New Mexico Governor Amends Gun Carry Ban to Parks, Playgrounds Despite Temp Restraining Order
Did she even read the judge’s decision?
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham decided to amend her unconstitutional gun carry ban to only parks and playgrounds.
The move comes after a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order against her ban:
But, she said at the news conference, “We have removed the requirement that open and concealed carry cannot occur until the public health order has been removed or extended anywhere in the city.”
She added the ban on carrying firearms, open or concealed, will remain in place at parks and playgrounds where families and children gather.
Lujan Grisham acknowledged last week the gun ban would face legal challenges. Most recently, the National Rifle Association and Republican lawmakers in New Mexico filed a lawsuit Thursday in the state Supreme Court.
Um, lady. The change is still unconstitutional. There’s no “except for where families and children gather” in the constitution.
Also, from what I can tell, U.S. District Judge David Urias did not say the restraining order can go away if the governor amends the carry ban.
In addition, Defendants are ENJOINED from applying, enforcing, or attempting to enforce, either criminally or civilly, Section (4) of the New Mexico Department of Health’s “Public Health Emergency Order Imposing Temporary Firearm Restrictions, Drug Monitoring and Other Public Safety Measures” to the extent it imposes additional restrictions on the carrying or possession of firearms that were not already in place prior to its issuance.
No person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm on state property, public schools, and public parks.
It’s Friday. I’m exhausted, and my eyes hurt, so correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Urias place a restraining order on Section 4?
I do not know the New Mexico gun laws regarding guns at parks and playgrounds before her emergency order and Urias’s decision. But the order only applies to the governor’s gun carry ban.
Either way, the lady blatantly defied Urias at the press conference. It wouldn’t surprise me if she didn’t read the decision, but I’m guessing she did, and arrogance took over.
Gun laws are unconstitutional. I see a period at the end of the amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
New Mexico Gun Carry Ban
Judge Urias Temporary Restraining Order
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Believe it or not, Grisham said that she changed the article after reading through the court testimony from Wednesday.
That dumb broad didn’t read or listen to the testimony. I listened to the entire thing and she wouldn’t have tried to pull this stunt if she had a clue what happened in that court room.
Lujan Grisham said the changes to the order come after “listening to the debate in court.”
“We believe that a suspension is very different from a ban; court is leaning to determine otherwise,” Lujan Grisham said during the press briefing while addressing Wednesday’s hearing. “We can be wrong about the law on that case.”
“I want to point out that the conversation in that court was pretty clear that we are not wrong about this emergency, or about the issues related to violence, gun violence and public safety generally,” she continued.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-mexico-governor-amends-gun-order/story?id=103227753
I wonder: Functionally, what is the big difference between a “suspension” and a “ban”?
I don’t see where the 2nd Amendment says, “shall not be infringed, but suspensions are fine.”
A suspension is a temporary ban. The 2A doesn’t say “shall not be infringed for long”.
I note that she states she listed to the debate in court. She did not say she had read the order.
How is she not held in contempt? Legally and otherwise.
Weekend, that’s why she did it on Saturday.
She might be. Wait and see how the judge reacts.
Shorter version of Gov. Dimbulb’s presser:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FPELc1wEvk
An elected Democrat [whether the process of election was legal or not] does not believe that court orders in opposition to what they want are either legal or mandatory.
Subotai Bahadur
The Left’s essential theory of legal interpretation is that, whatever they feel would be good policy, that is what the law is. Not what it should be, what it is. If they want gun control, then the Constitution blesses gun control in any incarnation they find appealing. Also, the extant statutes support the restrictions they want, as do any and all legal decisions. Because they really believe that’s how laws work.
You see this at work every time the leftist press comments on a SC decision. The Clean Water Act must empower the EPA to regulate rain puddles, because keeping groundwater clean is good and important. They never question whether it’s a good policy that Congress has yet to enact. They never question whether it’s a policy that might belong at the state level. They insist that it would be a good policy, so therefore that’s what the statute means.
It’s a wholesale rejection of the idea of the rule of law.
Expanding on that, the Left’s legal interpretation is that anything they don’t want — regardless of what the plain language of the statutory law or the Constitution say — is “judicial activism” or “dramatically expanding the scope of the law/Constitution”.
Regarding firearms and the 2nd Amendment, look at the Left’s reactions to Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen. SCOTUS decides that the 2nd Amendment (gasp!) means what it says, no more and no less, and the Left is screaming “dramatic expansion of scope”.
Never mind that when it was ratified, the 2nd Amendment meant what it says, no more and no less, and the only reason gun laws have been allowed is because of a … *ahem* … dramatic expansion of government power.
But the Left supports government power, so like you said, to them that’s what the law and Constitution say.
The fact is we live in a extrajudicial fishbowl.
No we don’t. The reason I know we don’t is that both sides aren’t doing so. Come to think on it, there won’t be just two sides when that sad day arrives it will be mostly every man/nuclear family for himself/sink or swim. It probably pays to at least be polite to your neighbors so they put you lower down on their list of folks to hammer should the day arrive. Especially so if you are not reasonably fit, don’t posses the training, the equipment, lack combat experience or other high stress/no fail mission experience to fall back on.
When formerly law abiding, generally peaceful folks decide to play ‘extrajudicial’ all bets are off. I suspect a great many of the keyboard wannabe warriors will not be so fierce as they claim not nearly so aggressive when/if the era of ‘extrajudicial’ actually arrives. Nor will those who provoked a normally very easygoing and generally forgiving population into doing things they are repulsed by but for which they believe they have no alternative.
Chief
Most of those normally easygoing and generally forgiving population are veterans. Those veterans, who have experienced war from Korea through today abhor violence but understand the need.
When provoked by losing the rights they protected, those same veterans will cash the check that was written against their lives.
Tyrants will rue the day when veterans d exude that they need to defend their own rights here the US.
To quote the writers of Doctor Who: “Demons run, when a good man goes to war.”
Or the old adage, “Beware the anger of a patient man.”
The Beginnings – Rudyard Kipling
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late
With long arrears to make good,
When the English began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy-willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the English began to hate.
Their voices were even and low,
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show,
When the English began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd,
It was not taught by the State.
No man spoke it aloud,
When the English began to hate.
It was not suddenly bred,
It will not swiftly abate,
Through the chill years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the English began to hate.
TY Martin.
That was very moving.
By chance just this afternoon I finished a re-read of Kurt Schlichter’s Indian Country. It is set as a prequel to his Peoples’ Republic, both of which cover a fictional version of the breakdown we seem to be in as the Social Contract and national unity collapse. While the specific events in these are likely very different from what will transpire, the reactions of the characters, both “Patriot” and “Tory” reflect on what the “formerly law abiding, generally peaceful folks” will feel and might do if things go Tango Uniform. I commend them both to everyone’s attention.
Subotai Bahadur
Back in 1999 a coworker asked me how I was prepping for the millenium, and I looked at them and said “anyone who didn’t start 10 years ago is already too far behind.” When you live with “Cascadia” beneath you, it pays to always be well ahead of the game.
I’m polite to my neighbors because that’s the proper way to behave in civil society; I’m not banking goodwill against murderous intent. That’s you. That’s on you. Mr. GreasedUpMyShotgun McBadass.
Your backdoor appeal to hot civil war is confirmation of extrajudicial thinking.
The other implication in that blockquote statement being that you’ve stockpiled firearms and ammo, are both mentally and physically fit for active combat duty – and prepared other essentials vital to early onset hot civil war.
Why would any sensible person think that way in an otherwise entirely fair and judicious society?
He sounds no more prepared than any given able-bodied male American colonist in the late 18th century. Why did the Founders bother with a 2A in an otherwise entirely fair and judicious society?
Being polite to ones neighbors is the civilized way to live of course. But in a society where civil order breaks down, it does so quickly. I and my neighbors will help each other all we can. What we may not be prepared for are those people from several blocks over who don’t care about polite and civilized behavior. They see opportunity. When the cops don’t come because they have families too, then we are on our own. Fear and hunger can drive the normal man to do what he must to survive because once started their is little to stop it.
You seem confused. You originally claimed we are currently living in an ‘extrajudicial fish bowl’ but now seem to have altered your view to say we are living in ‘entirely fair and judicious society’.
Let me be very fucking clear. Civil war is to be avoided full stop. Only fools want that or anything close to it. No combat Veteran wants the horrors we observed, hardships we endured and acts of extreme violence we participated in around the world set loose on US Soil.
My statement was a warning to everyone but particularly to the keyboard wannabe warriors and internet tough guys who demand someone do something about X, that Y problem must be solved by force and that Z issue requires violence. Most of those making these pronouncements haven’t heard a shot fired in anger, haven’t seen much less personally caused the ‘bodies to hit the floor’. They haven’t participated in ops whose purpose was to stack enemy bodies as an object lesson.
As to preparedness, I was a Boy Scout before a was a Soldier and their motto of ‘Be Prepared’ still seems very relevant in our world. The final point is such a horrible outcome won’t have nice, simple sides. It will end up with unbridled chaos and anarchy. Everyone you ever PO or slighted may very well use the chaos as an opportunity to even the score. It pays to be polite for that reason.
Slow your roll. You are attempting to reframe my statement to fit into your worldview. FWIW I hope we can avoid that outcome or anything approaching that outcome. I am willing to put up with quite a bit to avoid it as should we all.
Having seen first hand what the breakdown of society looks like with armed factions fighting against all comers and temporary alliances shifting to confrontation on a dime I can assure you it will not be neat, clean, precise or limited.
That said you seem to confirm the my analysis that we are not ‘living in an extrajudicial fish bowl’ by your ranting and false accusations that I am encouraging such future conditions. After all if those conditions don’t currently exist then you have undermined your argument.
Covid gave the human troll doll a taste of power and now she’s going to move forward whether her actions are legal or not. This is kind of good in a way because it’s going to force the legislature to choose a side. Either they can be on the side of the rule of law or the rule of Grisham.
Dems doubling down. She will do whatever it takes to win. This is not done in a vacuum and the major plotters and planners in the Dem Party are orchestrating this. While she may appear as a snarling rodent trapped in a corner… one needs to look over their shoulder to avoid being blindsided. Power and control … all that mattes.
If there is an attempt to enforce her dictate with force from the state police, can it be met with equal force? I mean if the police try to “arrest” you, that would be forced kidnapping that would require self defense, right? There is a high potential for this to happen.
No. An unlawful arrest by actual police is not a kidnapping. The place to challenge an unlawful arrest is in court, not a gunfight in the street.
Said the Gestapo as they round up the jwz before shipping them to the trains.
Like it or not, what Flatworm wrote is the law. The law does not recognize any right to resist an illegal arrest. (Except in states where the law specifically says otherwise, of which there are very few.)
Depends on how forceful to arrest is …. particularly if one does not resist. People are in stir and facing years in prison for the crime of following Capitol Police into the building.
Tell that to the January 6th protesters, if you can get a message into the
Gulag where the
Ironclaw, it doesn’t matter. Flatworm is correct; it is illegal to resist an unlawful arrest. However bad those people have it, had they resisted arrest they’d be in even worse trouble — and they’d genuinely be on the wrong side of the law.
(IANAL, but I’ve heard a lawyer speak on this topic.) If they are police, a wrongful arrest is not a kidnapping. The number of situations in which you are authorized to use force against police officers acting in the scope of their duties is vanishing small.
However, remember that Gov. Grisham has stripped most if not all “qualified immunity” protections from police in New Mexico, so if it is a wrongful arrest, it’s in your best interests to verbally protest but not resist. Not only will not resisting help prevent excessive force during your arrest, it’s also an almost-guaranteed pay-out for violating your civil rights.
Even without that, they would not have qualified immunity when enforcing this order, because its unconstitutionality is clearly established.
It won’t be the legislature that decides whether she follows the rule of law. It will be the voter.
She’s term-limited. NM doesn’t have a recall provision. The legislature is 65% Donk.
And she won’t resign.
In a proper system, someone should have shown up at her office to arrest and remove her by now.
On what grounds? She hasn’t committed any crime (at least until now), and even if she had, nobody but the legislature has the authority to remove her. Your “someone” would be a criminal.
Mental health wellness check, competency hearing and potential involuntary commitment based on her clear inability to understand the new reality of 2A from Bruen under which her actions are unquestionably unconstitutional on their face.
Or it will be the people deciding if electoral means and the rule of law are still real, if confidence in the Social Contract and electoral integrity are seen to be compromised. Whether <b.Flatworm‘s or AF_Chief_Master_Sgt‘s scenario plays out depends on what situation prevails. There are no set and easy answers in times like these.
Subotai Bahadur
Sorry about typo-ing the boldface on Flatworm’s name.
Subotai Bahadur
You are apologizing to a flatworm?
Haha, just kidding, a bit of levity. No offense Flatworm.
Hold her in contempt! Lock her up!
Sigh. A guy can dream.
C’mon judge, throw her in the slammer for contempt of court!
Give him some time; he might do that!
Because parks and playgrounds are the last place you might need to use deadly force to protect young children.
I think that she is applying the law the way Biden does and that is damn the Constitution let’s do it anyway. Biden has ignored so many parts of our Constitution knowing that his attempts would most likely be overturned and many have been but not all. It isn’t hard to see why this moron of a governor thought that she could get away with it too. She knew it would be overturned but look at the publicity and the accolades she is getting from other gun grabbers. I put this kind of behavior right up there with infidelity because it is the breaking of a sacred trust that cannot be repaired.
Legalinsurrection has declined to post about AG Paxton to
My knowledge, but if you are against the political lawfare we are seeing and want to fight for Justice, please call the Texas Senators today…
“I called all 18 GOP senators (excluding Mrs. Paxton) before the trial began and again today. They are all here w phone numbers:
https://www.senate.texas.gov/directory.php
Phone numbers are all the same, except for the last 2 digits, which match their district number.
But skip the Dems (district #s: 06, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29); and Mrs. Paxton is #08.
Mostly left voicemails, but a few had staff pick up.
Took about 30 minutes each time.
If you do this, do it before they get sequestered on Sunday night.”
He’s been acquitted on all charges.
Rebellion against the Constitution by an elected official is an arrest able offense isn’t it?
US oaths of enlistment, office, citizenship, etc. all contain an obligation to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic.
Many if not most people seem to overlook that last part.
Rebellion means taking up arms. Defying is not rebelling. And no, it’s not an arrestable offense. In fact it’s not a crime at all.
Back peddling at its finest
It’s official: President Xi has rewarded Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham by making her the leader of the New Mexico chapter of the CCP. Putin wants to erect a statue of the NM Gov next to Lenin’s. Dems are demanding her as the keynote speaker to inspire their next national convention.
The hot, new blue-state Federalism is for the gov and/or legislature to restrict or outright cancel their least favorite part(s) of the Bill of Rights. The NM Gov is definitely the trendsetter!
Whitmer hardest hit.
Sent to me by one of my fellow big-beards:
“Studies show that most New Mexicans have been getting more than the recommended amount of MLG* in their diet. Very dangerous for your health and pursuit of happiness.”M
Too bad I can’t include the picture.
Get her ass OUT of government and stigmatize her for what she is.
Not so. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that some gun laws don’t infringe the RKBA, and are therefore constitutional. This isn’t one of them, but they do exist.
In Bruen the court suggested a method for deciding whether a specific law infringes the RKBA: if one can find a similar law, or better still several such laws, that were passed in the early days of the republic when people took the RKBA seriously, and nobody protested, that’s a good sign that the law doesn’t infringe the right. If we find that similar laws were proposed and voted down because people thought they infringed the right, then that’s a good sign that this one infringes it too. If we can’t find such historical analogs in either direction, it’s possible that the proposed law doesn’t infringe, but we have no way of knowing that, so we have to treat it as an infringement.
In this case there is no history of analogous laws, so it’s unconstitutional.