in their faces all session, including the special session she punished them with to consider them again.

    Well, for openers, they’ve gathered facial recognition data and cell phone location data on everyone concerned enough and feisty enough to get out in the streets and protest. We’ve seen how that broom was used against the J6 protesters.

    And they gathered both without a warrant; they’ve used a “private company” to put the electronic equivalent of a pen register on the cell grid. “Pen registers” on your unique land line require at least a court order by a magistrate; they don’t have to bother any more.

    Wonder how many “unrelated” actions by state and federal agencies these people and their families will run into in the next year?

      GWB in reply to SDN. | September 14, 2023 at 9:07 am

      And, while it might be considered paranoid to think that way, the last several years should have taught everyone that, “Just because you’re not paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.”

      Milhouse in reply to SDN. | September 14, 2023 at 8:43 pm

      You don’t need a warrant to observe what is plainly visible on a public street.

It’s okay to oppress the peoples Constitutional rights since there was no law… is that what the state lawyer just argued? seriously?

    My thoughts exactly.

    So a law must comply with the Constitution, but an executive order doesn’t have to? Is that seriously their fallback argument?

      DaveGinOly in reply to Archer. | September 14, 2023 at 12:22 am

      He must have forgotten about the oath the governor took upon assuming the office.
      Oh, wait. Oaths aren’t absolute. Never mind.

      When the Second Amendment doesn’t make any distinction. The First Amendment (as we’ve seen argued recently in regards to censorship) says “Congress shall make no law.” The Second Amendment just says “shall no be infringed.”

      (Heck, parsing words like that, I would say the 1st only applied to the federal gov’t, but the second didn’t need any 13th Amendment extensions to the states – it was always applicable everywhere.)

If he doesn’t understand that the constitution is the highest law, he should be disbarred, then fired, then disbarred again for good measure.

According to the dim-witted lawyer representing New Mexico, Executive actions are allegedly allowed to override the Constitution.

    alaskabob in reply to guyjones. | September 13, 2023 at 9:21 pm

    But the Constitution is just a bunch of 18th century laws …. in the 21st century humankind has advance to …ah… the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx trumps Adams, Mason, Franklin … on and on. The governor’s pen and iphone are more technologically sophisticated than a quill pen and candlelight when creating the Declaration of Independence.

    I still place her abrogation of her oath of office and its constraints than solely on the ban of carrying. To break one law, she needed to break others… which she attempted. She will remain a low level capo… expendable for the Party’s good.

      DaveGinOly in reply to alaskabob. | September 14, 2023 at 12:27 am

      Where are the Dems screeching for her impeachment? You know, the ones who suddenly thought that a violation of the oath of office was an impeachable offense when they claimed Trump had violated his oath? Where are they? The is woman has tacitly admitted she violated her oath. Still, crickets.

      guyjones in reply to alaskabob. | September 14, 2023 at 7:46 am

      18th-century laws drafted by a bunch of white slaveholders, the vile Dumb-o-crats would remind us.

      Ironclaw in reply to alaskabob. | September 14, 2023 at 10:52 am

      Actually, no, the Constitution is nothing more than a contract between the several States that they must agree to in order to be admitted to the union. Within, it also contains a set of instructions on how to amend said contract should changes be required. The fact that these instructions are simple, yet difficult to accomplish is why the communists constantly try to find ways around the proper way to do things.

    MajorWood in reply to guyjones. | September 13, 2023 at 11:07 pm

    Triple secret probation?

    Biden will be happy to hear that!

Australia: When I was a lot younger, we were able to carry our guns without fear, favour or the threat of attack from those who knew nothing about anything.
None of my friends ever wilfully shot anyone. There were not that many who deserved lead poisoning at the time.

Sadly, there are plenty now.

We have been flogged by our idiots in political power. I feel that you guys are the same.

360 million of you and the best you come up with is a paedophile?

If anyone on this site believes the last presidential election represents true American values, then we are all fcked.

“If anyone on this site believes the last presidential election represents true American values, then we are all fcked.”

No one here believes it, but it happens to be true. And we are.

    I wouldn’t say it represent “true American values”, but it certainly represents the values of a lot of the electorate. Enough of them have converted to Progressivism to put the tyrant’s foot on the accelerator toward what they believe is their utopia, and to hell with the Constitution.

concedes that “no law” may infringe the Second Amendment
As I commented yesterday, she doesn’t need a lawyer, she needs someone who can read. That is NOT what the Second Amendment says. It simply says “shall not be infringed.” That means it doesn’t matter what you call it – call it a banana – if it’s an infringement, it doesn’t hold up.

I’m still bothered that the reasoning for the TRO seems to hinge on court decisions instead of the clear language of the Second Amendment, the clear language of the NM Constitution, and the clear language of her oath of office – which she clearly abjured. Heck, just the fact she simply wiped away the law in NM was clearly out of her jurisdiction.

    Ironclaw in reply to GWB. | September 14, 2023 at 10:56 am

    They can’t base anything on the clear language of the constitution, it’s far too absolute and leaves them no room for legal bullshit.

Nothing in that TRO addressed whether an “emergency” is an excuse to suspend the Bill of Rights, never mind a governor or other authority unilaterally declaring an emergency that the public does not see or sense.

Instead, the TRO breaks it down to four points:

Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits that their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights to publicly carry a firearm for self-defense will be violated if the PHO remains in effect;

The Court therefore concludes that that Plaintiffs are likely to face
irreparable harm of their Second Amendment rights to publicly carry a firearm for self-defense absent an injunction;

Although the State of New Mexico raises important safety concerns, at this stage it fails to demonstrate that the public safety concerns overcome the public’s interest in preventing constitutional violations;

[T]he Plaintiffs face the choice of either facing fines or violating their
Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense

The judge treats it like bad law instead of a basic violation of the Constitution.

    Milhouse in reply to George S. | September 14, 2023 at 8:55 pm

    No, those are the correct steps. This is not a decision on the merits, it’s a temporary decision on what should happen until the merits can be heard. So the correct question is whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed, and the answer is they’re very very likely. Will they be harmed if they don’t get the temporary order? Yes, they will. Will the state be harmed if they do get the order? Yes, kind of, but not enough to overcome the harm to the plaintiffs.

There is something really wrong with this entire thing.

Came up too weird. Is getting tossed too easily.

Red flags.