Image 01 Image 03

New Mexico: Temp Restraining Order Hearing Against Gov. Gun Carry Ban at 1 PM MT (3 ET)

New Mexico: Temp Restraining Order Hearing Against Gov. Gun Carry Ban at 1 PM MT (3 ET)

Who will represent the state? The AG already said he wouldn’t endorse or defend the gun carry ban because it’s unconstitutional.

A hearing for a temporary restraining order against New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s gun carry ban is set for 1 PM MT (3 PM ET).

The hearing will take place in front of U.S. District Judge David Urias.

Urias will hear arguments from gun rights groups.

Stephen Stamboulieh, on behalf of Randy Donk, GunOwners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and Anthony Roman Napolitano, on behalf of Gun Owners of America, received notices to appear in court today.

Now, to address the elephant in the room.

Who will represent the state?

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

“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.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Quick, call Lionel Hutz!

Also need to know who is paying for the governor’s lawyers.

Subotai Bahadur | September 13, 2023 at 3:22 pm

And to be honest, after the last few years, the result is awaited with less than perfect trust in the legal process. I would not put it past the court to grant a continuance for a few weeks.

Subotai Bahadur

This woman is a lawyer and she knows full well that this is unconstitutional. But as we have learned about Dems over the years, it isn’t what they do that is important, it is what they intended. None of their help-the-poor programs ever live up to their promises nor any of the runaway social programs, but they meant well. She will be lauded by the left gun grabbers as a Joan of Arc! That is her goal to get nationwide name recognition.

The hearing is being live-streamed; someone who’s listening in may be able to report how it went.

Call me crazy, but this is my theory:

She knows very darn well that it is unconstitutional, and outrageously so, but she is not acting out of her own initiative.
This could be a hit job on behalf of the party, on behalf of the Biden / Obama’s-3rd-term administration. This is a test for things that will come sooner that you can imagine.

    ChrisPeters in reply to Exiliado. | September 13, 2023 at 3:45 pm

    If your theory is correct, it is that much more important that people simply refuse to obey her edict, even if some crazy court sides with her.

    not_a_lawyer in reply to Exiliado. | September 13, 2023 at 4:00 pm

    No offense Exalliado, but I respond to your call to call you crazy with ‘your crazy’.

    She is not a pawn in the federal administration. She is merely a power-crazed governor who is being taught a lesson regarding the constitution. She is probably right now hiding under her desk requesting the latest news about how many people are coming after her, and perhaps, how few are defending her.

The judge should make the Governor defend it.

I applaud the NM Attorney General for taking a stand, but he’s putting his career on the line. If it somehow survives (at least at the District level) he may be forced to resign.

Or maybe he’s planning to run against the governor in the future and staking this as a major issue.

Does the County DA that was appointed by the Governor take the hearing if the State AG won’t? He does represent the only place that the Executive Order is in place.

    henrybowman in reply to kw88. | September 13, 2023 at 4:18 pm

    I hope the judge has a sense of the mot juste.
    If no one will defend you, then what you have done is by definition indefensible.

Just listened to the defense argument, and I use that term lightly. Full of misinformation and emotion. Light on facts and any recognition that the Constitution of the United States has words that actually mean something. The judge asked really good questions. Hopefully, he isn’t swayed by the emotion, “we have to try this for 30 days and see if it works.” Sounds a bit like “2 weeks to slow the curve.”

The defense mentioned “good guy shirt” and “bad guy shirt” multiple times. Here’s the thing. You aren’t a bad guy until you commit the crime. Even if you committed crimes yesterday, unless there’s an active warrant, you are still innocent until proven guilty. They tyranny (and the bovine excrement) is strong with this one.

The Constitution is the law, she broke the law and should be arrested.

    LeftWingLock in reply to geronl. | September 13, 2023 at 5:29 pm

    You bring up an excellent point. The governor issued an order which was in all likelihood illegal. In addition, she has more or less admitted she knows it’s illegal and doesn’t care.

    What are the options for punishment.

    (1) Voters can vote her out of office. In 2026.
    (2) Legislature can impeach her. Unlikely because both houses are controlled by the Ds.
    (3) Federal government can indict her. Again unlikely the Ds will do this.

    Am I missing something? Or do we have a system where in certain areas, an elected official can simply break the law (knowingly) and suffer no consequences?

      No one was issued a citation. Obviously no one is taking the order seriously as seen at the protest.

      It would be difficult to prove “Standing” to show actually damages.
      If someone had been given a Citation, she could have lost sovereign immunity and been held civilly responsible.

      Otherwise, stupid decisions by government officials are held innocent.

      A Fire Marshal explained it to me.
      If you pour a bucket of gasoline in your house and light it you are and arsonist and will be arrested.
      If you stupidly choose to use a bucket of gasoline to clean the bricks of your fireplace and set the house on fire you are innocent. Just stupid and insurance will probably pay for repairs.

        GWB in reply to 1073. | September 14, 2023 at 8:19 am

        And this obviously wasn’t just stupid.
        If you pour gasoline all over a warehouse and are caught lighting the match, you’re still going to jail for attempted arson. And no one will think it was an accident – well, no one with a brain.

        Also, on your example, no, insurance will likely NOT pay for those repairs.

TRO granted on sections 1 and 4 of the public health order per Bruen, Heller and MacDonald. “Plaintiffs have shown that will suffer irreparable harm.”

“Now, to address the elephant in the room.

Who will represent the state?”

Send the Governor to defend it in person in court.