I feel like this chick just wanted to get in the news. Everything about the border is California, Arizona, then we jump over this large space and talk about Texas. New Mexico is all but forgotten in the news cycles.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
NM Governor bans guns in Albuquerque
- Thread starter Parker Schreiber
- Start date
MaverickNH
NES Member
Challenge to N.M. Governor's Ban on Public Gun Carry in Albuquerque and Surrounding County
From the motion for a temporary restraining order in Nat'l Ass'n for Gun Rights v. Grisham, filed yesterday in New…
reason.com
Not much new said, but Volokh will be following the case.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
If their work here (in MA) is evidence, I'd be surprised.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,220
- Likes
- 3,422
This turd executive order is only in effect for 30 days(?). Any legal fight will take years. By the time the governor's legal team gets around to reading the lawsuit, the order will be over. Legal fight worth it?
safetyfirst2125
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2020
- Messages
- 15,604
- Likes
- 40,271
Yes. It’s not about the 30 days. It’s about precedent, the rule of law and the rights of Americans.
If this stands uncontested it’ll become the norm.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 27,068
- Likes
- 50,228
If it's uncontested it'll be renewed every 30 days until it is
Mesatchornug
NES Member
Yes. It must be fought immediately and with all available tools.
Related, I wonder if her statements remove her QI protections. Can she be held personally liable?
You already know what her answer would be: more mealy-mouthed horseshit about "sending a powerful message." No point.
Agreed. It's definitely worth the fight, and a TRO won't take thirty days to grant. More like thirty minutes at an ex parte hearing.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Local law enforcement doesn't have her back apparently:
thepostmillennial.com
New Mexico sheriff REFUSES to enforce governor’s ban on carrying guns, says it’s unconstitutional
“As the elected Sheriff, I have reservations regarding this order.”
thepostmillennial.com
Request for a restraining order already in the works.
reason.com
Some interesting language from the challenge that may have relevance here at some point in the future:
Challenge to N.M. Governor's Ban on Public Gun Carry in Albuquerque and Surrounding County
From the motion for a temporary restraining order in Nat'l Ass'n for Gun Rights v. Grisham, filed yesterday in New…
reason.com
Some interesting language from the challenge that may have relevance here at some point in the future:
Plaintiffs [also] desire to go to private businesses open to the public while lawfully carrying a firearm for lawful purposes, including self-defense, without first obtaining the express affirmative permission of the person who owns the property. The Carry Prohibition prohibits that conduct. Last month, in Wolford v. Lopez (D. Haw. 2023), the court issued a TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining a practically identical Hawaii law. Hawaii argued that there was historical support for its prohibition on carriage on private property without consent. After examining the historical record submitted by the state, the court rejected its argument. It wrote:
The State has not established that the portion of [the statute] that prohibits carrying firearms on private property held open to the public is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of gun regulation. Because the State has not met its burden, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to [the statute] to the extent that [the statute] prohibits carrying firearms on private property held open to the public.
The historical record has not changed since last month. Like Hawaii, New Mexico will not be able to show that the Carry Prohibition's prohibition on lawfully carrying firearms into private businesses in Affected Areas open to the public without first obtaining the express affirmative permission of the person who owns the property is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of gun regulation. There is no such historical tradition. Therefore, the State is unable to carry its burden….
Traditional "The 1st Circuit is a POS" caveat applies.Her action is the typical diversion fall back plan, so typical of anti gun democrats who have failed to properly address the real problems that exist under their watch.
Their standard MO is: When all else fails, (which is because of their inaction to address the real issues), just shift and divert all the blame for the current state of affairs on guns and the law abiding people who have nothing to do with the situation.
And, they always try to camouflage their actions by naming it as some type of "emergency".
"Emergency" is the new buzz word used to invoke some type of fear in the public mind's eye and try to construct some type of justification for their foolish and illegal actions.
They're using the same plan with the illegal immigrant situation. Illegals invade the country, then WE citizens have to suffer and accept the result as some sort of "emergency".
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2019
- Messages
- 6,588
- Likes
- 12,760
Local law enforcement doesn't have her back apparently:
New Mexico sheriff REFUSES to enforce governor’s ban on carrying guns, says it’s unconstitutional
“As the elected Sheriff, I have reservations regarding this order.”
but does NM have the same situation as here where sheriffs are elected and municipal chiefs are appointed? It seems from watching things here in Ass that while all sheriffs have a political slant, some are vaguely conservative. It seems more COPs are likely to blindly follow orders.
So while the sheriff may not enforce the nonsense, will the Albuquerque PD take the same approach?
APRIL 10, 2021 10:58:27 AM
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico signed a law on Wednesday which eliminates the defense of qualified immunity for public officials, including police officers. Qualified immunity protects government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations.
She signed the law.....and now it can be used against her.
safetyfirst2125
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2020
- Messages
- 15,604
- Likes
- 40,271
I’m old enough to remember “just two weeks to flatten the curve”
safetyfirst2125
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2020
- Messages
- 15,604
- Likes
- 40,271
When even Ted Lieu balks you know you’re really out over your skis.
Or it’s a coordinated test to see what the population will tolerate.
If they are smart and value their future financial situation they will. They CAN be held personally accountable for their actions now.
Their "qualified immunity" ended in 2021......signed by......You guessed it......Grisham!!!.
Last edited:
Sheriffs in NM are elected.
In most Western states, sheriffs are full-service LEOs rather than just court officers like they are here. This thread claims she's already said APD won't be enforcing this, the State will.
She's trying to have her cake and eat it too.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 27,068
- Likes
- 50,228
Him and Hogg both speaking out publicly against it is highly suspect imo
Well sure! Hogg is trying not to accumulate political baggage as a lawless lefty this early in the game.
You know that little weasel is going to run for some political office within the next few years. He's being groomed for it and has had a lot of public exposure with his fraudulent cry baby story.
pdm
NES Member
Hell, if they do that, who will issue big cash money tickets for doing 2 over on the highways?
Only if you count the preliminary injunctions.
The only play I see is in this phrasing: "There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution."
Hopefully Biden sleeps through this cue for a presidential EA declaring "guns" a federal public health emergency
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 27,068
- Likes
- 50,228
Why would that matter considering how openly anti-gun he is? People are either going to vote for him or not.
I think it's more likely that this is people like them trying to get some cred, being able to say later on that they're "reasonable people" who can "see both sides" and "respect the constitution."
This ban of Lujan's is an easy loser, and there are other BoR implications as well. It's an easy thing for anyone to oppose. She's crazy.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 27,068
- Likes
- 50,228
Dont they run things like this past their legal team? I cant see any lawyer ok-ing this, no matter how much of a leftist diversity hire they may be. Curious what purpose this is supposed to serve 3 or 4 steps down the road because there's no way any of them expected this to fly.
