New Mexico Governor Suspends Gun Rights in Albuquerque for “Public Health Emergency”

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.

269 thoughts on “New Mexico Governor Suspends Gun Rights in Albuquerque for “Public Health Emergency””

  1. Instead of ordering the suspension of The Constitution to deter crime, perhaps the governor could try restoring the true administration of justice in her fair states judicial system, by putting the out of control, immunized by stand down leftist policy criminals in jail and ordering new effective policies and appropriate crime deterring sentences be explored.

  2. I wonder, in what law or (at least) regulation the,”the time for standard measures has passed,” is established or defined. I believe the answer to that question is … nowhere. As such her phony baloney EO is premised on nothing more substantial than her own mind flatulence; as is her so called health emergency. But beyond all that, as with so many communist/statist initiatives being pushed by multiple levels of government around our country, her so called faux “health emergency” as predicate for disarming New Mexico citizens, will, if not successfully challenged, be renewed, and will serve its genuine intended purpose: namely to further acclimate citizens to the fraudulent and gratuitous use of Executive Orders to impose the progressives’ will. The COVID EOs were the beginning of making all American citizens bow helpless before abusive governmental authority. This NM EO further reinforces and blesses the righteousness of the COVID EOs. But more importantly, it strikes right at the heart of the one thing the communists/statists MUST do to fully control America – they MUST disarm us. This is one of the many initial steps down that disarmament road. It, along with all other similarly directed initiatives, must be quashed if we as Americans wish to remain free.

    1. I’m no expert in these kind of things, but it seems this tyrannical abuse of power issue has already been addressed.
      These short excerpts seem to mean exactly what they say.
      Nothing more, nothing less and nothing else.
      Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

      Page 71 U. S. 120

      Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors, for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times

      Page 71 U. S. 121

      and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.

  3. As a 30-day measure, this could be an opportunity for the APD to aggressively disarm the street gangs, since nobody is allowed to carry. Or, APD could just waste the opportunity.

    Obviously, it cannot legally be extended. The emphasis should be on diligent enforcement of existing gun laws.

    1. So, what?
      The APD is going to stop and frisk every single person whom they think might be a gang member?
      Like, all those illegals Biden let in?

      1. pbinLaLaLand failed to mention that he would lead the APD in an all out SWAT assault a peaceful protest led by social workers to aggressively take a knee and plead with the gangs.

      2. Of course.

        That’s the whole point of the order, to make it easier to the APD to put away the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member.

        All this fear about law-abiding citizens being targeted is unfounded. The cops know who the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member are.

  4. Gun owners might want to work to get themselves charged with a criminal offence for carrying during the course of this fake emergency. That way the constitutionality issue would not be moot.

  5. Why do those who complain the loudest that we don’t have a monarchy, no one is above the law, our democracy is in peril, and we must fear authoritarian rule, seem to be the most willing to jettison civil liberties and establish authoritarian rule?
    The process is critical as it protects everyone regardless of the outcome of elections or the swings in national passions.

    When someone claims to be defending democracy be afraid, be very afraid. Scratch a progressive and reveal a fascist.

  6. Grisham declared that “as I said yesterday, the time for standard measures has passed.

    The standard measure for producing a civil society has always been the family.

    The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. the family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society.
    Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2207

    Now comes this Soros funded governor to revoke parts of the US Constitution, in the name of protecting children. We recently saw and heard this type of argument with disastrous consequences to children. School closures were done by Biden’s politburo and they, under the aegis of Randi Weingarten, literally sacrificed the youngest and most defenseless group amongst us: children. Maxine Waters used children as a prop to incite violence against Trump and Trump Cabinet members. We all saw how that ended: the “summer of love” anarchy espoused by Democrats.

    Democrats use children for attaining power. Karl Marx argued likewise in his “Communist Manifesto”. This isnt that difficult

    I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be when people realize that this is a policy that they defend,”….“It’s a horrible thing, and I don’t see any prospect for legislation here.”
    – Nancy Pelosi

    1. “The standard measure for producing a civil society has always been the family.”

      Actually, the individual is the basic unit and standard of a civilized culture. Thus the Founders’ premium on *individual* rights. (A family is merely a collection of individuals.)

      It is unfortunate to see those who rightfully condemn communism, accept communism’s basic premise: Collectivism.

      1. “(A family is merely a collection of individuals.)”

        If what you say is true, Sam, once the mother “produced” a child, it could go on the production line and be distributed to non-related parents wherever needed, anywhere in the country.

        Like the atom, where the electrons, protons, and neutrons belong as a single unit, the children bind to their natural parent, or the element changes its nature and behavior.

        Your ideas related to Marx and Marxism are unreal hallucinatory effects due to the deprivation of the stabilizing influence of a supreme being.

        Marx and Engles thought capitalism and the nuclear family were related. Engles explained that the nuclear family caused intergenerational inequality because it enabled inheritance and other things that benefited the family without consideration of everyone else.

        In the Western World, from where have we seen children removed from their parents? Sparta did not believe in the nuclear family, nor did some segments of society in Israel. One could say children belonged to the Kibbutz, and the nuclear family was discouraged. The Kibbutz was the closest social environment to socialism. It did not survive in that fashion.

        Also existing were tribal societies where sharing property and children existed. Engles believed the nuclear family emerged from capitalism. His logic was that the desire for personal property and children entrenched themselves into the nuclear family, so the benefits went to the family rather than the tribe. Such behavior creates intergenerational wealth and the bourgeoisie.

        Estovir is correct. Sam, it sounds as if your instruction was from the New School of Social Research in NYC. Though I did not darken their doors, at one time, I lived within blocks of the school. Maybe we bumped into one another. 🙂

        The question I have for Estovir, if he has additional thoughts on the issue, is what will happen to the nuclear family as time progresses. Many mommies are not home, and third parties are raising the children. I lack answers to my own questions and am searching for them.

        1. S. Meyer
          “what will happen to the nuclear family as time progresses. Many mommies are not home, and third parties are raising the children. I lack answers to my own questions and am searching for them.”


          That used to be fairly common with upper class Brit families. Churchill, for example, was first in the care of a nanny whom he adored and then he was shipped to boarding school. His letters home almost begging for attention are sad. And yet…

          I think social media and corporate/government [Fascist] efforts to control all information and narratives are likely far more corrosive and destructive.

          1. Churchill was a great example, but the parents maintained control of the child, where the child details his longings for the family unit. What happens if the child is left to a governing body? It made good soldiers for Sparta, but it failed in the Kibbutz.

            I cannot picture a modern society I would want to live in where the family unit does not exist. The family unit was recognized in ancient times and even on those tablets containing the Ten Commandments 3,336 years ago and written twice in the Torah. “Honor your father and mother, so that your days may be long upon the land which the L‑rd your G‑d gives you.”

            (Spartans had the family unit. Until age 7 the males lived at home and then were trained, The females were trained separately.)

        2. You do not understand Sam. You and most of the regular commenters often share about our many loves: parents, upbringing, extended family, spouses, children raised, in-laws, cultural traditions, Faith walk, original homeland, etc. Sam does not nor has he ever experienced love, which is why he never writes about these. Sam’s commentary lacks love, joy, hope. His is a very dark existence. OTOH, Cindy is by far the most prolific on the topic of family, which means her heart has experienced deep love. She is indeed a very blessed woman. Sam’s comment above taught me something I did not expect. Sam wrote what he did based from his personal, lived experience, i.e. he was left in the woods by his parents as an infant, and was raised by a pack of wolves squirrels. 😜

          Sam, it is never too late to have a happy childhood. It is never too late to experience deep love.

          The question I have for Estovir, if he has additional thoughts on the issue, is what will happen to the nuclear family as time progresses.

          IMHO, what we are seeing in our nation today is a consequence of the destruction of the nuclear family. I have written about this many times on this forum. Daniel Moynihan’s prescient masterpiece,
          THE MOYNIHAN REPORT: THE ηεgrο FAMILY, THE CASE FOR NATIONAL ACTION, written during his employment in the LBJ Administration, described the collapse of the black nuclear family. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams both echoed similar analysis. See Sowell Youtube video. Alas, Moynihan’s report applies to all Americans today.

          The Papacy of Pope Paul VI, vis a vis, Humane Vitae encyclical in 1968, warned the West that it was headed towards self-destruction with the adoption of birth control and abandoning creating family. All Popes since Paul VI, especially Pope John Paul II, have written repeatedly about how Western Civilization is abandoning the nuclear family. The Catechism was promulgated by Pope JPII and he demanded that extensive teachings of the importance of the nuclear family be included. Pope Francis just yesterday spoke to a papal audience on the need to protect the nuclear family which is responsible, as he stated, for a cohesive society.

          It is no surprise that fertility rates have plummeted for decades. We became a narcissistic culture, embracing the primacy of the individual, articulated time and again by Sam with his post-modernist dogmas.

          See Thomas Sowell ideas in this video

          1. I do not know Sam’s history except for his total rejection of a supreme being other than himself.

            Yes, we agree with the nuclear family, and almost everything I support has the nuclear family in mind. Your mention of Moynahan, Sowell, and Williams leads to some good reading for Sam.

            The answers to the central questions, IMO, are the family and recognition that one is not the center of the universe.

        3. what will happen to the nuclear family as time progresses. Many mommies are not home, and third parties are raising the children.

          Pope Paul VI was prophetic in his landmark encyclical, Humanae Vitae promulgated in 1968. Liberals denounced it vociferously. 55 years later, he was 100% right, liberals were wrong.

          Returning to Professor Turley’s article, NM governor blames guns for the increase in violence. Oddly, my two Glocks and AR-15 rifle have never leapt out of their zipped cases and marched down the streets randomly shooting people. No, it doesnt work that way. Not surprisingly, the NM governor never took responsibility, just like Bill Clinton, for her sexual assault against a gay, Latino subordinate. So it follows, Democrats will never admit their God-forsaken, anti-family policies have caused the anarchy in our society. This is why Karl Marx targeted the destruction of the nuclear family, and the grooming of children.

          Value of Self-Discipline

          21. The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings. For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace. It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds. It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities. And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children. As their children grow up, they develop a right sense of values and achieve a serene and harmonious use of their mental and physical powers.

          1. 21. Each person should live his life, but one without an understanding of family should never dictate how others should live.

    2. Estovir,
      Generally I am pretty indifferent towards Dr. Phil, in this case I think he is spot on,
      “One of the things I talk about is the fact that our children aren’t just being exposed, they’re being targeted,” he said. “And when I say targeted, I wrote a book in 2004 called ‘Family First.’ And at that time, I said the family in America is under attack, that families in America are under attack, the family unit, the family values, everything that families stand for in America are under attack. This was 20 years ago. Let me tell you, it is so much worse now than it was then.”

  7. When you get down to the nitty gritty, what the hell is wrong with the voters, the citizens of this country. It seems like they have lost the ability to reason and think.

    1. Independent Bob,
      Well, we are now a nation that thinks there are more than two genders, pornography is okay in elementary schools, teachers are getting children to question their sex, drag shows are family entertainment, cutting off healthy body parts is “gender affirming care” and we have a president who supports this.
      We have nation that, at least half, has lost the ability to reason and think.

      1. your return to the blog, after a merciful period of your absence, is a reminder of the pervasive mental illness in our society. Your anti-psychotic meds are either treatment resistant or you are not taking them again. You’ll get no positive reinforcement for your stupid comments

  8. Just a slow beginning to try and take our rights away. She knows this but I blame it on the voters of her state. They put her into office

    1. I didn’t vote for her but I must say, RNC/Repub leadership put up an unelectable Repub candidate who insured her election.

    1. She is trying to be “above the law”. The danger of this position is that in a constitutional system people are bound to the law but if the leader is not bound to the law then no one is and all may do as they please without penalty.

    2. I am not a lawyer but perhaps one could comment……can a writ of mandamus be brought against a governor or am I not understanding the mandamus?

      1. And why not a writ against Mayorkas compelling him to protect, operate and secure our borders against the invasion?

  9. The sheriff says: However, as the elected Sheriff, I have reservations regarding this order. While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our Constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold. I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.

    1. In other words the sheriff is saying:
      “I’m reluctant to join the governor in a suicide pact because frankly I think this b&#@ch is going to get some of us LEO’s killed.”

    2. The sheriff can just arrest the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member for open carrying. What’s his problem?

    1. And that’s the thing.
      She’s obligated to defend / uphold the constitution.

      What she is doing is an abuse of power and it will take a Federal Judge to put her in her place.
      Until that time, or 30 days… or she’s booted from office… her order is the ‘law’.

      The reasons you see the libtards panicking is that she’s gone too far and when she gets slapped by the courts,.. it will push their efforts back.

      Kalifornia just hit gun sales / ammo sales w an 11% sales tax.

      They know that they have a greater chance of success when its death by a thousand cuts. Not the big swings.

      1. Just so yo know, of the 7 federal district judges in NM, three were nominated by Slowy and one by Obama.

        What do you think of those odds?

      2. “Until that time, or 30 days… or she’s booted from office… her order is the ‘law’. ”

        I don’t think so, any more than an order to summarily execute a prisoner of war is valid until countermanded by a superior officer. An illegal order is an illegal order, as Nuremberg and My Lai proved.

    2. @oldman

      I didn’t used to, not completely, but I’m beginning to believe that it really is classic Marxism the dems are engaged in: create as much intentional chaos on as many fronts as possible and slowly authorize responses that render existing law effectively null and void. Some good points made here today about the possibility of a dry run (or a series of them, lately) for what the dems have in store for 2024, and the seem to be awfully confident. Will be interesting to see how this plays out, and how the restrictions on government collusion with tech companies plays out. It is also mind boggling that so many will still selectively criticize the democratic party when it’s clear they have been corrupted in totality.

  10. I’m so glad that patriots such as New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham have properly referred to Donald Trump as a dictator and an enemy of democracy.

    Sometimes it takes someone who enjoys violating the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Amendments to prove just how dictatorial and hostile to democracy Trump actually is.

  11. North Hampton mass. Has announced an alternative to traditional policing. The DCC. Division of Community Care. Kinder gentler policing. Mediation and negotiating. This should be special

  12. This sort of thing did happen before in Chicago, Illinois in 1994. The Chicago Police Department, Chicago Housing Authority, and HUD conducted warrantless searches in the Robert Taylor Homes to find evidence of gang crimes. “Mothers put kids in their bathtubs in fear of their lives,” said CHA Chairman Vincent Lane.

    This was challenged in court, and this campaign was enjoined.

    “The erosion of the rights of people on the other side of town will ultimately undermine the rights of each of us,” Andersen said in refusing to lift a ban he imposed last month.

  13. 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


    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?

Leave a Reply