New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday suspended laws that allow open and concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque for 30 days after declaring a public health emergency. The order, in my view, is flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent. It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short that it becomes moot before any final decision is reached by a court.
The order cites recent cases of gun-related violence in and around the city, including the killing of an 11-year-old boy dead and the wounding of a woman in their vehicle in an apparent road rage incident after a baseball game.
Grisham declared that “as I said yesterday, the time for standard measures has passed. And when New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game—when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn—something is very wrong.”
Democratic leaders have increasingly turned to a claim used successfully during the pandemic in declaring a health emergency to maximize unilateral authority of governors. There have also been calls to declare racism a public health emergency, supported by groups like the American Public Health Association. Transgender programs have also been declared a public health emergency by some groups. The motivation behind many of these calls is not to negate constitutional rights, but the question is whether such declarations allow governors discretion to suspend or curtail individual rights.
As the list of claimed health emergencies grow, even state Democratic judges may begin to balk at the obvious end run around constitutional rights.
The order allows for an expansion to other cities that meet the threshold for violent crime if 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents have occurred per year since 2021. It also sets a threshold of 90 firearms-related emergency room visits per 100,000 residents have occurred between July 2022 and June of this year.
The taking away of individual rights as an emergency measure is hardly new. For centuries, governments have claimed that the suspension of individual rights is necessary for the good of citizens.
What is striking about this effort is the short specified period. By setting a 30-day period, the Governor makes it difficult to secure a final decision. She could face a preliminary injunction in that time. However, if she gets a sympathetic trial judge, the time could run out before a final ruling can be secured on appeal. In any case, it makes it less likely that the case can be taken to the Supreme Court or even through the federal court system.
Yet, challengers could argue that the matter is not moot when the order can be and is likely to be repeated in the future. That is always a challenging claim to make, but it is clearly true in this case. What is clear is that this is unambiguously and undeniably unconstitutional under existing precedent.
Even if an injunction is secured on the basis of a presumptively unconstitutional act, many will of course celebrate the boldness of Grisham in taking away an individual right under a clever measure. It is, however, too clever by half. If a court decides that this is not moot at the end of the period, New Mexico could supply a vehicle to curtail future such claims.
We have seen how Democratic strongholds have proven the greatest assets for gun-rights advocates.
Major Democratic cities are delivering lasting self-inflicted wounds to gun control efforts with poorly conceived and poorly drafted measures.
In 2008, the District of Columbia brought us District of Columbia v. Heller, the watershed decision declaring that the Second Amendment protects the individual right of gun possession.
In 2010, Chicago brought us McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the Court declared that that right is incorporated against state and local government.
However, no state has done more for the Second Amendment than New York. The state has been a fountain of unconstitutional laws — and the basis for a series of wins for Second Amendment advocates.
New Mexico could now prove the next big opportunity for gun rights advocates in tackling the public health rationale for gun control.
2011 she is the Alex Jones of 2011. Watch the first 20 minutes it is all coming true today.
Behind Their Green Mask – The Government Proposes Legislation to Criminalise Disagreeing With Net Zero
https://expose-news.com/2023/09/07/behind-their-green-mask-the-government-proposes-legislation-to-criminalise-disagreeing-with-net-zero/
BY PATRICIA HARRITY ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
We should have listened to Rosa Koire back in 2011 when she warned that “The Green Mask must be removed from those who have hijacked the environmental movement.” This is true of many of the issues we are experiencing but particularly today as the UK Government introduced legislation related to net zero measures which may criminalise “non-compliance with imposed requirements under energy performance regulations.
Under this new legislation, those who fail to adhere to energy consumption regulations could face criminal charges, such as imprisonment for up to a year, and fines of up to £15,000. Prosecutions may also occur for providing false information about energy efficiency or obstructing enforcement authorities. according to Lois Perry founder of CAR26 a group that campaigns for “informed, rational analysis of Climate matters” (source).
Perry, who writes for the Daily Express, says “This has set off major alarm bells amongst lovers of freedom across the country.” That will be all of us then?
I don’t anticipate this happening, but it would be glorious to see every gun owner open carry in parade right up to the State House. She couldn’t possibly have enough jail cells for everyone.
New Mexico Governor Referring Women to Satanic Temple’s TST Health for Abortions
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/07/26/report-new-mexico-referring-women-satanic-temples-tst-health-abortions/
The New Mexico government is reportedly referring women seeking to terminate their pregnancies to the Satanic Temple’s TST Health, which offers an “abortion ritual,” according to the New Mexico Alliance for Life.
In a press release on Tuesday, the New Mexico Alliance for Life announced that it has discovered that the state is actively referring women to the Satanic Temple Health (TST Health) via the state’s hotline, which is funded by taxpayers. The pro-life organization discovered this through what it described as a public records inspection.
The Satanic Temple’s TST Health, described as a “collaborative of reproductive rights advocates and abortion care providers contracted and directed by The Satanic Temple to advance its Reproductive Religious Rights Campaign,” openly boasts of its goal to expand access for mothers to end the lives of their unborn children. Earlier this year, the Satanic Temple touted the creation of the “world’s first religious abortion clinic,” which includes offerings of “abortion rituals.”
Thank God for Governor Grisham. She understands that by illegally suspending The Constitution criminals who don’t abide by the laws of the land will infarct abide by her “Emergency Order”, thus no more gun crime! Well, at least for 30 days. Why aren’t other Governors this smart?
I have worked in NM off and on for over 23 years and passed through ABQ for 50 or so. I would now never stay in Albuquerque, a city at the junction of two major interstate highways, where travel and crime collide. Why? Maybe not enough cops for the amount of crime. The times I have stayed there, I was always armed. The motels I once stayed in along I-40 in the 70s and 80s have now become part of the most dangerous part of town. Keep on driving to Santa Fe N or down to Las Cruces S. Keep going E to Tucumcari or W to Flagstaff. As to the Governors Order, well you voted for her. She is a big time Biden hack, whose marriage was eveen presided over by Kamala Harris. Crime has gone up in her term. She is no Susana Martinez. Investigate the contrast. Too bad NM can’t make up its mind. NM flips back and forth Dem to Republican. Bill Richardson used to fly his mistress around in the NM corporate jet, and Luhan buys her groceries on the Governor’s office dollars.
Did you say, “Kamala Harris?”
Let’s get fundamental, shall we?
“IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE”
Kamala Harris will NEVER be a “natural born citizen” and Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be the president or vice president of the United States of America.
Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.
– A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion.”
– Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define esoteric words or phrases, while the Law of Nations, 1758, does.
– English Common Law and the Law of Nations were adopted, accepted or employed by the United States.
– The Law of Nations is referenced, acknowledged and legitimated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, of the U.S. Constitution: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief
of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
I assure you Lujan cares not one whit about murders or guns. This is simply a test case to see how far they can go in exercising executive authority by citing emergency powers. The ultimate goal will be to temporarily suspend elections or to rig them by citing emergency powers. It’s too dangerous to allow people to go to polling stations; declare an emergency and mandate mail-in voting under emergency powers.
Look for other Soros-backed governors and/or mayors to enact various restrictions, citing emergency powers. New York city and state have declared an emergency due to the flood of immigrants across the border. California and Arizona will likely do the same. All it takes is for the governors of Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania to mandate mail-in voting under emergency powers in the 2024 election and the Democrats will seal a victory by illegal ballot harvesting, again.
I think the persuasive weight of ‘orders’ declined during Covid when religious gatherings were banned but BLM riots were dandy.
So public health emergency is now the mantra of the Dems when they want to pass or dictate unconstitutional laws. Fasten your seatbelts folks. We’ve seen this movie before. It started showing 90 years ago this past January 30 and I suppose it is still popular amongst tyrants.
Don’t tell me, is she a prog/leftist by any chance?
“SUPPORT” THE CONSTITUTION
If an anti-American, anti-constitutional, unpatriotic governor can arbitrarily and tyrannically nullify and abrogate the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court can take “desperate measures” in “desperate times” to fulfill the sworn oaths of its Justices and “support” the literal manifest tenor of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court may invoke Judicial Review, upon the completion of any federal, state or local, legislative or executive act, such as that of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, in order to support and implement the literal manifest tenor of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court must act now before the total destruction of the American constitutional republic and the irrevocable imposition of the principles of communism under the “dictatorship of the proletariat” are complete.
________________________
The Power of Judicial Review
The Supreme Court can strike down any law or other action by the legislative or executive branch that violates the Constitution.
This power of judicial review applies to federal, state, and local legislative and executive actions.
– Justia
_______
Judicial Review in the United States
Annotation
The legitimacy of judicial review and the judge’s approach to judicial review are discussed.
Abstract
The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government.
– U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs
_____________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
__________________
2nd 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.
I never cared much for Sting, so I don’t mind if they ever defund the Police.
His best song was “Money for Nothing” by Dire Straits 😊
The mayor of Albuquerque and a county sheriff already say they will not enforce the order.
Apparently if the governor can make it up as she goes along so can everyone else. Why would she expect her ‘law’ to be given more weight than the Supreme law of the land?
“That’s not how it works. It’s invalid when the court rules on its invalidity.”
I understand what you are saying. If a law is passed saying that you have to go to church every Sunday, you will go until the law is found unconstitutional.
30 days. What makes that thirty days different from the next 30 days? Nothing? Therefore what is the reason for the law? One can assume the reason for the law is the abuse of power.
Anon– “if a law is passed saying that you have to go to church every Sunday, you will go until the law is found unconstitutional.”
++
Or if a law says you must round up the Jews and ship them to camps you must follow orders and do it until a court decides it isn’t legal.
I thought issues like that had been settled.
At some point you must say NO.
“What makes that thirty days different from the next 30 days?”
That’s an excellent point.
Does she expect that within 30 days, criminals will magically become non-criminals? Is this the “time-out” theory of criminal reform? “Oh, I see the error of my ways. I will no longer shoot those who cut me off on the highway.”
She cannot do this for any reason not can anybody else it’s not a right given to us by government it’s out right under the constitution which states ” “cannot be infringed”! We are a constitutional republic not a democracy
So Turley thinks the New Mexico Governor order is unconstitutional, but Turley enables Trump who has said, he wants to terminate the constitution.
Fishwings has more straw than Mr Ed’s bedroom.
Hey Fish, Biden knew the eviction moratorium was illegal but did it anyway, knew the student loan giveaway was illegal but did it anyway. He leaves the border open contra to his Constitutional duty. He took classified documents while a senator and as VP. He quid pro quoed Ukraine. He is in bed with the CCP. He has plagiarized his a** off his whole life. But hey, Trump….
Now Fishwings, feel free to deny any of my points above. But you won’t l.
When President Biden is charged with 91 felony counts, maybe then you should use…… BUT….BUT…..BIDEN.
Brandon should prosecuted for getting bribes from Bursima and other foreign countries!
Trump has said he wants to terminate the Constitution? I’ve never heard that. Please provide a link to that statement. I’m really interested in seeing it.
Any search engine will do.
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”…. Donald Trump, Truth Social post
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2022/12/03/trumps-pre-runoff-message-terminate-the-constitution-00072059
Clearly, Trump said “allows” for, not that he “wants” to. Although, why he posits that “massive” election fraud “allows” for the termination of ‘all’ rules, regulations, and articles” is anyone’s guess–maybe he’s hanging around too many lawyers. He does have a knack for carelessly tossing words around–I don’t know if he does that to be provocative or evasive, but it’s annoying.
Theoretically, I suppose, he could be right in that the Constitution is not self-enforcing, i.e., it is enforced because “we, the people” believe in its’ legitimacy, so if enough people were to stop believing in part of it, I guess that would ‘terminate’ that part, either by amendment or repeal, and–as others have noted–the US has a long history of ignoring parts of it or ‘legally’ rationalizing a way around them when they proved inconvenient (Dred Scot, Wickard v. Filburn, the forced relocation of 120,000 Japanese Americans during WWII, and more recently, Kelo v. City of New London, and the list goes on).
Evidently the governor of New Mexico feels our constitution is not absolute.
Why do you support the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member?
“support the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member?” Wake up dude! Do you really think that crowd will be paying attention to ANY order?
No, which is why the cops will arrest them for violating the order. That is the whole point of the order?
She does not go far enough,.. She should declare martial law, like that Under Siege movie starring Bruce Willis. Have the Army arrest those who violate the order, and shoot those who look like they’re resisting.
There is no such thing as martial law in the USA, except where the courts are unable to function. So long as there is a courtroom whose doors are open, martial law is illegal and void.
I am thinking the Governor of NM is absolute…..absolutely nuts and should be removed from office..
As to FishWings….notice “his” web browser cannot find a cert for his comments.
Just as the NM Guv cannot show any valid legal authority for this insane EO of hers!
I’m one endictment away from being reelected. Donald Trump.
Anonymous, if we had a population of people like you back in 1776 king George would have been extremely happy with the likes of you.
If it’s wrong to defy and refuse to obey an unjust law, then we are a nation of hypocrites since we have a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King.
She refuses to enforce the law on criminals. Large retailers in Albuquerque place armed guards in the front of stores and lock up the most valuable merchandise and have to stand down during open theft. Law enforcement is understaffed and overwhelmed.
I would love to know how many CCW who are trained and licensed have committed any gun crimes. I would guess none.
Why don’t they simply convict the criminals who use guns in crime? No, she won’t.
There may more at play here. COVID served to condition the masses. If she pulls this off then tyrants can implement “emergency” actions right before the election. There will be some “emergency” or drastic actions foisted on the voters before the election so that they can use previous methods to skew the results. Those in power will not give it up without a fight.
Professor Turley, any chance you could make the new proposed gun law in Massachusetts a topic of discussion for your community to submit their thoughts? This is unbelievable what’s being proposed.