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.
She just wants to keep New Mexicans safe from the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member.
What’s wrong with that?
Hey all of you people in New Mexico. Your tax dollars are being spent on making laws that are unconstitutional so that your Governor can virtue signal to the Democratic bosses in D.C. Does it feel good when she puts it to you and you don’t even get a kiss. It’s understandable. She’s just making her way to the hallowed halls of the Congress of the United States and kissing whatever backside is necessary on the way there. Her future is ass sured.
Anonymous is correct for once. She said, New York’s Sullivan Act was passed in 1911. The law prohibited the carrying of concealed, unlicensed arms. By then, New York City’s population is 4,700,00. That’s BIG by even today’s standards! Let’s have some honesty here. Do you think that Anonymous would be in favor of carrying concealed licensed guns? It does seem like that is what she is saying. She really is saying that she doesn’t want any American citizen having a gun whether it’s licensed or unlicensed. Anonymous, why won’t you just tell it like it is?
@EmeraldRobinson
“Too many Americans still don’t get it.
They’ve purged the military.
They own the intel agencies.
They control the federal bureaucracy.
They censor all social media.
They’ve captured the courts.
They’re working to end your freedom, not protect it.”
Wake up out of your trance, America!
Perhaps JT is off to DC to patch together the failing Biden impeachment hearings. Or perhaps he is figuring out how he can spin all his failed predictions about Hunter and his dad. Or maybe he wants in on representing lawyers who are in trouble for taking the fall for trump. After all MAGA Make Attorneys Get Attorneys. Let’s see how the Biden probe goes in the house.
Lawfare = make attorneys get attorneys. MAGA is a great movement, to make America great again. Leftists despise that very idea. They hate America so naturally making America great again is anathema to them.
As for the impeachment hearing, yes, let’s see how Biden and his crime syndicate’s abject corruption gets exposed.
Perhaps Anonymous is off to her desk at the CIA to patch together another post on the Turley blog. Perhaps Anonymous is off to her desk at the CIA to patch together another Russia Hoax. Perhaps Anonymous is off to her desk at the CIA to deny that the laptop was Hunter’s laptop. Perhaps Anonymous is off to her desk at the CIA to deny that CRT was being taught in school. Perhaps Anonymous is off to her desk at the CIA to tell us that pornography wasn’t being shown to kids in middle school. Perhaps its obvious that Anonymous is just siting at her desk at the CIA going OFF her rocker.
𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐃.𝐂. 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥, 𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 (The District of Columbia)
Earlier this month, the D.C. Council cast its first of two votes on an omnibus public safety bill with about 100 provisions. The bill, called “Secure DC,” is a combination of provisions from a dozen different crime bills the council has previously considered, with some new ones tacked on. Secure DC is currently scheduled for a second vote before the D.C. Council on March 5, where council members are likely to propose additional amendments before ultimately passing it and sending it on to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser for her approval.
By: Jenny Gathright ~ Feb 20, 2024
https://dcist.com/story/24/02/20/secure-dc-crime-bill-frequently-asked-questions/
Bruen Decision An Intellectual Scam
The court’s Bruen decision pretends that gun regulations have no established basis in U.S. history. This finding is grossly deceptive at best.
When the nation was founded, in the 1780’s, our biggest cities had populations of less than 50,000. Though the vast majority of towns were hamlets with only a few hundred people.
By the 1880’s, however, American cities entered a period of rapid growth as immigration surged and a number of new technologies modernized our cities.
Paved roads, electrification, telephones, skyscrapers, indoor plumbing, sewage systems, streetcar lines and automobiles evolved in quick succession between 1880 and 1920.
Between 1880 and 1920, the population of Los Angeles shoots from 11,000 to 576,000. Chicago surges from 500,000 to 2,700,000. New York explodes from 1,200,000 to 5,600,000.
One should note that cities continued growing all through the 1920s. In fact, many U.S. cities saw their greatest building booms in the 1920s. By 1930, many U.S. cities were nearing all-time population peaks.
Unfortunately these population jumps were accompanied by corresponding leaps in criminal activity. Italian, Jewish and Irish gangs create organized crime networks.
New York’s Sullivan Act was passed in 1911. The law prohibited the carrying of concealed, unlicensed arms. By then, New York City’s population is 4,700,00. That’s BIG by even today’s standards!
Therefore to pretend that gun regulations have no historical basis in the United States is an intellectual scam! No historian of any stature buys that argument. It’s just bogus history contrived by Federalist judges in total disregard of public sentiment.
I fail to see how the existence of an obscure 110-year old unconstitutional ban necessitates SCOTUS to allow other unconstitutional bans.
Also, what does the population have to do with anything?
A leap in criminal activity (just like is happening today because of democrat policy) is supportive of gun ownership not gun bans.
If you got rid of democrats, we would need far fewer guns and gun crimes/homicides would plummet.
That’s a lengthy treatise to support . . . what? You mention gun regulation.
However you never mention of the Constitution and the 2cnd amendment. In short, zero relevance to the subject
Iowan2 – he says Scotus was wrong in its historical depiction of America in 1789 because of a law passed in NY in 1910, which is nonsensical.
Sr. kansas
Yes, as usual, you are more succinct and on point. I drift off to a more Socratic direction. With these radical leftists, I find what they refuse to address is the meat of their argument. OR, through ignonance/deception, must deflect in a weak attempt to be relevant.
Everything from this “The court’s Bruen . . .” to that “. . . organized crime networks.” (the overwhelming majority of your comment) is an attempt to “muddy your waters to make them appear deep.”
“The court’s Bruen decision pretends that gun regulations have no established basis in U.S. history.”
The court’s [name your SCOTUS] decision pretends that slavery has no established basis in U.S. history.
The court’s [name your SCOTUS] decision pretends that a ban on Abortion has no established basis in U.S. history.
The court’s [name your SCOTUS] decision pretends that laws against homosexuality have no established basis in U.S. history.
The court’s [name your SCOTUS] decision pretends that laws against miscegenation have no established basis in U.S. history.
The court’s [name your SCOTUS] decision pretends that laws against vagrancy have no established basis in U.S. history.
etc.
Laws change. The Constitution changes, with new amendments. Wouldn’t it just be easier to come right out and tell the truth? That we do not face an epidemic of gun violence as much as we face an epidemic of FUK (Feral Urban Kids) violence.
Unfortunately, true.
Karl Marx’s “Reconstruction Amendments” were improperly ratified under the duress of brutal military occupation and oppression and with a gun to America’s head and are, as such, illicit and unconstitutional.
So in other words the government has been acting Unconstitutionally now for 113 years.
Probably, in one sense, from time to time, in different areas. INHO, the worse problem has been government employees acting outside the boundaries of the law, such as Biden refusing to enforce existing laws on illegal immigrants, or prosecutors refusing to prosecute hospitals or doctors for violation of anti-trust laws, etc.
Just curious, what other creative ways can people (mostly leftists) come up with to eliminate or reduce our constitutional rights. The reason the 2nd amendment exists is so the people can enforce the 1st amendment.
That, and we lived in a country that had hostile Indians in it. And, we lived on a continent with major European powers on our borders – Great Britain, France, Spain, and Grand Fenwick.
And Mexico.
BRAVE ANONYMITY.