A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
Once you send the petition, please click the button below to email every single Democrat in the Legislature, demanding they sign the petition to call for a special session to impeach Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. Please do not miss this step. We will keep a running tally of all the representatives who have signed the petition certification form.
If the prompt to contact your legislators doesn’t work, the email copy and email addresses are below the petition.
If the above button did not work, below is what you need to email legislators:
Header: Impeach Gov. Lujan Grisham
Email Body:
Dear Legislator,
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham violated her oath to uphold the Constitution by taking away our rights as citizens to exercise our Second Amendment. The governor’s attacks on our rights and her oath, claiming they are not “absolute,” warrant her impeachment.
As a New Mexico voter, I ask you to uphold your oath to the Constitution and sign and mail back to the Legislative Council Service (LCS) the certification form (petition) to initiate an extraordinary session for the impeachment of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. This form was emailed to you by LCS at 5:21 p.m. on Monday, September 18, 2023. If you do not do so, it will be assumed you support her lawless, unconstitutional actions, which means you are complicit also.
Thank you for upholding the Constitution and the oath you swore to it.
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
New reports have suggested President Joe Biden will announce on Friday the first-ever federal office of gun violence prevention.
White House Staff Secretary Stefanie Feldman is leading the new department, according to The Washington Post and Politico. Feldman has previously worked on the Domestic Policy Council and oversees the gun policy portfolio at the White House.
Activists claim the new department will help the Biden administration coordinate across the federal government on gun-related topics and help Biden show leadership when it comes to gun violence prevention.
According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been over 500 shootings in the United States where four or more people were injured or killed.
In January, a combined 117 groups sent a letter to Biden urging him to create the federal office of gun violence prevention, a $5 billion fund for community violence intervention programs, a ban on foreign-made weapons, education campaigns on gun safety, stronger Federal Trade Commission regulations on firearm marketing, and a descriptive plan on the enactment of the Safer Communities Act passed last year.
“Unfortunately, gun deaths and injuries continue to ravage our country, impacting Asian American, Black and Brown communities, and neighborhoods all across the country,” the groups wrote to Biden. “While Congress must continue to prioritize gun violence prevention, you have the opportunity to act boldly by announcing a comprehensive plan of action to reduce gun deaths at the State of the Union on February 7, 2023.”
In June 2022, the president signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which increased background checks for people under 21 who purchase firearms.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
In a recent turn of events, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has backed down from her initial “emergency public health order” that had attempted to suspend Second Amendment carry rights throughout the state’s most populated county and city. This decision was heavily influenced by a temporary restraining order issued by a federal District Court Judge, which hindered the enforcement of the Governor’s original ban.
As per the new modifications, the suspension on carry rights has been lifted for Bernalillo County and the city of Albuquerque. However, this ban will still apply to “parks or playgrounds where we know we’ve got high risk of kids and families,” stated Grisham. Although the exact specifics of this amendment remain somewhat ambiguous, the Governor held an hour-long press conference in an attempt to clarify her stance.
The initial order, introduced on September 8th, 2023, imposed a 30-day suspension of open and concealed carry rights in Bernalillo County, home to Albuquerque. This sudden move by the Governor was met with significant resistance, inciting multiple lawsuits and calls for her impeachment.
The adjustment to the order came after an engaging courtroom debate. Lujan Grisham mentioned during a press briefing that there’s a considerable distinction between a suspension and a ban. While emphasizing her concerns about the ongoing issues related to gun violence and public safety, she cited the tragic incidents of three children, including an 11-year-old, who were recently victims of gun violence. This, coupled with convenient and questionable statistics showing a “43% increase in gun death rates” in New Mexico from 2009 to 2018, attributed to the Governor’s decision to classify gun violence as a statewide public health emergency.
Critics of Lujan Grisham’s measures have come from all corners. Albuquerque police Chief Harold Medina stated his reluctance to enforce the order, and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen voiced his concerns about potential infringements on constitutional rights. As expected, gun-control supporters like Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, praised the Governor’s efforts as both brave and essential, even if the order’s legality remains a point of contention.
Reflecting on the blowback, the Governor commented, “When you try to build consensus on gun violence measures, you cannot.” If further challenges arise in the upcoming October hearing, Lujan Grisham mentioned the possibility of approaching the legislature for a resolution.
Maybe if the Governor focused on criminals instead of law-abiding gun owners, she could actually get to the consensus she claims to want.
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) today joined Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) in demanding Attorney General Merrick Garland protect the Second Amendment rights of New Mexicans from the unconstitutional actions of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.
In a letter to Attorney General Garland, the senators urged the Department of Justice to respond swiftly to Governor Lujan Grisham’s unconstitutional Executive Order 2023-130, which violates the individual right to bear arms upheld in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) also signed the letter.
“Governor Grisham has issued an order which is being used to blatantly trample on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of New Mexico, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) must act swiftly to stop this unconstitutional power grab,” wrote the senators.
“While the public health order may invoke state law to authorize this unconstitutional infringement, it should be no match for the authority which the DOJ has to enforce our rights under the U.S. Constitution. That is why we are calling on you to enforce the Constitution and intervene on behalf of the constitutional rights of New Mexicans to stop this unconstitutional act from standing,” the senators continued.
“By preventing certain New Mexicans from exercising their constitutional rights to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home, Governor Grisham is violating the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article IV of the Constitution. This is a chilling action, and it is imperative that your Department act immediately to show that this kind of unconstitutional abuse will not be tolerated in New Mexico or anywhere else in the United States,” the senators concluded.
Republican officials in New Mexico announced a lawsuit against Gov. Michell Lujan Grisham (D-NM) and the State Secretary of Health over a controversial new rule banning the carry of firearms in Bernalillo County where Albuquerque is located.
Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, answers one of the most common questions we've received here in the last couple of days as we have covered the grotesque incursion into individual liberties as Governor Michelle Lujan Griffin has suspended the Constitutional Rights of hundreds of thousands of her citizens because she believes she knows how to keep her communities safe. Can she be impeached? How is it done in New Mexico? Well, we actually just read the New Mexico state constitution so that we talk about all of that and much, much more so that we can arm ourselves with education.
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
WARNING: Liberal Logic Ahead, iStock
The unilateral action by New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declaring a ban on civilian possession of a firearm, whether open or concealed, in public “to remain in effect for the duration of the public health emergencies. . .” is unconstitutional, unconscionable, and illegal.
But, apart from the illegality of Grisham’s Public Health Order on Second Amendment grounds and U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen rulings,,,
…the Order runs afoul of New Mexico’s own state Statutes!
This latter matter has not yet been discussed. We do so here.
We begin with the phrase “Gun Violence,” which appears in the Governor’s Public Health Order. For the longest time, the Anti-Second Amendment establishment has raged over this thing, “Gun Violence.” The idea implicit in ‘Gun Violence,’ if one insists on the expression, is that of ‘Criminal Violence’, where a criminal uses “a gun” in the commission of a crime. In that commonsensical view the phrase ‘Gun Violence’ simply denotes criminal use of guns, nothing more.
So why not eschew talk of Gun Violence for the appropriate expression, ‘Criminal Violence’?
Doing so would drive public policy where it belongs, on crime and criminals and away from the mechanism criminals sometimes employ, although not invariably, to do their horrible misdeeds.
But Democrats and Progressives don’t want to talk about crime and criminals. They don’t even want to talk about criminal use of guns. They only want to talk about guns and reducing the number of them, and that creates a real problem.
For, who is it that owns and possesses most of those “guns?” The answer is tens of millions of innocent, rational, responsible, law-abiding citizens.
And why do tens of millions of Americans wish to keep and bear guns?
Well, they do so for many reasons, all lawful, and one of which stands out as predominant: self-defense.
But little mention of this finds its way into the public square because Democrats and a sympathetic Press won’t allow it. They don’t want it. Anti-Second Amendment elements in Government, in the Press, and in the greater society have their own uses for ‘Gun Violence.’ It is they, after all, who have coined the expression.
And that phrase is the driving force behind the Governor’s Public “Health” Order.
Boiled down to its essence, the tacit message conveyed is this:
“Guns are a virus, a virulent contagion, and like all virulent contagions, must be rooted out, quarantined, and eradicated, and I, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, intend to do just that!”
The idea of Guns as a virulent contagion is not a novel idea. It goes back decades.
In 1995, in an Academic Article, Don Kates and others wrote (Guns And Public Health: Epidemic Of Violence Or Pandemic Of Propaganda?) about the strategy to deny one’s exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense by viewing guns as a health menace. The article’s writers referred to this strategy as “The Public Health Agenda.”
“In 1979 the American public health community adopted the ‘objective to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership,’ the initial target being a 25% reduction by the year 2000. Based on studies, and propelled by leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the objective has broadened so that it now includes banning and confiscation of all handguns, restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms, and eventual elimination of firearms from American life, . . . .
This follows the health advocate sages’ avowed intention to promote the idea that firearm ownership is an evil and that its elimination is a desirable and efficacious means of reducing violence.” From “Guns And Public Health: Epidemic Of Violence Or Pandemic Of Propaganda?”, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 513, Spring, 1995, by Don B. Kates, et. al.
Viewing “Gun Violence” as a medical matter is inane. It involves tortuous use of a literary device, metaphor, as a mechanism upon which to design and implement public policy.
The metaphor is that guns are like a virulent plague and must be stamped out. And Governor Grisham’s Order is based on the metaphor of “Guns As Virulent Virus.” She attempts to apply the metaphor to law. That is absurd.
Our free Constitutional Republic is grounded on law, not metaphor.
Nonetheless, Grisham trusts that she can skate around the Second Amendment issue and the constraints of State law by focusing on guns as a public health menace. She hopes that no one will bother to notice the card trick and the use of metaphor she employs to do this.
Unfortunately, pervasive and undeniable lunacy doesn’t prevent ideological fanatics who wield immense power from thrusting their lunacy on everyone else, embroiling us all in their nightmarish reality.
So, why isn’t anyone attacking the Governor’s lunacy head-on? That is where attention should first be directed.
Grisham cites several New Mexico State Statutes. Do they offer her support? Let’s see.
“A. A state of public health emergency may be declared by the governor upon the occurrence of a public health emergency. Prior to a declaration of a state of public health emergency, the governor shall consult with the secretary of health. The governor shall authorize the secretary of health, the secretary of public safety and the director to coordinate a response to the public health emergency.”
But the pertinent question here is whether the mere possession of guns in public equates with “Gun Violence” such that this “Gun Possession” qua “Gun Violence” falls within the legal definition of a ‘Public Health Emergency’ under New Mexico law.
“As used in the Public Health Act [Chapter 24, Article 1 NMSA 1978]:
A. ‘condition of public health importance’ means an infection, a disease, a syndrome, a symptom, an injury or other threat that is identifiable on an individual or community level and can reasonably be expected to lead to adverse health effects in the community; . . . .”
So, then, Does “a condition of public health importance” include “Gun Violence” qua “Possessing Guns in Public” under New Mexico law?
No, it does not. This kind of thing does not fall within the purview of New Mexico’s “Public Health Act” and, therefore, cannot be construed as a “Public Health Emergency” under New Mexico law, as shown below.
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-3 is the applicable “Definitions,” and Section. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-3 (G) defines the phrase, ‘public health emergency.’
“‘Public health emergency’ means the occurrence or imminent threat of exposure to an extremely dangerous condition or a highly infectious or toxic agent, including a threatening communicable disease, that poses an imminent threat of substantial harm to the population of New Mexico or any portion thereof.”
Does the phrase “exposure to an extremely dangerous condition” that appears in the afore-cited statutory section embrace “Gun Violence” qua “Possessing Guns in Public” under New Mexico Law?
Such an idea would be a stretch—an impossible stretch. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-2 explains why.
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-2 (Purposes of the Act) says,
“The purposes of the Public Health Emergency Response Act [12-10A-1 NMSA 1978] are to:
A. provide the state of New Mexico with the ability to manage public health emergencies in a manner that protects civil rights and the liberties of individual persons; [emphasis added]
B. prepare for a public health emergency; and
C. provide access to appropriate care, if needed, for an indefinite number of infected, exposed or endangered people in the event of a public health emergency.”
Paragraph “C” implies the presence of an ongoing and serious chemical, biological, or epidemiological hazard, causing illness to many people. Such a health emergency is objective and the harm caused to many is measurable and extensive.
A health emergency does not include criminological problems, sociological concerns, or matters deriving from political biases or animosities.
Moreover, Paragraph “A” makes abundantly clear that any declaration of a public health emergency must be conducted in a manner that “protects civil rights and the liberties of individuals.”
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is one such fundamental civil right that requires protection when the New Mexico Governor declares, as here, a “Public Health Emergency.”
But how can the exercise of a fundamental civil right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—that the governor implies is a public health emergency (for that is what the New Mexico Public Health Order targets), and one that must be harshly dealt with—truly be considered a health emergency under New Mexico law when that health emergency is the very fundamental civil right that must, as New Mexico law makes clear, be protected during an emergency?
The answer is: It cannot! That is the crux of the problem for Grisham and her “Public Health Order.”
Governor Grisham’s Order is legally incoherent, incompatible with State Statute, logically inconsistent, and, on analysis, overtly nonsensical.
We hope someone challenging Governor Grisham’s “Public Health Order” in Federal or State Court will make that argument.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
Happy Monday, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing friends. Trenzino continues to feel that cheery couples on tandem bicycles have actual skeletons in their closets.
A common refrain we hear from anti-Second Amendment leftists goes something like this: “Don’t be ridiculous, we don’t want to take your guns.” It’s a way of dismissing our well-founded concerns that American leftists, if given the chance, will become fascists who won’t hesitate to abrogate even our God-given rights.
Yeah, we’ve met them.
Of course, variations on the above line are always — yes, always — offered as part of a larger conversation in which they then say something along the lines of: “OK, not all of your guns, just the ones that we’ve deemed super extra scary.”
It’s a testament to how adept leftists are at lying that they’ve been able to make claims like this while keeping straight faces for so many years.
As we know, however, they’ve all been emboldened by the success they had using the United States Constitution as a birdcage liner during the pandemic, and they don’t mind letting their masks (punish pandemic reference definitely intended) slip more and more.
According to every map that I have, New Mexico is still in the United States of America. Its governor seems to find that inconvenient. This is from Rick’s latest on the subject:
But New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is defending her order, claiming it was necessary to protect “public health,” and besides, her oath to uphold the Constitution was not “absolute.”
“No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute,” she retorted after being asked whether her order violated her oath of office to “uphold the Constitution.”
I guarantee you that Gov. Stalin Grisham will not be the last Democrat to use the COVID-inspired “public health” nonsense as an excuse to oppress the good citizens of this country. They take to tyranny like ducks to water over there in Dem Land. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the Democratic National Committee has spun off a little think tank to ponder new ways to use public health panic to shred the Constitution.
It’s beyond naive to think that any Democrat who shrugs off fealty to the Constitution via a sworn oath won’t continue throwing rules out the window. Now, more than ever, Democrats truly believe themselves to be above and/or outside any laws they find irritating.
Like open or concealed carry laws.
Disarmament is the endgame for every Democratic politician who blathers on about “assault weapons,” the “need” for an AR-15, or the odious “common sense gun reforms.” They’d prefer to enact tyrannical agendas on a populace that is meek, compliant, and unable to resist. Ambitious commies like New Mexico’s pantsuited nightmare chief executive know that people who are heavily invested in the First and Second Amendments won’t merely roll over and play gulag for them.
At present, the overreaching anti-2A zealots eventually run into a judge or a court that says, “Yeah…no,” to their attempts to turn legal gun owners into criminals overnight. If they get another few years to tweak the judiciary, the Bill of Rights will become a museum piece.
Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, heads back down to New Mexico to see all the development, and there have been many since Gov. Grisham decided that she had the power to suspend her citizens' Second Amendment Rights. Even some of America's most notorious gun grabbers, including David Hogg and Ryan Busse, have publicly spoken out against this gross overreach. Several law enforcement agencies have said that will NOT enforce the order and the lawsuits have started to fly. NAGR is the first to the party so we go over their lawsuit today so that all of you can arm yourself with education. Read NAGR's complaint here. https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-co... Read NAGR's motion for a TRO here. https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-co...
With the legislative session beginning in less than a week, a brand-new measure has been introduced that would outlaw large-capacity (above 9 rounds) gun magazines in New Mexico. "As I'm looking, there is not one gun in this cabinet that would be allowed under the proposed law. Similarly, here, as I'm looking in this case, there would again not be one gun that would be permitted under the new law," said the owner of the Los Ranchos Gun Shop in New Mexico, Mark Abramson. Abramson has been providing New Mexico's gun owners with weapons for more than 40 years. But a newly proposed house measure would change the kinds of firearms he has been selling for years. "The Smith and Wesson M&P is one of our top-selling guns. It just wouldn't be allowed. Because Smith and Wesson will not make a magazine that only handles nine rounds because we'd be the only state in the union with that restriction," explained Abramson. The reality is that a reduced-capacity magazine necessitates magazine changes while you are defending yourself from criminals. As a result, defending yourself will be unfair to criminals who won't follow the requirement that there must be 9 or fewer bullets in a magazine.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham issued a public health order suspending open and concealed carry of firearms in Bernalillo County public places for the next 30 days. Bernalillo County is the home of Albuquerque.
The Governor announced in a press conference Friday that she was taking the extraordinary step after the death of an 11-year-old due to a gunshot and several other shootings. She made the announcement alongside other New Mexico officials, all of whom had taken solemn oaths to support and defend the Constitution.
The Governor claims she has the power because “gun violence” is a “public health crisis.”
The order will almost certainly be challenged on Constitutional grounds. The move seems to run afoul of the Bruen Decision, which said individuals have the right to carry firearms outside the home. The Supreme Court did not make any exceptions for “public health.” In fact, the decision knocked down interest balancing. The Governor stated she expects legal challenges to the order.
AmmoLand News has reached out to several gun rights organizations to get comments. Gun Owners of America (GOA) responded, and the organization is aware of the Governor’s actions and is looking at options to challenge it.
One Cuban American who works for GOA compared the order to the country his family fled.
“New Mexico’ Governor has violated the rights of New Mexico’s law-abiding citizens in a manner I would only expect to see 90 miles off the coast of Florida,” said Luis Valdes, Florida Director, GOA. “In the Communist Hellscape that is Cuba. Criminals will continue to break the law, and the law-abiding will suffer because of it.”
Besides the restriction on carrying firearms outside of one’s residence, there were several other stipulations introduced. Including one measure that will place increased pressure on the locally owned and operated gun shops, implementing monthly inspections of federal firearms licensees (FFL) by the state.
• The Regulation and Licensing Division will conduct monthly inspections of licensed firearm dealers to ensure compliance with all sales and storage laws. • The Department of Health, along with the Environment Department, will begin wastewater testing for illegal substances such as fentanyl at schools. • The Department of Health will compile and issue a comprehensive report on gunshot victims presenting at hospitals in New Mexico, which shall include (if available): demographic data of gunshot victims, including age, gender, race, and ethnicity; data on gunshot victims’ healthcare outcomes; the brand and caliber of the firearm used; the general circumstances leading to the injury; the impact of gunshot victims on New Mexico’s healthcare system; and any other pertinent information. • No firearms are allowed on state property, including state buildings and schools. This also includes other places of education where children gather, such as parks. • New Mexico State Police will add officers in Albuquerque with funding for overtime provided. • The Children, Youth, and Families Department will immediately suspend the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative and evaluate juvenile probation protocols.
No lawsuits have been announced, but it is not a question of if. It is only a question of how many and when the cases will be filed.
UPDATE 9/9/2023 Local Law Enforcement have begun to weigh in:
Statement from Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen:
“…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.
I was elected to represent and safeguard all constituents and to ensure the balance between our rights and public safety is maintained. That means we must critically evaluate any proposed solution to the deeply rooted issue of gun violence, ensuring we both protect our community and uphold the values that define us as a nation.” ~ Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen.
Albuquerque Police Department Chief Medina sent the following message to APD officers about the governor’s state order on gun possession.
UPDATE 9/10/2023
Late Saturday, September 9th, 2023, Gun Owners of America filed a Temporary Restraining Order against the NM Governor’s unconstitutional order.
RANDY DONK, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC. and GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-…
New Mexico Suspends Concealed Carry Public Health Order
About John Crump
John is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
But New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is defending her order, claiming it was necessary to protect “public health,” and besides, her oath to uphold the Constitution was not “absolute.”
“No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute,” she retorted after being asked whether her order violated her oath of office to “uphold the Constitution.”
It’s true there are exceptions to most of our Constitutional rights. We can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, for example. There’s also the “fighting words doctrine” that makes incitement to violence illegal.
But anyone who claims there are exceptions to their oath needs to be impeached. The words “oath” and “absolute” pretty much go together. And this cretin of a governor is looking to separate them because she’s gotten herself in a heap of trouble.
The ban on carrying firearms in public grew out of recent shootings where children were caught in the crossfire. Our hearts bleed for the kids, but just how in the name of all that is good and holy will banning the concealed or open-carrying of guns prevent kids from getting killed?
At a news conference on Friday, [Grisham] said that shootings have amounted to an epidemic and that the suspension allowed for a “cooling-off period” for the state to figure out the best way to address gun violence and public safety. She said she expected the suspension to be challenged in court and could not guarantee it would stand.
“I welcome the debate and the fight about making New Mexicans safer,” she said.
Gun violence is sort of like a disease — “amounted to an epidemic” — so let’s toss the Constitution into the trash. After all, isn’t that what the government did during the pandemic?
The National Association for Gun Rights has already filed suit to block the executive order. Legal experts believe the suit is a slam dunk. But Lujan-Grisham is undeterred. She believes 1+1=3.
“I have emergency powers,” she said. “Gun violence is an epidemic. Therefore, it’s an emergency.”
Huh? This woman gives non-sequiturs a bad name.
Patrick Carter, co-director for the University of Michigan’s Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention, said there was evidence that fewer guns lead to less violence in an area. However, he said, there was not enough data or research to determine whether or not this ban would have an effect on preventing firearm injuries, which he said required “a comprehensive approach that blends policy with other types of interventions.”
Let’s just say it: New Mexico’s governor panicked.
Robert Leider, an assistant professor of law at George Mason University, said bans like this have been issued “when you have public disorders or other states of emergency, but most states of emergency usually involve something more acute.” He expressed skepticism that the ban would be upheld in court. “I’m not aware of any precedent for this just for general criminal wrongdoing,” he said.
The effort to tie public health to an inability to enforce gun laws is one of the left’s most cynical end runs around the Constitution. In this instance, the exercise is likely to be shot down in record time.
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
New Mexico’s Democrat governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, came under fire from the National Rifle Association (NRA) for temporarily restricting open and concealed carry across Albuquerque and neighboring Bernalillo County due to an emergency public health order.
“In a shocking move, Governor Lujan Grisham is suspending Second Amendment rights by administrative fiat, ignoring the U.S. Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution,” NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch told the press.
The Democrat governor, according to the NRA head, should eliminate “soft-on-crime policies.” According to police statistics, 76 homicide victims have been reported in Albuquerque so far this year, which is fewer than the 93 victims reported during the same period last year.
“Instead of undermining the fundamental rights of law-abiding New Mexicans, she should address the soft-on-criminal policies which truly endanger its citizens,” Kozuch said.
In an executive order made public on Friday, Lujan Grisham temporarily banned the open and concealed carry regulations in Bernalillo County for at least 30 days. The shootings of a 13-year-old girl in July, a 5-year-old girl in August, and an 11-year-old boy this month served as the impetus for the statement.
“As I said yesterday, the time for standard measures has passed,” the governor said, according to her office’s press release on the order. “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.”
On Friday, the governor held a press conference where she boldly said that no constitutional right is “absolute.”
“No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute,” Lujan Grisham said after a reporter asked whether it’s “unconstitutional” to force Americans not to exercise their right to bear arms.
“There are restrictions on free speech. There are restrictions on my freedoms. In this emergency, this 11-year-old, and all these parents who have lost all these children, they deserve my attention to have the debate about whether or not, in an emergency, we can create a safer environment. Because what about their constitutional rights?” she said.
The reporter continued by inquiring of the Democrat governor whether she thought that criminal offenders with access to black market weapons would obey her directives on the 30-day suspension.
“Uh, no,” she responded. After that question, she reportedly went into a tangent about the importance of reporting crimes to law enforcement.
The National Association for Gun Rights and a local, unnamed resident have already launched a lawsuit against Grisham for “violating their Second Amendment rights.”
“Gov. Luhan Grisham is throwing up a middle finger to the Constitution and the Supreme Court,” Dudley Brown said. Dudley is the president of the National Association for Gun Rights.
The USCCA’s recently established 501(c)(4) group, the U.S. Concealed Carry Association for Saving Lives Action Fund, also denounced the order “in the strongest possible terms.”
“Not only does Governor Grisham lack the constitutional authority to implement such an unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment rights of New Mexico citizens, but it strikes at the very heart of what responsible gun owners have been saying for years – criminals do not follow the law, and this order only serves to punish law-abiding gun owners who protect their community,” said Katie Pointer Baney, chairman of the board and executive director of the USCCA-FSL Action Fund.
On X, formerly known as Twitter, the NRA emphasized that the New Mexico Bill of Rights guarantees the right to keep and carry guns for “security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.”
A statute permitting people to file a $2 million lawsuit if their constitutional rights are infringed was enacted by the governor in 2021.
“Under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, signed into law by @GovMLG, a person whose rights under the Bill of Rights are violated may sue to recover for damages and obtain injunctive relief. Damages may be awarded up to $2 million per person whose rights were violated,” the NRA said.
The New Mexico Bill of Rights guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, and all other lawful purposes.
Under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, signed into law by @GovMLG, a person whose rights under the Bill of Rights are violated may sue to recover for… pic.twitter.com/DguSm6hod9
“The NRA remains committed to defending the rights of every American and sounding the alarm on such dangerous and unconstitutional proposals that prevent the law-abiding from defending themselves and their families from violent criminals who have overtaken this state under her watch,” Kozuch added.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
Happy Friday, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing friends. Ertenzo felt most purposeful when adding a secret fourth bean to his three-bean salad for the annual Cornhole Club picnic.
The commie puppet masters who run Joe Biden’s brain have made no secret of their contempt for the Second Amendment and law-abiding American gun owners. They’ve had their senile mouthpiece babbling about “assault weapons” almost from the moment he was installed in the Oval Office.
Democrats don’t have a lot of luck with sweeping gun control legislation for a couple of reasons. First, they keep passing laws that make gun owners who have adhered to the law criminals overnight. These laws eventually find their way to a judge or a court that says, “Yeah…no.”
The other reason — and this is the big one — is that there are a lot of Democrats who own guns and are fond of their Second Amendment rights. Most of them are in flyover country, which is why a lot of the D.C. Dems are out of touch with reality.
Team Biden is nothing if not relentless in its pursuit of an anti-American agenda, however. Instead of the legislative process, the bureaucracy is being used to choke the life out of the Second Amendment, which Catherine wrote about yesterday:
The Biden administration, failing to get enough congressional cooperation to trample on the Second Amendment, continues its war against gun dealers.
Bingo.
As we examine the story further, it’s important to remember that Democrats have contempt for small business owners. People who can’t be forced into unionizing and stuffing the coffers of the Democratic Big Labor slush fund are useless to them.
Here’s more from Catherine’s post:
I previously wrote a VIP post about how hundreds of gun dealers suddenly lost their licenses to Biden’s ATF, in what the gun industry says is a back-handed way of undermining gun rights (if you’re not already a VIP subscriber, join today!). Some dealers informed the media that the federal government is hurting a major ally in identifying “suspicious gun buyers” by targeting legitimate gun dealers. But the Biden administration is successfully hurting gun dealers’ business. “We were making $1 million a year, now it’s less than $100,000,” gun dealer Anthony Navarro told the Wall Street Journal. “This policy is designed to be a backdoor violation of the Second Amendment.” Now there’s the new ATF rule, also aimed at gun dealers.
I’m an Arizona resident. Rules regarding private gun sales are practically nonexistent. Both parties have to be Arizona residents and after that, YOLO. The Grand Canyon State has functioned with minimal gun laws for a very long time. My grandfather owned a gun store when I was a kid, so I know whence I speak (write). What the feds want to do now is get their fascist little fingers all over the transactions between individuals, which Ryan Petty explains at our sister site Bearing Arms:
The White House outlined that under the suggested guidelines, individuals would be expected to obtain a federal license and conduct background checks if they meet one or more of several conditions. These include frequently selling firearms shortly after purchasing them, offering guns in near-new condition, selling multiple units of the same gun model, or selling business inventory as a previously federally-licensed dealer without transferring it to a personal collection for at least one year, effectively targeting the so-called fire sale loophole. The proposed rules would establish criteria around the frequency and type of gun sales by unlicensed sellers, along with the condition of the firearms.
The Second Amendment infuriates leftists because the federal government hasn’t been able to wrest control of it from the states. It’s a perfect example of how the country is supposed to work. My good friend, colleague, and “Unwoke” podcast co-host Kevin Downey Jr. once asked me if all of my guns were legal. I replied, “In this state they are.” Were I to move back to California, the story would be different.
The anti-2A crowd is fond of saying, “We don’t want to take away your guns.”
They do, of course, but until they can, they’d like to make the legal acquisition of firearms so onerous that people just give up.
In what seems to be another attempt at discouraging firearm activities, the Department of Education has decided to withhold the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) funds from hunting and archery education programs nationwide.
Due to the attack at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, the Department of Education decided to pass the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. This new policy required the department to withhold certain grant funds from school archery and hunting programs.
The specific provision in the act was an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which prohibits federal funds from going to programs that “provide to any person a dangerous weapon or training in the use of a dangerous weapon.”
Logical-thinking people would understand that more training would increase responsible gun ownership, but the anti-gun segment of our population sees this topic differently. We understand that when people think like this, they usually project their own thoughts about what they think “they” might do with a gun. Some cannot see that the thoughts in their own mind are not necessarily those of others. Many within the anti-gun circles have been conditioned to believe that guns are used only for killing, so they have a hard time seeing the topic rationally. This results from decades of anti-gun mind manipulation perpetuated on people who can’t think for themselves.
Democrats play the long game in disarming their fellow citizens and convincing the weak-minded to go along in their pursuit.
We’ve seen their attempts to tax ammo in what would appear to be an attempt at shutting down gun ranges by making it overly expensive to practice. They understand that if ammo is expensive enough, parents won’t be spending time at the range, and this would certainly reduce the amount of time they spend training their children. If the next generation of children grow up without guns in the household and without any familiarity or interest, they will likely be non-gun-owners in their adult lives. The anti-gun strategy is generational, and they seem to be determined to do anything they can to reverse the naturally instinctive desire for gun ownership in America. In this case, removing all opportunities for kids to learn about guns only helps their agenda.
Under this new defunding scheme, millions of students will be denied the ability to learn firearm safety and will be unable to participate in recreational shooting sports. It would seem that is the idea.
In response to this new attempt by the Government to discourage American gun ownership, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, from New York’s District 21, said:
“This is the most recent example of a series of far-left pushes by the Biden administration and education secretary Cardona in the name of their partisan political agenda. Despite long-standing, bipartisan congressional support, the Department of Education has decided to eliminate the opportunity for millions of American students to exercise their Second Amendment right by safely learning to use firearms and participate in recreational, shooting sports.”
The left is very strategic in the way they attack the 2nd Amendment. This is just another attempt at their goal of a government-controlled citizenry. However, they can’t seem to get rid of that pesky 2nd Amendment.
Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information contact PR HERE
Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic, and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun owners.
In recent months, the Second Amendment community has faced unprecedented challenges in the wake of President Biden’s attack on gun rights. One of the most contentious issues has been implementing the “zero tolerance” policy for gun dealers by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). As staunch defenders of the Second Amendment, a coalition of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) has stepped up to contest what they view as an overreach of government authority. The alliance is led by Eric Blandford, who runs the successful YouTube channel Iraqveteran8888.
“Selling firearms is a perfectly normal business venture, and nobody should have to fear losing their entire life savings over a typo,” Blandford told AmmoLand News.
The announcement was announced on the popular YouTuber’s channel. He was joined in the video by Senior Vice President of GOA, Erich Pratt.
The Biden administration’s “zero tolerance” policy for gun dealers has drawn significant criticism from pro-gun advocates, including FFLs.
President Biden claims that the policy aims to crack down on alleged violations of federal gun laws by firearm dealers. The coalition of FFLs claims the ATF is taking an over-aggressive stance on even minor clerical errors. The members point to the ATF punishing law-abiding FFLs for trivial mistakes and administrative errors leading to the revocation of FFLs. Under the policy, the revocation of FFLs is at a 17-year high.
The FFL coalition argues that the ATF’s “zero tolerance” approach undermines the due process rights of FFLs and could potentially lead to the unjust revocation of licenses. Instead of focusing on rooting out actual criminals, this policy places undue burdens on small business owners who strive to adhere to complex and often confusing regulations. There is also evidence that the ATF is using the revocation process as retaliation against FFLs that sue the Bureau. Moorehouse Enterprises is one of the alleged victims of ATF reprisal. The gun store sued the ATF over the new rule on frames and receivers. After the lawsuit was launched, a local Industry Operations Inspector (IOI) examined the company’s books and found a few errors. Even though the IOI was positive about the inspection, the small local business received a revocation letter. The gun store has now launched a second lawsuit contesting the revocation with the help of Gun Owners of America (GOA).
The legal battle launched by the FFL coalition centers on upholding the principles of due process and fair treatment under the law.
Pro-gun advocates argue that treating minor administrative mistakes with the same severity as deliberate violations disproportionately punishes FFLs who are attempting to comply with an elaborate set of regulations.
The coalition believes that this overzealous approach by the ATF could have far-reaching implications, not only for FFLs but for the broader Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. By contesting the ATF’s “zero tolerance” policy, the coalition seeks to protect not only their livelihoods but also the rights of responsible gun owners across the nation.
The ongoing legal battle between gun stores and the ATF represents a pivotal moment for Second Amendment rights in the United States. The FFL coalition’s efforts are a testament to the enduring commitment of Americans to safeguard their constitutional rights.
About John Crump
John is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, breaks down the recent DOJ Brief regarding the USA v. Rahimi. Follow Mark as we do on YouTube at The Four Boxes Diner.
In a notable development, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has submitted a significant brief (67+ pages, embedded below) to the United States Supreme Court in the case of the United States of America vs. Zaki Rahimi. The focus of this case is the constitutionality of 18 USC 922 G8, which pertains to domestic violence restraining orders and their alignment with the Second Amendment.
Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, suggests that the DOJ, representing the Biden Administration, is arguing for extensive interpretation measures. The contention seems to be that the Second Amendment allows Congress and other legislative bodies the power to disarm individuals [aka “infringe”] deemed not “Law-abiding” or “responsible.” The criteria for such judgments, as outlined in the brief, could range from minor infractions like jaywalking to more serious criminal activities.
The broad implications of such an interpretation might leave a vast number of citizens without the right to keep and bear arms.
Central to the case is Zaki Rahimi’s incident from December 2019, where he allegedly assaulted his girlfriend and threatened a witness with a firearm. The event resulted in a restraining order against Rahimi in February 2020 after he ostensibly admitted to the accusations.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously held that the federal law in question in Zaki Rahimi’s case was in violation of the Second Amendment. Still, the DOJ’s arguments seem to lean heavily on connecting firearms with domestic violence, potentially setting a precedent for justifying ‘red flag’ laws. Their position leans on the Heller case from 2008, which identified the rights of “law-abiding and responsible” individuals to bear arms.
The DOJ attempts to spin its argument based on three main talking points, all taken out of legal and historical context:
Previous court precedents distinguished between law-abiding citizens and those deemed otherwise.
Historical precedents allowed for disarmament during the founding era, citing laws that existed during the period.
Arguing that the majority of American states have similar domestic restraining orders suggests a national consensus.
Critics rightfully argue that simply because many states have implemented certain rules doesn’t automatically affirm their constitutionality.
This shocking 67-page brief from the DOJ would be a significant shift in interpreting the Second Amendment. Whether this unconstitutional human rights grab prevails will be determined by the Supreme Court in its upcoming deliberations.
By Fred Riehl and AI tools. Note: Research behind this article was generated using AI technology and may contain some automated content aggregation and analysis.
Red Flag Law: Governor Bill Lee’s push for a “red flag” law is resisted by concerned moms, who argue it’s more harmful than helpful.
Gun Control Debate: Ashley Britt and Amanda Suffecool critique gun control measures for not necessarily ensuring safety and having roots in racism.
Misuse of ERPO: Kristen Benson highlights the potential for aggressors to misuse Extreme Risk Protective Orders, endangering innocent victims further.
Governor Bill Lee, R-Tenn., has been discussing the implementation of a so-called “red flag” law lately. While Lee tried to see to it that his favored measure would have been passed in the last legislative session, luckily, he failed in his efforts.
Since then, Lee called for a special session for the legislators to open up, and many suspect this was in efforts to ram-rod through an extreme risk protective order bill, but many are vehemently against that notion. The DC Project recently went to Nashville, where they held a press conference about so-called gun control measures, the dangers of such, and making known that red flag laws are more harmful than helpful.
On Monday, August 21, 2023, a delegation of several of the DC Project ladies assembled. At the helm was Dianna Muller, the founder of the group, who is a competitive shooter and veteran police officer with over twenty years of experience. Concerning the event, their release stated that the “DC Project-Women for Gun Rights will discuss the upcoming special session on gun control. Hear from moms, law enforcement professionals, survivors of violence, and experts in firearms safety on why they oppose the calls for more gun control. Several House Republican leaders will attend.
The teal-clad ladies drew the attention of several lawmakers and had a decent representation present. Opening up the press event was Tenn. House Assistant Majority Leader Mark Cochran, and he discussed the special session.
I think you will see Tennessee lead the nation in providing solutions that focus on separating dangerous people from society, while protecting your central constitutional liberties. And again, we’re about focusing on individual responsibility and focusing on the holding criminals responsible and for protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
DC Project Members Dianna Muller and Amanda Suffecool with Tennessee Legislators
There were several DC Project delegates and other speakers present who spoke, including:
Ashley Britt, the Tennessee state Director, spoke about her role as a mother and hunter.
“We believe that education is key to safety and violence prevention, not legislation. We want to thank leader Cochran and all of our other Tennessee representatives for being here with us today,” Britt said, “We all want the same thing. To be safe, and we want our children to be safe.” Britt continued:
“Our hearts break after every senseless tragedy, especially when We know that there are meaningful and effective solutions that can make our communities safer. But inevitably, after a tragedy, the gun control lobby immediately turns the conversation to more laws and more restrictions. It’s time to look at the evidence and acknowledge the truth. These policies are failures, and they do not produce the desired results. Gun control policies sound like a good idea, but make it difficult for citizens to defend themselves, which emboldens criminals, increases violence, and makes our community less safe. Common sense to me means that those cities with the most violence and murder like Baltimore, DC, Chicago, that they should adopt the laws of the cities that are not linked to violence. Gun control policies like ERPOs, aka red flag laws, do not keep you safe. Do not Chicago our Nashville.”
Nikki Goser gave an impassioned speech. Her story is one that has led to meaningful legislative change in the state of Tennessee, with the introduction, passage, and enactment of lifetime order of protections becoming policy in the state. Goser had a message for everyone at large;
“Moms Demand Action does not speak for me. I was a victim of a violent crime,” she said. “My husband Ben was brutally murdered in front of me by a man who’s stalking me. I was denied the ability to carry my legal firearm to protect us that night because of the gun-free zone…Policies that Moms Demand support.”
A statement was read by Amanda Suffecool that was prepared by a woman who chose not to attend the event. The woman who was going to speak said that she was concerned about things that were being said on the news about potential violence and decided not to show up. Suffecool said the African-American mother of three asked her to step in and tell everyone about her story.
My journey to gun ownership only started recently. It was during COVID and the whole toilet paper shortage that I realized how vulnerable I was. How would I protect my family in a critical incident? I decided to buy a gun. And I’m speaking today because my experience may be similar to the recorded 14 million first-time gun owners over the past couple of years. It was scary at first, but with training with friends, and then with certified instructors, I was empowered. I am more confident in my own safety and my ability to provide and protect for my children.
I also learned how gun control is steeped in racism, in order to prevent the newly freed slaves from being able to protect themselves. If government ushered in gun control, do you think that I’m not worthy, or capable or trustworthy to handle a firearm? If you say Black lives matter, then stop making it more difficult for us to protect ourselves. Every restriction, every permit, every license makes gun ownership and self-defense a rich man’s game. I can’t afford a bodyguard. And I don’t work in a building with security.
As a woman, I’m smaller. I’m less equipped for violence. And my firearm…my newly acquired firearm is an equal protector. It’s an equalizer. Gun rights are women’s rights. Now I know the Second Amendment is for all Americans. Thoughts and prayers and calls for more gun control isn’t enough. How about letting me defend myself and my family from evil?
Kristen Benson, a survivor of violence, explained that extreme risk protective orders only make things worse for women who are similarly situated as she was.
“Not only am I a mom, but I’m a survivor of sexual abuse and rape. I know what it is to be vulnerable and to live in constant fear,” Benson said, “But I have since dedicated my life to overcoming the terror of my past.” Benson explained she opened up a firearm training company in order to specifically teach life-saving skills to empower women who should not have to live in fear. “Their aggressor can easily manipulate ERPOs against them as a way of intentionally disarming them and rendering them completely defenseless,” Benson said of how the system can be weaponized.
Representative Chris Todd talked about the special session. Todd was highly supportive of the gun rights advocates who attended and observed;
“We stand with you. Most of us get why you’re here. We are on the same page. We know what you’re saying is the absolute truth. We know what our constituents are saying.” Todd also offered up an assurance, “We’re not gonna let anything bad come out of here. We’re gonna make sure your rights and liberties are protected.”
The press conference had many other women and advocates speaking on behalf of the Second Amendment and our civil liberties. With the special session in full swing, we have to remain hopeful that the representatives who pledged their support will ensure no freedom-limiting measures pass.
To catch a partial broadcast of the DC Project press event, watch the embedded video above or at WZTV FOX 17 News, Nashville.
