I'm pretty sure this is her knee jerk reaction but regardless of how it was plopped in their laps, liberal governors are taking note and seeing if any of this sticks for their future use.

Newsom, Pritzker, and the governors of other liberal states aren't coming out against her and I'm convinced they are privately hoping she wins.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Newsom, Pritzker, and the governors of other liberal states aren't coming out against her and I'm convinced they are privately hoping she wins.

Gosh, how in the world did you figure this out?

quote:

Newsom, Pritzker, and the governors of other liberal states aren't coming out against her and I'm convinced they are privately hoping she wins.
 
Post

I'm still not convinced she came up with this on her own, as some last minute epiphany on how to curtail gun use by using her powers to restrict carry in an emergency.

Maybe she did, perhaps the shooting upset her and she just decided to act on her own to see what sticks. The DA's letter seems to substantiate that there wasn't a conversation regarding it's legality between her office and his... The potential downside on this is huge for gun rights over her actions, and if she prevails, well she's now on the national forefront of D politics.

Most likely this has been a discussion point at round tables between anti gun groups, their legal teams and left wing D politicians who embrace an anti gun agenda, and that's where the idea formulated

As far as Newsom Pritzker et al, they probably have better legal advice telling them the upside and down of doing this, and that a federal case could likely strike down some parts or possibly all state level carry laws making every state a constitutional carry state, that the risk wasn't worth it.

In that aspect if she acted on her own without consulting legal advice, she's incompetent, and should be impeached and taken out of office.

The CDC and Doctor's organizations have been calling "gun violence" a public health issue for a while (hmmm, blaming it on an inanimate
object that can't move or operate itself without a person, instead of blaming it on a culture(. This idea has been floated out there by some governors, mayors, County Executives/Administrators for a while, especially during COVID since they were getting away with all their other unlawful decrees.

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:
The CDC and Doctor's organizations have been calling "gun violence" a public health issue for a while. This idea has been floated out there by some governors, mayors, County Executives/Administrators for a while, especially during COVID since they were getting away with all their other unlawful decrees.

Kind of funny there. Since "Doctor Violence" kills >6x what "Gun Violence" does each and every year.

You know what else is "funny", after almost a week, a order that is acknowledged by pretty much everyone as unconstitutional has not seen a court, and has not been enjoined.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:


(The tort claims act speaks specifically about personal injury, bodily injury, wrongful death or property damage. Taking away someone's gun does not fit the definition of the claims covered.)

As I read the law as quoted earlier, it also includes "or any other deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and laws of the United States or New Mexico when caused by law enforcement officers". That is, those acts are not protected under immunity.

Here is the problem: the deprivation of rights has to cause a bodily injury to be covered by the tort claims act. It does not appear that the tort claims act has a cause of action for a deprivation alone - it has to cause the required bodily injury. Other statutes may do that, like 42 USC 1983. (I miscited it before.)

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
A TRO application was filed and the case assigned to a judge who I believe was an Obama appointment.

The court calendar showed that the TRO hearing was set for today however, the last docket entry shows it was vacated and the TRO hearing will be set for a future date.

I don't think this was meant to run out the 30 day clock as much it was to set it for a day when the Governor's legal staff will respond. The TRO application was an ex parte request for the order and the judge wants both sides present.

The courts hate to grant those ex-parte. They very much want to hear from both sides.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:


I'm glad he's taking a stance, but I question his motivations. Like, ummm, I don't know, maybe he wants to run for governor?

Certainly wouldn't be the first time a state AG admonished a governor (hello, NY state), then ended up becoming governor.

Oh, for fuck's sake. He is doing exactly the right thing for sound legal reasons, and you are still complaining.

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:
The CDC and Doctor's organizations have been calling "gun violence" a public health issue for a while. This idea has been floated out there by some governors, mayors, County Executives/Administrators for a while, especially during COVID since they were getting away with all their other unlawful decrees.

It was clearly a strategy - a possible avenue - an option to explore. It may have political appeal in some places, but is a non starter legally. I think the chances of it getting past a United States court, bound by existing US Supreme Court precedent, are nil. Read the Attorney General's letter - it is an accurate statement of the law as I understand it.

This is today's docket for one of the TRO applications and it's set for 1 PM today.

Court Docket

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:


I'm glad he's taking a stance, but I question his motivations. Like, ummm, I don't know, maybe he wants to run for governor?

Certainly wouldn't be the first time a state AG admonished a governor (hello, NY state), then ended up becoming governor.

Oh, for fuck's sake. He is doing exactly the right thing for sound legal reasons, and you are still complaining.

Never said it wasn't sound, legally. I find it interesting you read that as a complaint, sir. Questioning someones motivations, as I cited, is hardly a complaint, but mkay...

I'll bow out.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:


I'm glad he's taking a stance, but I question his motivations. Like, ummm, I don't know, maybe he wants to run for governor?

Certainly wouldn't be the first time a state AG admonished a governor (hello, NY state), then ended up becoming governor.

Oh, for fuck's sake. He is doing exactly the right thing for sound legal reasons, and you are still complaining.

Never said it wasn't sound, legally. I find it interesting you read that as a complaint, sir. Questioning someones motivations, as I cited, is hardly a complaint, but mkay...

I'll bow out.

I am sorry to misunderstand you. I thought you were implying he didn't believe in his own position and was using it only as pretense to advance his own agenda.

Are major retailers stocking up on pitch forks yet?

Federal judge blocks New Mexico governor's suspension of public carry

https://justthenews.com/govern..._campaign=newsletter

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked part of New Mexico Democratic Gov. Michele Lujan Grisham's public health order suspending the carrying of firearms in public in Albuquerque.

U.S. District Judge David Urias issued the ruling, per the Associated Press.

David Herrera Urias is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.013 He was nominated by President Joe Biden on September 20, 2021, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on December 17, 2021, by a vote of 45-26. Urias was born in Pecos, Texas, and raised in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Well now, let her appeal since she knows she's right LOL, problem is she'd have to pay for it herself since the NM DA said he's not going to lift a finger to help.

Plus it's a feather in the gun rights camp of "shit you crazy leftist politicians can't do".

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
if she prevails, well she's now on the national forefront of D politics.

My supposition is she hoped this would get people to urge her to run for the Democratic nomination. I don't recall the D Congressman that was urging D governors and other politicians to step into the nomination ring to challenge Biden.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Federal judge blocks New Mexico governor's suspension of public carry

https://justthenews.com/govern..._campaign=newsletter

From the same article:

quote:

Lujan Grisham's order prompted a bevy of legal challenges from gun rights groups and even drew calls for her impeachment.

And impeached she should be--as should any government executive that issues such a blatantly unconstitutional order.

From the Tweets I read from people in the courtroom, the judge was pissed at the governor's arguments. They were nonsense and when the admission came that the gun carrying members of the public weren't the problem, the judge was done.

The judge wasn't swayed with anything the state had to say.

If the Constitution doesn't mean anything to her, will the Judges decision stop her?

Did you not read on this page that a federal judge has blocked her action? She's not the Empress of New Mexico; her power has limits.