NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR GRISHAM HASN’T CONCEDED DEFEAT: SHE REMAINS UNDETERRED IN HER DESIRE TO CURTAIL EXERCISE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
PART THREE
This is a follow-up to two recent Arbalest Quarrel articles on New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s unconscionable and unconstitutional “Public Health Order” Grisham issued on September 8, 2023:
“No person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm, as defined in NMSA 1978, Section 30-7-4.1, either openly or concealed, within cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021 according to Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program AND more than 90 firearm-related emergency department visits per 100,000 residents from July 2022 to June 2023 according to the New Mexico Department of Public Health, . . . .”
Ammoland Shooting Sports News posted our articles on September 11 and September 15.
In our earlier article, we pointed to Grisham’s misuse of New Mexico Statutes to support her draconian (original) Order.
In our second article, we explored Grisham’s motivation.
Although Grisham expected a backlash—in fact welcomed it (thinking a sympathetic Press would herald her cause)—she probably didn’t expect the ensuing backlash to occur so quickly. And she likely didn’t expect such a vehement backlash from county and city police, and from the Mayor of Albuquerque, and from the State’s Attorney General.
See the article in U.S. News & World Report, posted on September 11, titled, “Outrage Intensifies Over New Mexico Governor's Temporary Gun Ban as Sheriff Vows Not to Enforce It.”
And she certainly did not expect backlash from fellow Democrats, nor did she expect a call for her impeachment. See, The New York Times article, posted on September 17, titled, “Facing Pushback From Both Parties, New Mexico Governor Scales Back Firearms Order.”
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico on Friday scaled back a temporary public health order restricting the carrying of firearms in the Albuquerque metro area, limiting a ban to only parks and playgrounds. The initial ban, which was issued Sept. 8 and was to have covered 30 days, had prohibited the carrying of open and concealed firearms in public areas or on state property.
Several individuals and groups had sued to block Ms. Lujan Grisham’s original order, and a federal judge on Wednesday sided with the plaintiffs, who argued that the suspension of gun rights violated the Constitution. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge David Urias granted a temporary restraining order blocking the governor’s suspension. The governor’s most recent executive order essentially replaces the blocked one.
The governor’s initial ban was swiftly met with pushback from Republicans and fellow Democrats alike. Two Republican state representatives, Stefani Lord and John Block, called on Sept. 9 for Ms. Lujan Grisham to be impeached, saying that she had violated her oath to New Mexico and the nation.
And in letter on Tuesday, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, a Democrat, wrote a letter to the governor saying that he did not believe that the ban “will have any meaningful impact on public safety” and that his office would not defend her in cases that challenged the order.”
In the face of vociferous and multivarious and multifaceted blowback, Grisham apparently realized that “discretion would be the better part of valor,” as the old adage goes.
But, in an attempt to save face, she didn’t rescind the Order in total. In a September 15 Press Release, she stated, in pertinent part,
‘I’m going to continue pushing to make sure that all of us are using every resource available to put an end to this public health emergency with the urgency it deserves,” said Gov. Lujan Grisham. ‘I will not accept the status quo – enough is enough.’
Provisions in the updated public health order issued Friday include: Removing the previous provision around firearms and replacing it with a provision that temporarily suspends the carrying of firearms at parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.”
None of these events needed to happen. But they did happen and we had pointed out the “why” of this.
Had anyone in the Press given this some thought? Well, a Fox News story, published on September 16, titled, “NM governor's 'Orwellian,' 'twisted' excuse to ignore 2nd Amendment may be political play for VP: column,” cited an article in the Washington Post, written by Henry Olsen, that explored some of Grisham’s possible motivations.
Jeffrey Clark, the Associate Editor of Fox News Digital, writes,
Democrat New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham was criticized in a Washington Post column for her ‘twisted,’ ‘Orwellian logic’ after she issued an emergency order to temporarily suspend gun carry rights in the Albuquerque area.
Lujan Grisham's gun carry ban has been met with vocal opposition among Republicans and Democrats over it violating the Second Amendment.
‘The governor is no dummy,’ Henry Olsen wrote in a column headlined, ‘New Mexico's governor seems to think it's okay to ignore the Supreme Court.’
‘She has held appointed or elected office for nearly 20 years. She couldn’t possibly be so naive to think her order would be uncontroversial even among Democrats,’ he added.
‘So what was the real intention behind her order?’ the columnist wrote. ‘It could be that, like many ambitious politicians, she simply wants attention. She was said to have been on President Biden’s shortlist when he was deciding on his vice-presidential pick. Perhaps with Biden’s low approval ratings, she decided this is a good moment to raise her national profile. In that sense, she has succeeded wildly, even if her order loses in court.’
Olsen also called out Lujan Grisham's argument that the gun carry suspension was required as a matter of public safety and health after several high-profile shootings of children.
‘This reasoning is twisted on its face. The affected right exists specifically to help people defend themselves. Yet Lujan Grisham says increased threats of bodily harm eliminates the means that residents would use to protect their safety,’ he wrote. ‘Talk about Orwellian logic.’
Olsen also speculated Lujan Grisham was using ‘her order to show her party how to use this conflict to undermine Supreme Court decisions they disagree with.’
‘But Lujan Grisham could be playing an even longer game than that,’ Olsen added. ‘Democrats remain furious that a conservative-dominated Supreme Court is likely to strike down progressive rulings in the coming years. That means Democratic officeholders in deep-blue states will have to enforce rulings they deeply resent or hate.
The last thing Governor Grisham wants to do is jeopardize her own political future. She had apparently thought that issuance of this Order would work to her advantage as well as strengthen her ties with her Marxist benefactors. She was wrong. It didn’t do any of that. It drew too much attention and too fast in a direction that the Democrats and Marxists weren’t prepared to venture to.
Given the imbroglio, she has taken a step back. But, the point is that nothing really changes. Grisham’s goal as with the goal of all Political Progressives and Marxists is to disarm the American citizenry.
That task is a condition precedent to dismantling our Republic, subjugating the populace, and merging the remnants of our Nation into a world federation.
Immediate political demands and niceties take precedence over the desire of these Marxists to disarm the citizenry and be done with it. But, they have to tread carefully.
Grisham apparently thought the time was ripe for a mammoth move forward in dispossessing Americans of their firearms by making use of them for self-defense de minimis since the Order banned the carrying of them in public, for self-defense. She was wrong.
If she were acting on the advice of her benefactors behind the scenes, well, then, they were wrong, too, misreading the tea leaves. And, so, Grisham attempted to salvage what she could from the original Order and do her best to avoid admitting that her reason for issuing the “Public Health Order” in the first place was not only wrong-headed but unjust.
Let’s take a closer look at the actual Washington Post story, by Washington Post columnist, Henry Olsen, published on September 12, and zero in on a couple of Olsen’s points and his suppositions concerning possible motives behind the issuance of the Order.
The article is titled, “New Mexico’s governor seems to think it’s okay to ignore the Supreme Court”:
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s executive order to suspend the open and concealed carry of firearms in her state’s most populous county is blatantly unconstitutional. It’s fair to ask: Is she trying to invent a way for Democratic officeholders to ignore Supreme Court rulings they despise?
Lujan Grisham’s order flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to carry a weapon in public for self-defense. The governor contends that a recent spate of murders in the state’s largest city, Albuquerque, constituted a public health emergency that trumped people’s constitutional rights.
This reasoning is twisted on its face. The affected right exists specifically to help people defend themselves. Yet Lujan Grisham says increased threats of bodily harm eliminates the means that residents would use to protect their safety. Talk about Orwellian logic.
Her rationale is so tortured that even allies have condemned it. Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen, a Democrat, would be tasked with enforcing her order, but has stated that he won’t do so because it’s unconstitutional. Other Democratic leaders in the state, including Attorney General Raúl Torrez, joined the sheriff in refusing to cooperate. . . .
None of this should have surprised the governor. The court’s decision in Bruen was unmistakable. It surely angered many Democrats, but respect for the rule of law demands officeholders follow even the most controversial rulings. . . .
Lujan Grisham, during an interview with CNN on Tuesday, dismissed arguments that her order is unconstitutional by deploying typical talking points among gun control activists. ‘I’m focused on everyone’s constitutional rights, not just those the [National Rifle Association] says I should be focused on,’ she said.
The governor is no dummy. She has held appointed or elected office for nearly 20 years. She couldn’t possibly be so naive to think her order would be uncontroversial even among Democrats.
So what was the real intention behind her order? It could be that, like many ambitious politicians, she simply wants attention. She was said to have been on President Biden’s shortlist when he was deciding on his vice-presidential pick. Perhaps with Biden’s low approval ratings, she decided this is a good moment to raise her national profile. In that sense, she has succeeded wildly, even if her order loses in courBut Lujan Grisham could be playing an even longer game than that. Democrats remain furious that a conservative-dominated Supreme Court is likely to strike down progressive rulings in the coming years. That means Democratic officeholders in deep-blue states will have to enforce rulings they deeply resent or hate.
Perhaps this is why she is focusing so much on the public health rationale of her order. State and local officeholders must uphold federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings under the Constitution’s supremacy clause. They cannot simply openly reject a ruling they do not like and refuse to implement it, . . . .
But states and localities do have constitutional authority to make decisions to protect the health and safety of their residents. . . .
This means there is a theoretical conflict between a state’s constitutional authority to protect its citizens and the federal government’s authority to enforce rights guaranteed by the Constitution. . . . Perhaps Lujan Grisham is using her order to show her party how to use this conflict to undermine Supreme Court decisions they disagree with.
Time will tell whether Lujan Grisham’s order is just another failed effort at political signaling or the start of a much more serious challenge to the Supreme Court’s authority. Either way, the constitutional rights of her state’s residents will suffer.
Consider the disturbing import of the assertions, “Democrats remain furious that a conservative-dominated Supreme Court is likely to strike down progressive rulings in the coming years,” and “Democratic officeholders in deep-blue states will have to enforce rulings they deeply resent or hate.”
This last point is key. As a Marxist, or simply a crass opportunist politician beholding to her Marxist/Collectivist benefactors, Grisham is a willing tool. Her goal, as a Marxist and/or political opportunist is to comply with the agenda and goals of her benefactors. Neither she nor they give a damn about the U.S. Supreme Court or any other Branch of the Government. Their goal is to neutralize all three and do away with the Constitution.
To accomplish that, a major goal of all these Marxists, adherents of the tenets and precepts of Collectivism, is the annihilation of the armed citizenry.
The armed citizenry is much feared by Collectivists, and rightly so. The armed citizenry is not enamored with the prospect of existing under a state of Tyranny—domination, subjugation, and the total destruction of Soul, Spirit, and Mind.
Remember, as we have said and as we constantly harp on:
Dangerous, Ruthless, Powerful Forces both here and abroad are desirous of and determined to dismantle the fabric of our Free Republic. But to accomplish that, America’s citizenry must be disarmed to a man.
Their efforts to date are more noticeable, more numerous, more creative, bolder, more cunning, and demonstrative of outward and outright disdain for those Americans intent on exercising their right to keep and bear arms, than at any time in the past.
People like Grisham, holding high Government leadership positions and vested with and wielding enormous power over the citizens residing in their jurisdictions, are funded by and supported by George Soros through nongovernmental organizations. He has created and funded “a ton” of them. See, e.g., “flip HTML,” “The Will County News,” and an article in CNBC.
Soros, and other ruthless, wealthy, and powerful Marxists, fund campaigns of people who satisfy either one of two conditions:
First, people, who by their nature, share the same sensibilities and Marxist ideology as George Soros.
Second, people, who by their nature, are mere crass opportunists, i.e., political prostitutes, whose loyalty is up for grabs to the highest bidder.
New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is one or the other, or perhaps a little of both.
Wherever her allegiance rests and with whomever it rests, that allegiance is not tied to our Country and Constitution, and it is not in accord with the best interests and needs of the citizenry.
Washington Post columnist, Henry Olsen, is correct, in his assertions that “Lujan Grisham’s order flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen,” and that New Mexico’s residents will suffer under a Governor who defies U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
The mere notion that powerful figures in the State or the Federal Government can ignore U.S. Supreme Court rulings because they happen to disagree with those rulings is deeply troubling, especially, where, as here, those rulings cohere plainly with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
But then, Political Progressives and Marxists seek to change the composition of the Court, to seat individuals, Marxists, such as themselves, who have no intention to render rulings consistent with and in strict accordance with the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution, as written. For, ultimately, they wish to undo it, and do away with it. And, in the interim, they wish to sabotage it.
In the interim, these Political Progressives and Marxists simply choose to ignore those rulings that are antithetical to their Collectivist musings and cravings.
Olsen is incorrect in his blanket statement, “there is a theoretical conflict between a state’s constitutional authority to protect its citizens and the federal government’s authority to enforce rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”
That assertion is wrong for two reasons.
First, the Federal Government and the States both have a duty to serve the interests of the citizenry. Government of any kind, under a free Constitutional Republic such as ours (and we are the only truly free Constitutional Republic on Earth), has no other purpose than that. There is no conflict on that score.
Second, concerning the Nation’s Bill of Rights, the Federal Government enforces nothing and must not be permitted to enforce anything because the Federal Government enforces nothing and must not be permitted to enforce anything because the Bill of Rights does not come under the purview of Federal Government enforcement (or, for that matter, under State enforcement either).
The American citizenry doesn’t need or want either the Federal Government or the States to interfere with the Nation’s natural law rights in any manner. Enforcement is just another instance of interference.
Rather, it is the American people, themselves, who enforce their fundamental, natural law rights against the Government whenever the Government attempts to infringe on those rights.
The Bill of Rights serves to remind Government (Federal, State, and local) that the American citizenry is and remains the sole sovereign over Government, and any attempt by Government to enforce its will on the populace by constraining the exercise of its fundamental natural law rights—rights that precede the formation of any Government—bespeak Government Tyranny.
The citizenry is not Constitutionally bound, legally obligated, or morally obliged to abide by the ad hoc edicts of Tyrants.
In fact, the legal and ethical duty of the American citizenry is to resist Tyranny with all its might.
The natural law right codified in the Second Amendment has carried the brunt of Government efforts—aided by a flaccid, placid, compliant Press and social media, academia, along with the business and financial sectors—to constrain exercise of the right precisely because an armed citizenry is the ultimate bulwark against Tyranny.
Grisham, Hochul, Newsome, and the Biden Administration—just a few of the major purveyors of Marxism, and toadies of foreign Marxist powers—have made clear, through their words and their actions, where their allegiance rests. And it does not rest in the precepts and tenets of our Constitution, nor is it tied to this Nation and its people.