Update: Judge Issues Temporary Restraing Order Blocking NM Gov. Grisham’s ‘Emergency’ Carry Ban

By
Dan Zimmerman
-
134
vintage cartoon listen headphones music
Shutterstock

UPDATE: US District Court Judge David Urias has issued a temporary restraining order blocking New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s “emergency public health order” that suspended Second Amendment carry rights for citizens in Bernalillo County and the city of Albuquerque.

In an understatement, the AP writes . . .

The ruling Wednesday by U.S. District Judge David Urias marks a setback for Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham as she responds to several recent shootings that took the lives of children, including an 11-year-old boy as he left a minor league baseball game in Albuquerque.

Grisham was abandoned by state and local law enforcement officials, politicians in her own party, and even longtime gun control advocates after issuing her clearly unconstitutional executive order suspending citizens’ civil rights. New Mexico’s Attorney General pronounced the order unconstitutional and refused to defend it in court.

Stay tuned.

– – – – –

At 1:00p mountain time this afternoon a District Court Judge will hear arguments in a number of motions seeking a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s authoritarian suspension of gun rights in the state’s largest city and county.

You can listen in to the hearing here.

User Name: audio
Password: 7AE9EC

We hear that the total number of sign-ins will be limited, so get in while you can. Our own LKB will be listening in and commenting below as the hearing plays out.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

134 COMMENTS

    • the unintended legal consequences of this are going to be as hilarious as they will be beautiful. the mere fact that she brought David hoggs twitter handler to fire back shows just how disastrous this will be for their “movement”.

    • Following the standard l3ftist playbook of if you can’t (or won’t) punish the guilty, punish the innocent instead.

    • And it hasn’t been for years? I don’t know about New Mexico in particular, but it seems like banana republic crap I never would have believed would happen so regularly and openly in the USA even 15 years ago is now a regular occurrence. Sometimes there is effective pushback. More often there isn’t.

  2. How many of the cases will be heard? At last count there were six, and it would make sense to consolidate them all. It will also be interesting to see who defends the Gov after the AG bowed out. I also wonder of the Gov will be in attendance (but I rather doubt it since her attendance is not required).

    • The Governor would be incredibly foolish to attend, as plaintiffs could try and put her on the stand as a adverse witness. (If there is a preliminary injunction hearing, if I was representing a plaintiff I would drop a trial subpoena on her to make her have to show up.)

      Technically, the cases are not consolidated (at least not yet).

  3. Hi TTAG’rs:

    OK, I am standing by with a window connected to the Court’s audio link to the hearing. In my over 35 years of practice, this is the first time I have ever heard of a federal district court livestreaming a hearing (SCOTUS and Courts of Appeals started doing it during lockdown).

    I’ll be doing some commentary below.

    To set the stage, there are six cases that have been filed since the Governor’s bizarre executive order on Friday: 3 were filed on Saturday afternoon, one on Sunday, and two on Monday.

    On Monday, the Court scheduled a hearing on the Donk/GOA case on the plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) for 11 AM yesterday, only to cancel that hearing Monday evening. Yesterday, Court reset the hearing for 1 PM Mountain today, and made it for all six filed cases.

  4. Remember, the hearing today is on motions for a TRO — an application for an immediate injunction, before the defendant even has the chance to respond (they are often issued ex parte [without the other side even participating]). For that reason, they are granted only in the clearest cases, where there is a serious risk of irreparable injury.

    A TRO is only good for a limited amount of time, and expires unless the Court converts it to a preliminary injunction (usually after briefing and an evidentiary hearing).

    • LKB,

      Not my experience, but OK. In general, my experience has been that judges are reluctant to grant restraining orders absent ‘clear and convincing’ evidence, and MORE reluctant to do so when the side to be restrained wasn’t present/represented (as, I will not, it SHOULD be . . . due process, and all that nonsense). Not all judges, not all the time, but that has been my overall impression.

      Yes, a TRO is a short-term remedy . . . conceptually designed that way, to remedy a SHORT-TERM potential devastating impact, so a court could really address . . . due process. Hmmm. Wonder WTF that is all about???

      Unfortunately, in our “modern” society, being a judge (which was intended, by our Founders and history, to be a non-political position) has become a political office. How many MSM articles about a particular court ruling include (usually in the first paragraph), “Judge So-and-so, a [name of President] appointee, today ruled . . . “. That would only matter, to anyone, if being a judge were a political thing.

      Politics is downstream from culture. Cause, meet effect. I don’t WANT judges to be political; that should be the LAST thing on their minds. That they are is also undeniable. Hating a thing doesn’t mean you don’t recognize it exists.

      Emergency remedies are necessary, but should be granted VERY sparingly. The fact that this judge (a Biden appointee, not that that does, or should, matter) granted it in this case. I dunno, smart people might take a hint from that, and the idiot nature of Grisham’s fascist “executive order” (a hint at the REASON the Founders didn’t invest the executive with quasi-legislative authority).

      She was wrong. She was stupid. She did a Biden (and Trump, and Clintoon) and tried to mandate what she clearly didn’t have the power to mandate, and a judge slapped her down for it. And water is wet, and the check is in the mail, and I promise I won’t . . . never mind.

    • Cody Wisniewski (one of FPC’s counsel) advises that the Court has limited the number of public streamers to 50.

      While my window shows I am still connected, no sound yet.

        • I’ve just texted with Cody (he’s streaming via the “attorneys of record” portal), and he reports no sound yet.

          Stand by — often hearings start late, especially if there are logistics issues, which there may be on a case with this much public interest and hordes of attorneys . . . and where there may be last minute developments.

        • If there are other matters being heard on the calendar, they will not turn on the feed until this case is called. It is possible but unlikely that the site crashed.

  7. And usual LKB TTAG caveat: While I am a lawyer, I’m not *your* lawyer. Nothing expressed herein should be construed as legal advice by me, my firm, TTAG, or anyone else, and does not create any attorney-client relationship.

  8. Cody says he’s still not getting any audio. I suspect all the public interest may have crashed the Court’s audio server.

    Stand by.

    • “he’s not a judge.”

      Irrelevant, he IS an attorney, THE attorney for the entire New Mexico State government. He is giving his best advice to his client, through which he is advising their behavior toward enforcement activities.

  14. Court asks whether he has to do the historical analysis in order to enter a TRO. Counsel points to Bruen as already doing that on public carry.

    Court just says the relevant time period is for the 14th Amendment — at least 4 SCOTUS justices say it’s 1789 only.

  15. Neapolitano arguing that there is no connection between the Gov’s bans and crime, as the “emergency” is not from the actions of lawful carriers.

    Court is pushing hard on the “public health emergencies” declared during COVID and the fact that those allowed the suspension of constitutional rights. Hopefully, he’s just testing the parties’ positions.

  16. And now my audio feed just hiccupped and went back about ten minutes!

    Just got it back up.

    Next advocate FINALLY cites the SCOTUS decision in the Cuomo case that public health emergencies do not supersede the constitution.

  17. Tamp restraining order? Hell, the courts should put an end to this, and somebody should have the moment she signed it.

  18. Atkinson (counsel) counsel in the WtP/Smith case wrapping up.

    Court focusing on what portions of the order are at issue — counsel for GOA correctly pushes back on “all state property” is overbroad.

  19. Now up: Lowery for Blas (case #4).

    Argues that Bruen is dispositive, period. No categorical bans, and it is binding.

    Addresses “public health emergency” — this is NOT a legitimate “public health emergency” under New Mexico law.

  20. Court pushes back on “what about the liberty of families to be safe”? Oh please!

    Comment: I do not understand why no one has pushed back that “public health emergency” is not a magic incantation that the Gov can merely utter and then can do whatever they want. Lowery has gotten close by pointing to the definition of public health emergency under NM law.

    • “Court pushes back on “what about the liberty of families to be safe”?”

      Didn’t the Governor herself admit that the order would be ineffective?

    • ““what about the liberty of families to be safe””

      According to the governors own words, law abiding gun owners are not the problem. So what about the ‘liberty of families to be safe’ is threatened by law abiding gun owners that even the governor said are not the problem.

      What about the liberty of families to be safe from, and have the ability of firearms self defense available to them to defend against and to make them safe from, the crime the governor will not do anything about and in her own words said is where the problem lies? What about the liberty of those families to be safe?

      Its sounds to me so far that the judge is kinda buying the governors actions here as ‘justified’. That is an anti-gun argument that some way a law abiding person with a gun is automatically a threat to others, while letting the the true cause of the threat, the criminal, simply continue what they were doing.

    • “Lowery has twice said Bruen is a strict scrutiny test. Nope.”

      Isn’t ‘Bruen’ pretty much the next-best thing to pure strict scrutiny with Thomas’ “one balancing test too many” stipulation?

  22. Now up: Aragon for FPC et al. He’s also making the NM State Constitution argument, and pointing out the Gov.’s oath to defend the NM Constitution. Very smart move.

  23. Unfortunately, Aragon’s complaint doesn’t plead a NM Constitutional violation.

    Lowery’s complaint (#3) DOES make it — he should pop up and point that out.

    • I believe US Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on a state’s constitution and apply its merits to a federal question…that case would have to be made within NM’s court system.

      • Not exactly. State law claims (such as claims under the NMCRA for violations of the state constitution) can be made in a federal case like these where the court has federal question jurisdiction under what used to be known as pendent jurisdiction (n/k/a supplemental jurisdiction).

        Court has discretion to consider or not consider such claims, but it does have jurisdiction.

      • Chris, I have bad news for you, The Court has jurisdiction as it is an EO issued by the NM Gov. What happens in that state is the jurisdiction of both the State and Federal courts.

  25. OK, now up: someone (unidentified) is representing defendants.

    First claiming that defendants haven’t been served. That’s a stupid argument, as the Court points out. Just as I can go onto PACER and pull down the documents, they can to.

    Court says “defendants have a hard road here.” Yay.

  26. Oh good grief: attorney for the defendants says the EO “isn’t a law,” and thus the NM Constitution provision doesn’t apply.

    Counsel for the defendants is justifying the EO because “there’s no way to tell who is a good guy and bad guy.”

    • “Oh good grief: attorney for the defendants says the EO “isn’t a law,” and thus the NM Constitution provision doesn’t apply.”

      If violating it had criminal penalties attached to it, it damn sure is a law, for all practical purposes…

      • How would she expect the NM SP to enforce her EO if it wasn’t “law”? If it’s not “law” and one were arrested, what would they be charged with? Is that like being charged with disturbing the peace for being thrown through a window?

  28. The verbal gymnastics on the part of the defendant, as I’m listening, are astounding. The constitution says “no law shall…” Response: “This isn’t a law, this is an emergnency order pursuant to the public health code.”

    Since when is a code not a law or at least not backed up by a law that says the code is rule (of law may be unwritten)?

    • Governor’s attorney (Governor herself?) is trying to tell the Judge what to do now and to “correct” the Supreme Court. Judge pushes back, pointing out that he is a District Court, not SCOTUS.

      • If they weren’t so serious, that would be funny. On second thought, it’s laughable even if they are serious.🤣🤣

  30. Is it just me? I detect hints of the judge wanting to take this into the SCOTUS forbidden interest-balancing zone for the right.

  31. Court recognized that the EO is probably vague.

    Court recognized that the laws struck in Bruen were much more narrow than what the Gov has done. Finally.

    D’s counsel is now arguing that because cert has been granted in Rahini, Bruen “is going to be narrowed.” BZZZZZ. Bruen is still the law. If and when SCOTUS does so, come back and argue it; until then, follow the law.

    • “Bruen is still the law. If and when SCOTUS does so, come back and argue it; until then, follow the law.”

      Precisely *why* maintaining the current High Court balance is critical. The moment it isn’t, they will rule ‘Heller’ was wrongly decided, the ‘right’ is collective, and every gain we made since then is ripe for attack… 🙁

  32. Oh geez, the defendant tries to argue that it’s not 1793 and so we don’t have muskets and today’s situation didn’t exist. Also trying to argue that 1793 doesn’t apply because New Mexico didn’t exist.

      • In fairness, he is advocating from a significant position of weakness. Aside from emotional arguments (which are invalid), there really isn’t much left..

    • “Also trying to argue that 1793 doesn’t apply because New Mexico didn’t exist.”

      Then remove NM from the union now.

      What kind of stupid argument is that?

      • I suspect that a bunch of gun control folks have been talking in their own circles and came up with the idea. The problem with it is that the state, when it joins the Union, has to agree to the US Constitution.

        • I know what this is now…remember the TTAG article a week ago or so about Moms Demand Action banding together to search for things to defeat Bruen? I’ll bet these arguments from the defense are a result of that.

  35. wow, that is some of the most emotional, vague, and illogical arguments I’ve ever heard. There were four or five logical fallacies in that attorney’s arguments. At least. Appeal to authority. Circular reasoning. and more ….. where on earth did she learn to argue? My high school debate team was better than that.

    • Logical fallacies, overly emotional, incorrect on most of their stated facts… Where in the world did they find this attorney?

    • And don’t forget ad hominem arguments. In this case, when all else fails, blame the NRA . . . which, as usual, isn’t here.

      • Why would the NRA be here? The NRA LOVES this executive order. They’ve probably been popping champagne bottles at Wayne’s mistresses’ house since Grisham issued it.

        The NRA exists to raise funds. An actual, legitimate case of government overreach and tyranny is the most fundraisable activity they could ever hope for. They don’t want it restrained, they want it to go into effect so they can then say “see? see? we told you it was coming! Now send us money so we can fight this threat!”

        Meanwhile, every other gun rights organization has already filed lawsuits and, in the next few minutes, should get the TRO issued. And the NRA will be pissed, pissed that people threw this fearmongering opportunity away so quickly.

    • “wow, that is some of the most emotional, vague, and illogical arguments I’ve ever heard.”

      That’s the left for you, they want a world of make-believe, while forcing us to live in their wreckage… 🙁

  36. I keep donating money to the NRA just to help them continue to be the awful boogeyman for gun controllers. 😀

  39. TRO!!! the Public Health Emergency Order and the Executive Order. The Court holds that the plaintiffs have a likelihood of success under Bruen, Heller, and MacDonald.

    • By stipulation, parties are agreeing to extend the TRO beyond the usual 14 expiration period in order to accommodate the schedule of D’s counsel, and so the preliminary injunction hearing will be October 3.

    • The oppression mindset inherent with Gun Control is the same today as it was centuries ago. I heard nothing said about the governor singling out and discriminating against a segment of the NM citizenry solely because they own firearms and should be stopped in their tracks by order…It’s obvious the “emergency” was a cover so why not call the bigoted woman and her klansmen defense out?

      The level of politeness shown to people who do not deserve it is what emboldens Gun Control zealots like the NM governor to do what they do without fear of their Racist and Nazi based agenda being called out…Your reply LKB is…

  43. This great!! But a word of caution. She could call up the NG to provide security. It would be another huge blunder, but she’s good at that.

  44. I think she’s going to double down, and I think she will get support from other blue state governors. They are at the point of outright rebellion against the Constitution, and they have a sympathetic ear in Biden’s DOJ. The can’t *not* double down. They must forge ahead. If they flag now, they’re lost.

      • They way they see it, they have everything to lose if they *don’t* double down. They at least have a chance with “unpredictable outcomes.” It’s a game of chicken, and I’ll be surprised if Grisham blinks.

        We’re on the edge, here. A knife’s edge.

        • Seems that way if we look at the wider national/international scene. There’s a lot more going on besides 2A stuff.

  45. From GOA: the Attorney representing New Mexico Governor Grisham concedes that “no law” may infringe the Second Amendment, instead arguing that the order isn’t a law it’s an executive action, and therefore should be allowed.

    I mean…

    1.) What were they trying to enforce? Er, not enforce. Or whatever.
    2.) I’d like to see this full quote because “no law” infringing on the 2A is something that only comes from our side.

    Amateur hour in New Mexico, and I’m fine with that. But this is example #900 gazillion that if you push back on these brainless thugs, they cannot come up with any logical argument to defend their actions. They have to do it by force. I wish more people would wake up to this shit before it gets worse. Because, unchecked, it doesn’t matter where in the world you are, that road always, always, always leads to the same dark end.

  46. Today was a good day for the Constitution. Maybe people don’t realize it but although it directly impacted the 2A, the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th were next for this NM tyrant. California also got beat on their move to control the 1st.

    I have no doubt if this NM tyrant had gotten her way, that setting the precedent that a state governor could suspend the Constitution when ever they decided we would become engaged in another civil war and it would have begun in New Mexico most likely.

    This was a power grab and an attempt to over throw the Constitution.

    Federal and state governments were not intended to have control over Constitutional rights, and the country’s founders warned against letting it happen.

    She’s not finished yet. The fact they are willing to even continue in court to attempt to let her have her way is enough proof that she wants to seize that power over the constitution, a power no government federal or state was intended to have and was forbidden to them.

    Depose this tyrant.

    • This makes her look bad. There is no way she can save face on this; she got her **** slapped hard. Tyrants are notoriously bad at losing face. Count on her to double down.

  48. Me thinks this was a test to see how far they could get. The NM gov drew the short straw and had to go full woke tard. Glad she got kicked in the ass.

  51. Last week, a federal judge found that Measure 114, the gun safety measure Oregon voters approved in 2022, is constitutional.

    The ballot measure bans the manufacture, purchase or sale of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. And it requires that people take a safety course and pass a background check to get a permit before they can purchase firearms.

    Judge Immergut also looked to the regulations of gunpowder, of knives, of blunt objects and from that history wrote that Americans have regulated violent weapons. She concluded that the Second Amendment doesn’t ban the government from adopting new regulations that respond to new technologies like assault weapons or large-capacity magazines.

    https://www.opb.org/article/2023/07/19/gun-law-oregon-supreme-court/

    • From the same article;

      Oregon gun law case will likely go to US Supreme Court

      But the new, tighter gun regulations ran into immediate legal challenges at the federal and state levels and have not gone into effect. …

      Williams: I think it’s likely that the ban on high-capacity magazines will be found by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. The current six-justice conservative majority which struck down New York’s concealed carry permit requirement in the Bruen case very much announced its intention to be very protective of gun owners’ rights and to be very rigorous in how it looks at the history of firearms regulation. …

      The U.S. Supreme Court typically takes cases with an eye to reversing them. About 70% of the cases that it takes, it reverses because it doesn’t see the point in kind of applauding a lower court that got it right. It sees its role as reversing lower courts that get it wrong. …

      The litigation going on in Harney County, in a case called Arnold v. Kotek, focuses solely on the state constitutional protection for gun owners’ rights. The trial judge in Harney County has already concluded last December that he thinks it more likely than not that Measure 114 violates the Oregon Constitution’s protection of the right to bear arms. It’s highly unlikely that he’s going to reverse himself.

      And for Measure 114 to ever go into effect, the state has to win in both the federal courts and the state courts. And gun owners only have to prevail in one of these cases for Measure 114 to be struck down.

      • To the Man with no Brains

        Other States have identical laws and the Far Right has screamed about them as well and as usual the Supreme Court has declined to overturn any of them.

        Try again Man with no brains you are deficient in U.S. Gun Control History.

        • How many were challenged pre Bruin? Oh right none of them so we shall see in the coming years just what validity any such laws have.

    • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD, Apparently, that “Federal Judge” did not follow the guidelines outlined in Bruen. But who is surprised. Leftists follow their own “laws”.

    • dacian the demented dips**t,

      NO!!!! Say it ain’t SO!!!!!! An Oregon court handed down a stupid ruling, on a law that an Oregon legislature passed, that is going to be struck down in a hot second by SCOTUS, if it ever gets that far????????

      UNPOSSIBLE!!!

      And you remain too f**king stupid to insult.

  53. New Mexico is one of the few states that allows citizens to petition for and convene a grand jury with a certain threshold of the voting public. The citizens used this power during the pandemic in 2021 to attempt to convene a grand jury to investigate and indict this serial-groper NM tyrant for her abuses of power during the pandemic. They had the threshold of the voting public then and it was only the NM Supreme Court that could stop it at the time with a stay for three attempts to convene a citizen led grand jury after Holly Agajanian managed to get a motion accepted by a tyrant-friendly court to suppress actual evidence from the citizen grand jury petitioners.

    In New Mexico ‘The Citizens Grand Jury’ ability was established as the citizens checks and balances to ensure one branch of the NM government does not have absolute authority. Among its purposes are to give the citizens the legal authority to stop a rouge abuse of power. During the pandemic this tyrant exercised her position in a manner to attempt to centralize absolute power over rights (and law) with her (and within the executive branch under her control). Collectively they called it ‘malfeasance’.

    At the time Holly Agajanian, this NM tyrants general council and the lawyer representing this tyrant in this current TRO hearing, told the court “Though controversial to some, the governor’s pandemic measures have been consistently upheld by the courts – including this court,” – but, at the time that was only true because up to that point we had never had a governor try to do what this tyrant and other tyrants across the country were trying to do to over throw the constitution and seize power over rights. Later, most of these draconian ‘pandemic’ ‘measures’ and all the constitutional-rights-power grabs by governors and government entities were stuck down in federal court, for example, in California they closed gun stores and ranges as part of their COVID pandemic ‘public health emergency’ power grab and in 2022 the courts ruled that was unconstitutional under the 2A.

    • I agree she should be deposed. Although New Mexico is politically a primarily blue state now it wasn’t until the 2020 election it became primarily blue and its only blue in terms of votes. But because the overall political map shows blue it does not mean there are not a lot more non-democrat voters who simply did not vote last time and that’s the reason it became blue and not because it is true blue and it does not mean there are not liberal and democrat voters who like their constitutional rights even though they may not agree with the second amendment.

      But, even among all of the democrat voters I know here in New Mexico there is a deep core of ‘constitutional rights love’ even if some of them may not agree with the second amendment right. And even they do not side with this governor on what she is doing even though some of them actually voted for her because they now see the danger to their own rights to have a governor be able to suspend the constitution any time they choose for what ever reason they choose by claiming “public health emergency”. And indeed, a lot of those who voted for her were pretty much opposed to her previous power grab attempt during the pandemic where the majority of those that voted for her openly defied her order even thought the media tried to paint it as ‘right wing’ in some way I can tell you that was a flat lie, as the majority of those that defied her ‘pandemic’ orders were actually liberals and democrats that voted for her without realizing what she really was.

      What if this governor gets her way? Would she publicly expose her known deviant and racist side and declare that, for example, because blacks commit crime in the United States that blacks can’t exercise their first amendment rights to ‘peacefully assemble’ because ‘people feel afraid’ in her view? What other rights would she suspend in her quest for power under the guise of ‘public health’ or ‘gun violence’, would it be 4th Amendment so her law enforcement could enter a home any time they wanted to ‘just in case’ there might be ‘something’ or would it be the 5th amendment, so she can railroad dissenters of her policy into a legal nightmare and basically convict and imprison them because they violated her ‘public heath order’ in protesting it?

      It never ends with tyrants, there is never a good outcome in the end with tyrants. Sure, some supporters might think “Yeah, you go governor…ban that nasty second amendment right!” but its not about that, those supporters are too stupid to see beyond their own bias to the danger in this.

      This governor has clearly defined her hatred of the constitution, defined that she believes inalienable constitutional rights don’t exist. She has even basically publicly stated as much in her own words as she very openly basically declared war upon the constitution to overthrow it with her contrived ‘public health’ order power grab. This is not the first time she has attempted something similar in some manner, she has always leaned towards abuses of power while in office.

      There is an old saying, “Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely” and it means that whenever a person has power over other people or things, it makes him/her corrupt. It morally destroys their nature and fills them with destructive pride. Well, she was already that corrupt when she came into office and was able to deceive voters by manipulating emotion and numbers and putting up a good facade.

      Even if she is no longer in office it doesn’t mean she can’t continue to do damage in the future after she leaves office. Because if she is able to set a precedent while in office that a governor can suspend the constitution by declaring a ‘public health emergency’ every tyrant governor and government entity including those in the federal government, will use it at will any time they choose to suspend the constitution and that is a power governments were never intended to have.

      She must not be allowed to continue in power. She is exactly what the founders of this country warned against letting remain in power. The state legislature should remove her from office now, depose her.

      • We have constitutional rights for a reason, they belong to us individually and are inalienable rights, they do not belong to government and one of the reasons we have them is to protect the people, all the people, from abuses of power by government. Its insanity to allow a government, federal or state, to suspend and/or control these rights that do not belong to them.

        Yet here we are with letting anti-gun, anti-constitution, and government and courts and governors and others decide there needs to be a ‘public debate’ or litigation on if the people can or can not have or exercise our inalienable constitutional rights. Its insanity, the founders clearly never intended this, the constitution never intended this and even has an anti-tyranny structure that screams “NO, government you can not have this power”.

        If someone doesn’t agree with a right, that’s fine … but do not presume to think you have some sort of right to make my rights, our rights, no matter which one, subject to your control or desires or feelings or debate. There is no ‘public debate’ to be had, the second amendment is an individual inalienable right for the law abiding and not a collective right of the public, it just is and it is not subordinate to what anti-gun, anti-constitution, and government and courts and governors and others want or their control.

    • The “Citizens’ Grand Jury” process in NM is news to me, but sounds promising. And the tactic Agajanian used to stay the last effort to use it against Grisham (“courts have upheld her actions”) won’t work here — EVERYONE other than the Gov and her staff have said her actions are illegal, and of course the Court yesterday held that plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that she’s acted illegally.

      It would be great for if there was a petition push for this in one of the smaller, GOP-leaning NM counties, and then have a local grand jury indict her. That’s probably a more doable mechanism than impeachment.

Comments are closed.