When Democrats are hostile to a Constitutional right, they have a specific playbook for how they obstruct it. It’s called Massive Resistance. Previously, they used that to try to thwart the right of all students to have an equal opportunity to receive an education, regardless of race. Now they are using it to try to thwart the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms.
We keep being told there was some kind of switch between the parties, but we don’t see the evidence of it.
The latest example of this massive resistance, comes from Governor Grisham of New Mexico:
BREAKING: New Mexico Governor says she is amending her executive order to allow open and concealed carry (except in public parks and playgrounds) due to the "debate in court"
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 15, 2023
They say she says she is going to do so, but in the press conference video shown here …
#ICYMI: During the press conference the Governor announced some modifications, here is what you need to know and the press conference in case you missed ithttps://t.co/lZeeDZHOkm
— KRQE News 13 (@krqe) September 15, 2023
… she alleges that she has already done so. The Associated Press agrees:
"New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday narrowed an order that broadly suspended the right to carry firearms in and around Albuquerque to apply only to public parks and playgrounds where children and their families gather." https://t.co/Oejwd2kxsp
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 15, 2023
This author hasn’t seen a copy of the allegedly amended executive order. However, we are skeptical that such an order would be Constitutional.
First, we tracked down a copy of the Temporary Restraining Order blocking her executive order. We previously half-joked that the argument could just be ‘duh,’ and then summed up the actual argument made by the plaintiff's lawyers this way:
Basically, they are saying this. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), the Supreme Court struck down a requirement that you have to show a special need to defend yourself before you are allowed to carry a gun in public. This order doesn’t let you carry in public even if you have a special need. If New York’s law was unconstitutional, there’s no way the New Mexico executive order is, either.
Recommended
That summary applies equally to the judge’s short opinion, when you are done with all the ‘table setting.’ Then you get to the order itself. We will quote extensively from it because no one else seems to have it:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Defendants New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, New Mexico Department Secretary Patrick M. Allen, New Mexico Department of Public Safety Jason R. Bowie, Chief of the New Mexico State Police and any other New Mexico officials (‘Defendants’) are ENJOINED from applying, enforcing, or attempting to enforce, either criminally or civilly, Section (1) of the New Mexico Department of Health’s ‘Public Health Emergency Order Imposing Temporary Firearm Restrictions, Drug Monitoring and Other Public Safety Measures’ (‘PHO’) published on September 8, 2023, which reads:
‘(1) 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, except:
‘A. On private property owned or immediately controlled by the person;
‘B. On private property that is not open to the public with the express permission of the person who owns or immediately controls such property;
‘C. While on the premises of a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for the purpose of lawful transfer or repair of a firearm;
‘D. While engaged in the legal use of a firearm at a properly licensed firing range or sport shooting competition venue; or
‘E. While traveling to or from a location listed in Paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section; provided that the firearm is in a locked container or locked with a firearm safety device that renders the firearm inoperable, such as a trigger lock.'
***
In addition, Defendants are ENJOINED from applying, enforcing, or attempting to enforce, either criminally or civilly, Section (4) of the New Mexico Department of Health’s ‘Public Health Emergency Order Imposing Temporary Firearm Restrictions, Drug Monitoring and Other Public Safety Measures’ to the extent it imposes additional restrictions on the carrying or possession of firearms that were not already in place prior to its issuance.
It also sets a hearing date for a preliminary injunction hearing on October 3 and does some other housekeeping, but that’s the meat of it. As we have said before, this is a temporary order, issued without the governor having a chance to defend her policies. At the preliminary hearing, ordinarily, the court would hear from both sides and then decide if it should continue the order until the case is over. When the case is over, the judge would then decide whether or not to issue a permanent injunction.
Now, we are not sure how the courts will react, just because there are so many different avenues. For starters we don’t think this is likely to be legal. The best argument for this approach is what is known as the ‘sensitive places’ doctrine. The Supreme Court mentioned it in Bruen and D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court saying this in Heller:
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Meanwhile, in Bruen, the Court said
Consider, for example, Heller's discussion of ‘longstanding’ ‘laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.’ … Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century ‘sensitive places’ where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions.
Of course, those are enclosed spaces that generally have armed police officers or security personnel on site—though schools often have less security. In that context, a person can more reasonably be expected to leave the task of protecting oneself and others to the professionals. We can’t recall the last time we saw an armed guard at a park or a playground. And if crime is truly in crisis, we would prefer to be armed.
Still, the argument against the order can’t be summed up with ‘duh’ as we said before. They will have to dig deeper and possibly have some findings of facts. That might prevent it from getting a Temporary Restraining Order.
Or the judge might see this as defiance and come down hard on the governor.
Reactions were swift. We saw one person say: ‘And you still shouldn’t comply. [censored] you @GovMLG’ only the curse word wasn’t censored.
“Hey gang members, parks and playgrounds are safe places to commit crimes. No normal people will be armed.” 🙄 https://t.co/suXdBN9js4
— Glenn Coles (@Glenn315) September 15, 2023
I'm amending my response to this bint: https://t.co/mhRluIL3vV pic.twitter.com/GdIgw9kP2N
— tex lovera2 (@Lovera2Tex) September 15, 2023
— Grant Smith (@GJSmitty1960) September 15, 2023
We are sensing a trend, here.
THIS IS INCREDIBLE! SHE IS OPENLY DEFYING A COURT ORDER BY RE-DOUBLING DOWN!!!!! https://t.co/xdFGuHWL6K
— avsterbone (@avsterbone) September 15, 2023
If she is careful in how she worded the new version, she might be able to say she is not defying the order.
We will continue to pursue every available avenue to ensure that Gov. Grisham cannot--now or in the future--trample the inalienable, constitutionally protected right of peaceable New Mexicans to carry their arms in public to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their… https://t.co/YJmclxmADR
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 15, 2023
Laughable. The anti-gun left is more offended by the idea of lawfully armed citizens than by the disregard of gun controls laws exhibited by every common criminal. They're constantly sandbagging the former while going easy - catch and release! - on the latter. https://t.co/CsOHzWNq1E
— Mike Kilo (@Mike___Kilo) September 15, 2023
i dont understand this logic. if someone wants to shoot a place up, theyre going to go undetected until moments before shots start going off. if banning the AR will supposedly make shootings go from a 10+ casualty count down to 2 or 3, why wouldnt more people CC'ing do the same? https://t.co/VBEUnp9ylH
— Erasmus "The Incredible Threat" Belial (@ErasmusBelial) September 15, 2023
But you see, Governor Grisham is doing something. We are pretty sure she said:
I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!
Okay, confession time, she didn't say that. Otter in Animal House said that, just after Bluto rallied his fraternity by saying:
What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
As an aside, what kind of idiot thinks the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? We feel 100% confident that no historian would ever make a mistake like that. (Yes, we are making a deep-cut joke. We will explain our joke, later, in a different post.)
But you see, Grisham is doing something. Who cares if it makes things more dangerous for law-abiding citizens? She is doing something!
And don’t you know, a gun-free zone sign actually creates a forcefield that prevents people carrying guns from coming in?
This video from the Babylon Bee explains just how well gun-free zones work:
@babylonbee How To Defend Your Home WITHOUT Firearms 💪🏼 #comedy #conservative #homedefense #psa #babylonbee ♬ original sound - The Babylon Bee Shop
#Translation New Mexico dictator thinks it’s law abiding citizens who are shooting up playgrounds. https://t.co/BMMzrna9Z1
— The Real Translation Goat (@GoatTranslation) September 15, 2023
In other words she knows she’s gonna lose in court and is trying to back peddling to save face. Tyrant no less that should not be in office. https://t.co/teg81nX0Rb
— Sbeve (@Steve51104580) September 15, 2023
Technically, she has already lost in court, though it is fair to say she might be trying not to lose anymore.
“We lost” is the hardest phrase in the English language for politicians to try to spell. https://t.co/4DB6DY8GpL
— Ned Flanders is punk rock (@JeffSpartyjeff) September 15, 2023
*snort*
Everybody refused to enforce it. Imagine what could’ve been during Covid. https://t.co/sJDSMLlcQ1
— MISINFOSCIENCE (@MISINFOSCIENCE) September 15, 2023
That just hurts to think about. We failed very badly during the Wuhan Flu. Hopefully, we won’t fail again.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member