Hearing for Case Against New Mexico Governor’s Ban on Carrying Firearms Postponed
We don’t have a reason.
The scheduled hearing for a temporary restraining order against New Mexico Gov. Grisham’s ban on carrying firearms has been postponed.
We do not know why yet.
The hearing was supposed to cover the case brought forth by the Gun Owners of America. Four cases have been filed against the governor.
🚨UPDATE🚨⁰⁰We have received notice our hearing was postponed. We will provide the new date when we receive notice. https://t.co/DKc3wvH9V9
— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) September 11, 2023
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Postponed for 30 days….. awaiting orders from BHO and VJ. Getting the FBI and ATF “Zero Tolerance” troops in position.
Nah. It will just be postponed – /checks calendar/ – 4 weeks, less one day.
THEN it will be declared moot.
I was worried about that.. but some else said earlier, that since there is a good chance other people would be hurt if this happened again (or something like that) it would not be moot. IDK.. very confusing to me.
There is a legal concept that permits a federal court to hear a case that is or seems to be otherwise moot. It’s when the controversy is “capable of repetition yet evading review”. Think of every abortion case. By the time the case gets to the Supreme Court or other appellate court the case is moot (baby is born or not). But the courts hear the cases. Maybe the same here. I’m not sure.
Winner, winner chicken dinner
Where did you get the “postponed for 30 days”. That’s not what it says. The original hearing has been”vacated” (eg. cancelled) and the hearing will be reset “at a later date”. There is no indication when that “reset” will take place. Could be 30 days. Could be 60 days. Could never happen. We just have to wait and see when the reset occurs if it actually does.
He’s being sarcastic. Since her order is valid for 30 days (I’m presuming from her announcement on 7 Sep, hence my “4 weeks, less a day”), he’s making the point it could be postponed until just after her edict ends. Where the court could ignore the whole thing and call it moot.
The order is unconstitutional on its face and is therefor not valid, ever.
Except that Lujan may have already screwed up and closed her mooting escape hatch:
Nice! She’s going for the lead ring, I see.
Hey Milhouse! Still think it wasn’t an illegal order?
Let’s assume that I attended the rally in Old Town and my image is on the NMSP video, and I’m shown carrying a firearm openly.
But let’s say that the police cannot identify me and cannot send me a citation.
Isn’t that unequal treatment under the law?
@Millhouse Stated very clearly that the order was unconstitutional. However, he is absolutely correct that the Governor can’t be charged with a crime, she can be impeached which is the remedy that is for such an action. Much like the sitting president, you can’t charge a sitting Governor with a crime for taking action as the Governor.
So… with what are they being cited? Is there a reference for “violating an executive order”? “Breach of the peace” will be easily defended by showing video of the demonstrations. So long as there’s not one goober with a felony record who was there, toting, it has nowhere to go but down for the governor.
And making them long-distance summonses will just make things worse (for her side).
Going out and written by whom? The Police Chief and County Sheriff have now both said they are ignoring it and I pity the officer of either department that gives their ultimate boss the finger and writes a summons unless he/she is a 2cd Amendment/Constitution advocate and saw the postponing of the hearing figuring it would be about 1 day after the order expired to be ruled as moot so did the tickets to short circuit that little sidestep on ruling
Huh? When did I say that?! I said it’s an invalid order, but making it isn’t a crime. The governor can’t be sued, let alone prosecuted, for making the order. But it’s invalid, so any policeman who tries to enforce it is facing a certain lawsuit, for which he will not have qualified immunity, and possibly also prosecution.
I assume it will be “violating a lawful made issued pursuant to <name and section of statute>”. It’s the legislature that authorized the governor to make orders in a health crisis. Of course the legislature can’t authorize the governor to make orders that it can’t itself make, such as this one.
Imagine that any governor of any state can just wave their magic wand and cancel your constitutional rights. It is unimaginable to me that everyone in her state did not object. A governor has the right to cancel the Constitution? Where did this dim wit go to school?
Where did this dim wit go to school?
With Alinsky.
You’re assuming that people in the state object to unconstitutional actions and desire a constitutional republic with ordered liberty. More likely they are just people who want comfort and ‘safety’ more than actual liberty. They’ve already forgotten they’re Americans.
COVID compliance made them think they can do anything.
Uh…did you just miss Covid where a bunch did just that, learned their lesson by getting away with it and are back for more?
If GOA is successful, watch the NRA take credit in their next fundraising mail.
Sad but very likely true. I keep my Life Membership b/c my Parents bought if for me way back when but I haven’t sent any donations in decades.
They seem to be the 2nd Amendment variation on a theme of the SPLC. Four-color mailings full of scary headlines, all sent in oversize envelopes, meaning high postage rates, every mailing begging.
I resigned my life membership. I support the 2nd Amendment Foundation, and USA Guns (?) for the Olympic team. I really should join GOA; they do a lot of the actual work.
I’m a benefactor and have told them no more money till Wayne is gone. I’m now giving to GOA
so now the criminals will continue to conceal carry ?
The felons will continue to do as they please. Any resistance they counter will be jailed.
This is insane. How is a hearing about the state Executive plainly usurping constitutionally guaranteed civil rights postponed ? To repeat the point I made on the other thread, if a governor signed an Executive Order keeping black people from using public transportation or to keep women from voting, how long would it take for that hearing to be held and an emergency stay to be issued? Would they even have a hearing or would an emergency stay be issued ex parte? The latter, right?
U.S. District Judge Urias is a Biden appointee so I’m sure the Biden regime had their slack-jawed lackey and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland “discuss” the matter with the good judge (behind closed doors and under the table of course) and Urias came to the conclusion it would be better to “vacate the hearing and reset the hearing date at a later date” than actually go through with it and have to issue a temporary restraining order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Urias“If a governor signed an Executive Order keeping black people from using public transportation or to keep women from voting”…. today’s variation on that older theme. It’s not about the law, but what they can do before the law stops them. Sort of like what criminals do.
Except that, traditionally, criminals are punished for their crimes (although that’s not guaranteed these days), while government officials know there will be no adverse consequences for their acts.
While commenting, I’ll note the governor has already tacitly admitted that she is aware that her promulgation of the order was done in violation of her oath, if the oath is taken literally. And what oath is not absolute? If a promise of performance isn’t literal and absolute, it can’t be an “oath.”
If the governor were a Democrat, the order would not be stayed ex parte. Since the blacks and women you mentioned as the subject are Democrat protected classes, if the governor issuing the order were Republican, it would be stayed ex parte. If he were a Democrat, since they are Democrat protected classes, they would be expected to shut up and take it and do what their “betters” say.
We are way beyond the rule of law and impartial courts.
Subotai Bahadur
Of course it is. Naturally.
BTW, isn’t the Constitution already a restraining order against this very thing?
(As well as the New Mexico constitution.)
Tisk tisk… After the fall of the USSR, the Russian Supreme Court ruled that the Communist Party acted above the law and was a criminal organization. Don’t expect any such ruling about the US Democrat Party.
I hope he doesn’t mind me steaking his thunder …
A lawyerly type who’s on this forum and others that I follow, postulated this morning that
“…because all four cases have now been assigned to the same judge, he wants to do a single TRO hearing in all four cases, and needed to give adequate notice to all the parties.”
The original hearing was only for the GOA suit. At last count, instead of four, we’re up to six lawsuits that have been filed against Grisham.
That could be a good sign. It could also delay things just long enough to complicate matters.
But maybe not as much as feared if there are actually people who have been cited, with actual harm.
It’s my understanding that local residents are named defendants in at least some of the lawsuits.
That would be my guess. The judge is giving them time to prepare or File the Motion for a TRO, if I remember correctly not all of them requested an immediate restraining order.
“…stealing his thunder.” I wonder how a lightning-cooked steak would taste?
A wee bit crisp in the center.
All the coverage I see about this criminal order revolves around the issue of whether the gun ban is Constitutional or not. That is not really the issue, here. The issue is that GUNS ARE NOT A “HEALTH” ISSUE and cannot be controlled via any health order – emergency or not. This is where the governor is committing her major crime and this is the essence of the problem, not any Constitutional question of whether guns can be banned by the governor.
It is very distressing that so few are addressing this issue. The perversion of government by intentionally mislabeling things is a type of crime that cannot be allowed. It will destroy everything. You can claim that a skyscraper is a “chair” because it has a flat roof that a person can sit on … but everyone knows that that is an intentional perversion of the English and such word games cannot be allowed in governing. It would be a crime to make laws about skyscrapers that are focused on “chairs” and there is no reasonable argument to make that skyscrapers could be considered “chairs” for any governmental purpose.
There are many problems with this order. Right now is just the stage of getting it slapped down ASAP, the other issues can be addressed later.
Chill, my man.
The LARGER issue is that it’s facially unconstitutional. That has all sorts of governance issues and such.
A second issue is making it a “health” issue.
The problem with the second one is the answer to this question: “Who treats a person with a gunshot wound?” (A: “A doctor.”) And “health” is a nice nebulous term – yes, you’re getting “health care” when you’re getting stitched up from a gunshot. It’s not any more of a “health issue” than bicycle accidents or car crashes are – but we let the progressives get away with that one and now they’re reaching again.
The second issue (that you identify) is going to take a lot longer to fix than the slapping down of the decree on constitutional grounds, so one, then the other.
“A gunshot wound” is as irrelevant to the Second Amendment as “falsely shouting fire” is to the First.
Yes to the first bit, no to the second bit. The latter is covered as false speech, which isn’t covered in many cases (fraud, incitement).
(To expand, If you know there really isn’t a fire and you intend to freak people out and cause a panic, then – while the speech itself isn’t forbidden – you’re guilty of a crime for trying to create a panic, which gets people hurt.)
And you put the second first and the first second, and that’s really weird to respond to. 🙂
It takes a while for a governor to make a graceful dismount from such a stupid policy. About 30 days, apparently.
Did they reset the date for today? Or is everyone on other sites missing this information?
There’s a lot of talk related to “she better hurry and find a lawyer” since the AG won’t help her.