We previously discussed New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s effort to effectively ban guns (both open carry and concealed) with a flagrantly unconstitutional public health emergency order last year. After triggering a court fight, Grisham backed down and scaled down her order to ban concealed weapons in parks and playgrounds. The park ban was enjoined by U.S. District Kea W. Riggs as presumptively unconstitutional, leaving only a small fraction of Grisham’s original effort. Now, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has rejected her bid to lift that injunction in a key decision on appeal.
The demands for injunctive relief are based on a substantial likelihood that a party will prevail on the merits. While the gun rights advocates were clearly able to establish that before Judge Riggs, Gov. Grisham had no success before the Tenth Circuit in dislodging that presumptive finding. The rejection of the challenge to the injunction suggests that the appellate court is equally unimpressed by the legal and historical arguments put forward by the state.
Grisham argued that the park ban was well-founded in historical precedent. Primarily focusing on the Reconstruction period as the relevant measure, Grisham offered a record of “more than one hundred historical restrictions on firearms in parks and a separate compilation of historical prohibitions on firearms in public gathering places.”
While the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), found few such examples, Grisham maintained that it was common to bar guns from places like parks.
That argument did not go down well with Judge Riggs who held in the district court:
In sum, Defendants provide no evidence illuminating the scope of the SecondAmendment before or around the time it was adopted. As to the time of the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendants presented insufficient evidence illuminating such understanding. The majority of Defendants’ citations come at least 20 years after the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Bruen decision gave less weight, and considered to the extent it was consistent with earlier law. Under the circumstances of this case, Defendants’ citation primarily to historical analogues from the late 19th century and early 20th century is insufficient to establish a historical tradition of firearm regulation in relevant historical analogues.
The New Mexico litigation follows a pattern of blue states creating bad precedent in ill-considered cases. Grisham’s original plan was designed for maximum political impact, but little chance of legal success. She is still doubling down and increasing the losses in the courts.
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.
Of course, 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.
This effort is particularly important because it follows an early strategy out of New York to effectively ban guns by declaring everywhere a “sensitive place.”
New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul promised such legislation within an hour of the release of Bruen. The Concealed Carry Improvement Act passed 43-20. While I noted that the law “has some elements likely to pass constitutional muster,” it followed the same pattern of past laws in creating an easy target for gun rights advocates.
After Bruen was handed down recognizing that limits in some sensitive places could be constitutionally permissible, Hochul went on television to say in a mocking tone that they would just come up with a long list of sensitive places. At the time I remarked that it was a rather foolish statement since that clip will be cited by challengers to show a clear attempt to undermine the ruling with yet another transparent loophole argument.The list covered most areas outside of the home, including government buildings; any location providing health, behavioral health or chemical dependence care or services; any place of worship or religious observation; libraries; public playgrounds; public parks; zoos; the location of any state funded or licensed programs; educational institutions both in elementary and higher education; any vehicle used for public transportation; all public transit including airports and bus terminals; bars and restaurants; entertainment, gaming and sporting events and venues; polling places; any public sidewalk or public area restricted for a special event; and protests or rallies.
Neither Hochul nor Grisham has been successful in maintaining their sweeping original bans. As previously suggested, more modest original proposals would have had a greater chance of success while reducing the potential cost for the Second Amendment precedent. However, their legal losses met with political success. Even though courts have found that they are violating the Constitution and these cases only expand countervailing precedent against gun controls, such measures remain popular in their states.
The case will now go forward with the injunction in place as the judges prepare to rule on the final merits.
For Mr. TURLEY:
Sir, You mentioned that Democratic led states and cities are bring a lot of bad cases to the courts. Does that mean in your opinion that many of these cases can be used as precedents in future cases, and if so how strong are they for the 2ndA advocates?
The professor doesn’t read the comment section. To answer your question: yes, you have the right idea, and some of them are very strong for 2A, such as the Bruen case (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)).
Back to COVID – that right wing rag, The New York Times, is reporting:
“A variety of data — about children’s academic outcomes and about the spread of Covid-19 — has accumulated in the time since. Today, there is broad acknowledgment among many public health and education experts that extended school closures did not significantly stop the spread of Covid, while the academic harms for children have been large and long-lasting.
While poverty and other factors also played a role, remote learning was a key driver of academic declines during the pandemic, research shows — a finding that held true across income levels.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/upshot/pandemic-school-closures-data.html
Fortunately, our governmental and media elites succeeded in censoring people who warned against school closures. They are so smart.
Edward, that article never mentions the teacher’s unions.
PS. We only read it because it was on Realclear this morning, we don’t buy the Slimes. I hope Edward doesn’t mind me speaking for him.
Edwardmahl,
Imagine that!
Something the Great Barrington Declaration said turns out to be true.
And Fauci and his cohort Collins tried to get them discredited.
Big gov colluding with big tech to censor these exact things.
Was not just other doctors or scientists with dissenting views.
It was parents with a degree of common sense.
It is rather ironic, if not tragic, that as the prog/left pushes more ardently to complete their “fundamental transformation” of our nation, the more their idiotic ideology gets the glare of sunlight and is (still) rejected by sound judicial decisions – hopefully we will soon be done appointing the likes of miss jackson of our SCOTUS who understands nothing of the principles of our founding fathers but she does have so many of those boxes checked. That they continue to push these extreme and usually unconstitutional measures they seem incensed that our constitution puts a stranglehold on their actions – duh!!! Please, someone, save us from such an army of il-educated and ideologically confused people.
When surveyed, 100% of criminals supported strict gun control laws.
Note: It took four times to explain the survey.
First time, they could not read the sentence.
Second time, when read to them, they could not comprehend what was being said.
Third time, surveyors tried to using role playing as examples.
Fourth time, puppets were involved.
Then they got it.
Homeschool!
“. . . public health emergency order . . .”
Covid “emergency”: Goodbye 1A and 5A
Safety and violence “emergency”: Goodbye 2A
Tyrants love emergencies (real or imagined).
I know we are all feeling so relieved and satisfied with this latest show of support for the Constitution by the courts, but what happens when the Dems/media turn Trump into Hitler, turn anyone supporting Trump into Nazis, turn all Republican candidates into a new Reich and heaven forbid they win the WH and the Senate? What if we have no Sinema and Manchin to stop the end of the filibuster?
Voice of Rod Sterling:
Imagine a world with Biden as president with no future elections holding his staff back;
Imagine a world where Democrats end the filibuster;
Imagine a world where Democrats decide that the Court has lost its way and it needs to be “reformed”;
Imagine a world where the new 15 member liberal Court is determining Constitutionality;
Imagine a world where the New Court goes Canada/Australia and bans gun ownership and allows censorship;
Imagine a world where the people are so upset by the new gun and speech ban that they will vote to elect Republican Senators;
Imagine a world where the Dem Senate, with the acquiescence or the New Court allow two new states to join the country;
Imagine a world where having two new Blue States enables the Democrats to never lose another election.
Repeating rifles were present in the late 1700’s but they were expensive and difficult to produce. One gunsmith actually petitioned the Continental Congress to be allowed to demonstrate his version of a 16 shot rifled musket but he asked for too much money and was turned down. Also remember the first operational use of a submarine took place in the Revolutionary War without batteries, diesel engines or a self propelled torpedo.
So the Continental Congress and the drafters of the Constitution knew about submarines and repeating rifles. Concepts often outstrip meaningful construction until things like metallurgy, machining and such catch up. Then single weapons eventually become mass produced weapons. Even rifled muskets were produced in the early 1700’s and used by sharpshooters in the Revolution while the vast majority of soldiers used smooth bore muskets. The British took note of this development and formed rifle companies which wrecked havoc on the French in the Napoleonic Wars.
Anyone working on mainframe computers in 1978-1979 as I was as a Fellow at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston could see that a revolution was heading our way.
My father, who was a signal corps NCO and officer from 1947 (was infantry 1941-1947) and after, saw things even earlier. Communications were incredibly rudimentary compared to today. He could not discuss his work in cryptography, or communications and such but kept telling me through the 1950’s and early 1960’s that I should look at a career there because a “revolution was coming”. But I ignored that and went into medicine. He was so right!
Some of the brightest men this country ever knew were our Founders and to say they never contemplated the things that came later is an insult to their accomplishments and forethought and says more about the morons of the present than the genius’ of the past.
GEB,
I have seen numerous Democrats trying to declare that the Founding Fathers would of been in shock and horror if they knew what kind of firearms would come to be produced.
As you note, they knew.
They knew technological advancements were taking place, namely Benjamin Franklin.
What is more damaging to our mental and physical health is what the internet has become and social media.
Smart phones.
The answer to our national problems can be solved with issuing wooden spoons to parents of young children and teachings gays how to play basketball as well as blacks
The Democrats have to blame guns for all the violence. Because if they don’t blame guns, then whatever could the cause of all that violence be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GXf_76BSP8
Colorado continues to follow the path on NY and New Mexico. Simply put Communist Democrats at War with the US Constitution and are RIGHTS! Rights come from God, privileges come from the state. Communist have no God. The State is God for communist. The history of the Twentieth Century shows the same outcome every time.
The attacks on the 1st and 2nd Amendments have been relentless.
Pure Tyranny.
NEVER voluntarily surrender your guns. NEVER register your guns.
Make them come door to door. 100 million plus gun owners with 700 million guns.
Say When
Turley said: “We have seen how Democratic strongholds have proven the greatest assets for gun-rights advocates”
“We have seen how Democratic strongholds have proven the greatest assets for supporters of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution”
FIFY
Yesterday marked the four year anniversary of Grisham (MLG) shutting the state down tighter than a snare drum. She even stated people should wear masks while walking outside. She was in her dictatorial element.
She comports herself as an angry, repressed sixth grade teacher from hades, the one the students dreaded. On one hand she bashes the fossil fuel industry but it is the primary source of state income, a delicate balancing act.
She is out as governor and as another poster pointed out that she is trying to make a name for herself on a national level in the radical left and do as much damage as she can on her way out.
@E.M.
Indeed, and she spent the majority of that time in DC, she wasn’t even in NM for much of the lockdown. The heading indicates a loss for the state, but no, just for the Lujan dynasty and DNC. It’s a win for the people.
I don’t throw out insults too often, but I was born there and that woman is a tyrant and a cow. She’s part of a dynasty and I am thrilled every time fools like her shoot themselves in the foot with precedent in our highest courts, not just for themselves, but for their entire party; nice how they keep publicly admitting their intentions to circumvent via loopholes, too, that has become a perfectly transparent and paper-thin strategy – the utter lack of ethics is championed only by their total tone-deafness.
By all means, continue this, Michelle. Our 1A, 2A, and courts are our thin line at present, and I am pleased to see them being protected from the current onslaught against them.
She grabs them by their _________ . The left always projects. They are degenerates.
“In December 2019, a former campaign staffer and spokesperson, James Hallinan, accused Lujan Grisham of sexual battery. According to Hallinan, the incident took place during a staff meeting in 2018. By his account, Lujan Grisham poured a bottle of water on his crotch and then slapped and grabbed his crotch through his pants while laughing. He said the incident happened “in front of everybody”.[68]
In April 2021, it was publicized that Lujan Grisham and her gubernatorial campaign, while denying the allegations, had reached a $62,500 settlement with the law firm representing Hallinan. The payment was made in monthly installments of $12,500 from November 2020 to March 2021.[69] Her political committee paid another $87,500 over six months, bringing the total payout to $150,000.[70]
Frankly, it is no wonder why people who act like they do are terrified of normal people owning guns. Their levels of and breadth or provocations makes their fear very reasonable.
one tiny loss for the Fascist Democrats
These governors, when taking their oath of office, pledge to uphold the US Constitution but instead they continually attempt to subvert it.
“ I will support the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of the State of New Mexico.”
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York.”
Must be the “living Constitution.”
Grisham has been trying to make a name for herself on Gun control and other Left Wing Radical Dem policies. Either she is a fool or some group is pushing her on all her Gun and other radical policies. Even the local Sheriffs are ignoring her policies. How Grishman and Hochul ever got elected???
Especially in New Mexico where there are many people who support the rights of Guns, and many carry them. Hochul is just nuts.
Never, ever let the camel get its nose under the tent. In the blink of an eye, this will be their best advice:
To prevent the possibility of being attacked in your home, leave your fobs at the front door because they are breaking into your home to steal your car; they don’t want anything else.
“A lot of them that they’re arresting have guns on them and they are not toy guns,” he ominously added. “They are real guns. They’re loaded.”
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/03/14/leave-car-keys-at-front-door-to-avoid-violent-confrontations-with-car-thieves-toronto-police/
“A lot of them that they’re arresting have guns on them and they are not toy guns,” he ominously added. “They are real guns. They’re loaded.”
What a lie.
Everyone knows Canada has strict gun laws so no one but cops can have guns.
😂 Thank you brother, I needed that.
@Olly Re:”To prevent the possibility of being attacked in your home, leave your fobs at the front door…” Bullocks!!! We keep ours in a Faraday box in the kitchen, and our friends Smith and Wesson at the bedside.
If our government worked the way intended citizens would not have to carry concealed weapons in public places to protect themselves.
Traveler, while I understand your position, please dont cede any ground on our good given rights.
My rights are NOT predicated on need. They are ever present and protected from Govt abuse by the Constitution.
One of the best questions I heard at a Senate Hearing, came from Sen Grassely, from Iowa.
He asked a judicial nominee, which came first. The right to keep and bear arms, or the Constitution? The nominee did not know how to answer.
Just like the Constitution, the second amendment only works for an educated and moral citizenry.
True, and those breaking the law need to be prosecuted.
The salient point, Rights are not predicated on need. This is very important not to let such misleading language to pollute the debate
Wordsmithing 101, what’s the meaning of is…
You ever have a gun stuck to the back of your head? I have, it gives one a whole new perspective to the issues.
I feel your pain. But guess what, taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not prevent your experience. Citizens that used to be police, or military, get a pass on CC laws in most states. Statistics show those people are more likely to commit a gun crime than a citizen, going through the permit process.
Further up the thread is news out of Canada, that citizens are told to leave their key fob next to their unlocked front doors. Because all the thugs want is your car. And according to Police making the recommendation, these thugs are real and the guns they have are real, and loaded.
Canada’s strict gun laws, and centuries of a culture where citizens never have been allowed to freely have weapons, it is clear, stripping me of my protected rights is not going to insulate you from thugs.
iowan2 posted
Canada’s strict gun laws, and centuries of a culture where citizens never have been allowed to freely have weapons
The English Bill of Rights since the 1600’s, contains the enumerated right of the people of the Commonwealth to carry arms for their defense. Preceded the Second Amendment – probably inspired the Second Amendment. And it’s still in the EBR, which is part of the constitutional documents of Canada.
Centuries of gun ownership prohibition in Canada? In Canada as late as 1974, you could hunt with handguns, get a permit to carry a handgun for self defense, buy and go shooting with machine guns out on public lands, etc. A conviction for an indictable offense (i.e. a felony here) did not prohibit you from firearms ownership for life as it does here. Still doesn’t – the prosecutor then and now has to ask the judge for a gun prohibition order at sentencing providing reasonable cause for the request.
That’s nationwide – not just in one province. Compare that to the state of American gun laws at the time and later. How many states banned “assault weapons” long before the current Canadian government did a little over a year ago? How long did some American states have various handgun bans, long before Canada under the Lenin Liberals followed their lead?
Then along came Trudeau The Elder and the “nothing to fear here, good people” original Firearms Acquisition Certificate. In a few short years only current owners of machine guns could buy and sell them. Only carry licenses issued were to specific occupations who worked in the bush. Handguns could only be fired at designated ranges.
And now with Trudeau The Younger, raised to adulthood watching his police state fascist communist fatherin power, all handguns and now pretty much all semiautomatic rifles are now “prohibited weapons”.
Not by passing a law, but Prime Minister Racist Black Face learned a lesson from Obama saying “I have a phone and a pen and I know how to use them”. All those new prohibitions were by the Canadian equivalent, of an Executive Order – an Order In Council. No vote required. He does indeed look like The Son Obama Never Had.
Canada, under the Lenin Liberals, has been paralleling the Soviet Democrats in going down the hole of police state fascism. Whatever the restrictive police state fascist law is that you have in mind, sometimes they’re a little bit behind us, and sometimes they’re a bit ahead of us. And their governments have successfully made the EBR right to “keep arms for their defense” nothing but a dead letter. Not by changing the EBR – just by politicians ignoring it and judges choosing to allow them to do it.
We should take a lesson from that – rather than naive, completely false proclamations that Canada is not a country that allowed people to freely have weapons (for centuries no less). Ditto England, if you want to use them for the same kind of false proclamations.
And both used fearmongering to violate the EBR – exactly as the Democrats and now the Soviet Democrats are increasingly doing here in the USA to violate the 2nd Amendment.
Imagine if you will, a 1st and 2nd amendment that effectively hamstrings the government. Before you know it, we might have 7 more and then what? Dogs and cats, sleeping together. 😱