New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's Unconstitutional Gun Edict Was a Huge, Bipartisan Flop
The governor's attempt to rule by decree provoked widespread condemnation instead of the applause she was expecting.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham made quite a splash with her September 8 "public health emergency order," which purported to suspend the right to bear arms in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County. But the reaction may have been different from the one she anticipated: Instead of lauding her courage in taking a bold step against the "epidemic" of gun violence, fellow Democrats noted that her ban was blatantly at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents—a point that a federal judge reinforced last week by issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) that blocks enforcement of Lujan Grisham's edict.
In the TRO, U.S. District Judge David H. Urias, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, noted that the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen "will likely control in the instant case," which combines lawsuits by several Bernalillo County residents and various gun rights groups. In Bruen, the Court rejected New York's requirement that residents demonstrate "proper cause" before they were allowed to publicly carry guns for self-defense. The justices ruled that the Second Amendment "presumptively guarantees" the right to bear arms in public, requiring New York to demonstrate that its policy was "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
New York had failed to meet that test, the Court concluded. "Apart from a few late-19th-century outlier jurisdictions," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, "American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense." Yet that is exactly what Lujan Grisham attempted to do. "Given the directives and holdings of this Supreme Court precedent," Urias said, "Plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim."
Lujan Grisham knew all of that, of course. In fact, she presented her order as a challenge to "current court actions," guided by Bruen, that "suggest that the Second Amendment is an absolute right." Her emphasis on "absoluteness" was a red herring, since the decisions that offend her do not say that every gun regulation is unconstitutional. More to the point, her order plainly defied a Supreme Court decision directly on point, as Urias readily recognized.
The TRO came five days after Lujan Grisham issued her order, which threatened Bernalillo County residents, including gun owners who have concealed carry permits, with fines up to $5,000 if they dared to exercise a right explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court. But it was immediately clear that the governor's stunt was a step too far even for people you might expect would be sympathetic to her agenda.
Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said he would not enforce the gun order. Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller, a Democrat, backed up Medina, saying the Albuquerque Police Department "is not responsible for enforcing the governor's ban," although "our officers will continue to enforce all criminal laws, combat gun violence, and push for needed justice."
The day that Lujan Grisham issued her order, Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen, also a Democrat, said "the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our Constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold." He added that he was "wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from [exercising] their constitutional right to self-defense."
At a press conference that Monday, Allen explicitly said his deputies would not enforce Lujan Grisham's "unconstitutional" order, which he said "will not do anything to curb gun violence." Rather, it would "punish law-abiding citizens" for exercising "their constitutional right of self-defense." Allen said he learned of the order just minutes before it was published, adding that Lujan Grisham knew "this was solely her decision," since "we as law enforcement did not agree with the order."
Lujan Grisham understood that she was defying Bruen, and she admitted that her edict would have no effect on the behavior of criminals. Yet her response to Allen's criticism was contemptuous. "I don't need a lecture on constitutionality from Sheriff Allen," she said. "What I need is action. What we need is for leaders to stand up for the victims of violent crime."
The governor implied that Allen had failed to do that. "We've passed common-sense gun legislation, including red flag laws, domestic violence protections, a ban on straw purchases, and safe storage laws; dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars to a fund specifically to help law enforcement hire and retain officers; increased penalties for violent offenders and provided massive support to intervention programs," she said. "We've given you the tools, Sheriff Allen—now stop being squeamish about using them. I will not back down from doing what's right and I will always put the safety of the people of New Mexico first."
Allen was not the only Democrat who was troubled by Lujan Grisham's stance. "I support gun safety laws," Rep. Ted Lieu (D–Calif.) said on September 9, but the governor's order "violates the U.S. Constitution," and "there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution." Gun control activist David Hogg concurred.
Raúl Torrez, New Mexico's Democratic attorney general, joined the chorus of critics a few days later. "I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety," he wrote in a letter informing Lujan Grisham that his office would not defend the order. "More importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster."
The Albuquerque Journal's editorial board agreed. Saying the governor "shouldn't break the law" in the name of "fighting crime," the paper criticized Lujan Grisham for "abusing the emergency public health powers granted to the governor's administration by state lawmakers in the wake of 9/11." It noted that "Lujan Grisham has dug herself into a legal and political hole from which she cannot emerge successfully."
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico unsurprisingly did not leap to the Second Amendment's defense. But it worried that Lujan Grisham's "use of emergency powers could lead to overzealous policing and senseless incarceration."
Santa Fe New Mexican columnist Milan Simonich noted that the governor had "picked a fight she cannot win," which he worried would undermine causes she supports. "Republicans eager to snipe at the governor have an easy avenue," Simonich wrote. "They say her order is unconstitutional, and odds are good they can prove their contention in a courtroom. With her overreach, Lujan Grisham also has alienated people who otherwise support her efforts to beef up policing and drug treatment programs."
Lujan Grisham "acknowledges thugs, thieves, and drug dealers will continue carrying guns," meaning "her order theoretically applies only to people who obey laws," Simonich said. "As far as lawbreakers are concerned, an executive order to disarm isn't worth the paper it's printed on.…All the noise Lujan Grisham is generating takes the focus off enforcement and creates a different target—the governor herself."
On Friday, two days after Urias blocked her gun decree, Lujan Grisham announced that she had "issued an updated public health order" that, among other things, "remov[es] the previous provision around firearms and replac[es] it with a provision that temporarily suspends the carrying of firearms at parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County." She made no mention of the TRO or the Second Amendment.
"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," Lujan Grisham said. "I will not accept the status quo—enough is enough."
The governor's press release included a quote from New Mexico House Speaker Javier Martínez (D–Albuquerque). "My wife and I are raising our two young children in Albuquerque," he said. "I want them—and all New Mexicans—to not only feel safe in our communities but also feel proud of this place we call home. Our commitment to these issues is deep and it is personal. We will not let the politics of the day, or anything else, distract us from working together—city, county, and state leaders and law enforcement—to move forward real solutions that make our communities safer."
What Martínez calls "the politics of the day" was actually a bipartisan backlash against the governor's attempt to rule by decree, using dangerously broad "emergency powers" that she claimed authorized her to violate a clearly established constitutional right. The fact that she fell flat on her face, provoking widespread criticism instead of the applause she expected, is an encouraging sign that Americans, regardless of their partisan affiliation, still understand the threat posed by such rampant authoritarianism.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
She just got ahead of the narrative.
They aren't supposed to be that honest until after they secure the house, senate, and white house in 2024.
(By open and fair elections, to be sure)
Post-menopausal hormone spikes can play havoc on a woman's better judgement.
I bet she has the air conditioning on full blast 24/7.
Santa Fe New Mexican columnist Milan Simonich noted that the governor had "picked a fight she cannot win," which he worried would undermine causes she supports. "Republicans eager to snipe at the governor have an easy avenue," Simonich wrote. "They say her order is unconstitutional, and odds are good they can prove their contention in a courtroom. With her overreach, Lujan Grisham also has alienated people who otherwise support her efforts to beef up policing and drug treatment programs."
Oh no! Republicans will pounce!
And all she did was try to erase one-tenth of the Bill of Rights!
The people who wrote that owned slaves, so... the whole thing should be trashed.
All white cis-hetero-males, too. WHERE WAS THE DIVERSITY?!?
Strange that people who routinely dismiss the views of "old, white men" never seem to apply this principle to Karl Marx. Or Herbert Marcuse. Or Adorno, or Foucault, or Derrida... or Corbyn, or Sanders or Biden, or Trudeau.
And funny how those old white leftists that drone on about more diversity never step aside themselves to make way for minorities.
Well, the “late 19th Century outlier jurisdictions” who prohibited public carry of firearms were the Jim Crow States. What are your thoughts on that, AJSLOSS?
New York had failed to meet that test, the Court concluded. “Apart from a few late-19th-century outlier jurisdictions,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, “American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense.”
And if you’re going to get rid of The Bill of Rights, does that mean you deny your own right to free speech, press, and expression? You certainly aren’t exercising your right to freedom of thought. Dummy!
🙂
😉
Here's my response: /sarc.
I know I'm not as well-known (if at all) as some of the other commenters around here, but I figured it was understood that I was being sarcastic.
Never assume, especially in this particular comment section. No shortage of trolls who jump at any and every opportunity to scream "idiot" at you; even when the sarcasm is very blatantly obvious, it just seems to make them feel a tiny bit smarter, or something.
Snipe. As in snipers. Republicans are much more dangerous to our democracy, they are trained killers, not kitty cats
Federal federal federal federal. You know what other constitutional right Lujan violated? The New Mexico State constitution. Why didn't the state supreme court weigh in?
She's the governor, not a constitutional lawyer. You expect her to read that legalese before she takes her oath of office?
But she didn't pass a law - dictatorial decree is totally different.
"Why didn’t the state supreme court weigh in?"
Because there were no plaintiffs challenging the order in state courts?
If they aren’t challenging it on the state level, that’s a major mistake.
I'm sure there are, but it's only been a week and a half.
But people here are pissed. Even people I'd have expected on the other side of it.
When David Hogg agrees with the NRA, you know you are wrong.
I haven't seen any serious player agree with this bullshit. Probably because it's so clearly unconstitutional.
On the plus side, this has been a trial balloon on the "public health emergency" approach to gun violence that has been firmly and clearly repudiated by the people. I would hope it would stop others from trying it in the future, but I sincerely doubt it.
^^Correct^^
They'll go smaller next time, like the occasional, short mask mandates. Then they'll work up to the higher goals, after everyone is back to being properly Covid trained.
There's some .5-d chess going on here that I'm still working out.
A group of unlikely people have put their hands over their chest and suddenly pledged allegiance to the 2nd amendment-- people who-- in some cases don't believe the 2nd amendment is an individual right. I think they feel she was overplaying her hand-- and this small, Z-list state governor was meddling in affairs way above her pay grade. Gun bans can't just be magicked into reality by some hyphenated named bit player governor. This is THEIR turf, and this Lujan-come-lately is getting too big for her pantsuit.
I doubt any of this is off the cuff or in any way impulsive; more like she was chosen, as the governor of a purple state, to run up a balloon to see how much flak it would generate. This is to determine to what extent real efforts should go to progress on civilian disarmament. And I do not think it is any accident that this agitprop coincides with Biden's announcement for his Ministry of Civilian Disarmament [Federal Office of Gun Violence Prevention], thus far staffed exclusively with proponents of gun control.
I believe what we are seeing is a relentless effort to gauge just how much the US citizens will accept and tolerate however much control they can muster, along with the "sticky spaghetti" school of constitutional law, in which decrees are thrown out to 1] signal to gun control constituents that the Biden admin is "doing something" and 2] attempt to get these regulations through the courts. Thus far their track record has been abysmal, except of course the passing the the "Safer Communities Act" which is nothing more than an empowerment of agencies like the ATF to act in a manner that usurps the legislative process.
Could just as easily have happened in Michigan.
Are you two trying to "out-conspiracy" each other?
(You win, by the way!)
That the Federal judge only issued a temporary restraining order should provide an opportunity for plaintiffs to seek a permanent injunction in State court.
Make them go on record.
Plaintiffs will do exactly that, but a TRO is the first step in the process. Gun advocates follow legal processes, this governor does not.
The pro-RKBA plaintiffs should have also gone against the clause prohibiting concealed carry too.
It's also technically a violation of her constituents' civil rights under color of law. She should be facing 10 years in federal prison.
It's a threat to Democracy. Perhaps some terrorism and sedition charges are in the offer.
As well as her oath of office. She should be impeached or recalled. (Prior to criminal trial)
I heard her oath wasn’t absolute, so there’s that.
Any collaborators should be tried as well. After a few years in solitary confinement.
After all, it’s the democrat way, right?
Seriously?
10 years just for decimating the bill of rights?
What do you think she is, a republican?
If she is ever impeached/indicted, 30 days suspended is the max.
The governor's attempt to rule by decree provoked widespread condemnation instead of the applause she was expecting.
It should have provoked a prison sentence, if we were a serious country.
Ten years *per count*. Since she did it to the entire population of New Mexico, that's about 2.1 million counts. Sounds about right.
-jcr
On Friday, two days after Urias blocked her gun decree, Lujan Grisham announced that she had "issued an updated public health order" that, among other things, "remov[es] the previous provision around firearms and replac[es] it with a provision that temporarily suspends the carrying of firearms at parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County."
How is this still ok?
Ok. ok. How about 'temporarily suspends the carrying of firearms at the Governor's Mansion and private residence'
You are suggesting she disarm her security detail?
Sounds good to me.
They can be equipped with rape whistles.
Replace her security detail with social workers.
As a Public Health Order? No. That's inappropriate.
Why not just pass a proper law via constitutional means if it's a necessary action?
EMERGENCY!
"How is this still ok?"
It isn't.
It's narrower. Less to temporarily restrain?
Grisham has no advisors?
Lock them up. Until they flip on her to make a please deal.
"A please deal?"
Is that where they say: "Please! Don't hurt us! We'll restore your Second Amendment Rights!" ?
🙂
😉
It's interesting. In 2012, the Louisiana ballots had, in addition to people running for office, a few state constitutional amendments. The second one on the list--no kidding--was a restatement of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. I doubt that was by accident.
It passed 80%-20%. Really lopsided.
No more than a month or two later, one of the Louisiana US senators, Mary Landrieu, sent out emails telling Louisianians that she was all for stricter gun laws and that taking guns away was right around the corner and she was leading the charge. I wrote back pointing out to her that she might have wanted to check to see what the people she was being paid to represent thought about that idea.
Note use of the words "was being paid." She's had to look for other work since the following senatorial election.
It will be interesting to see how well Lujan likes flipping burgers. She probably won't be in taxpayer-funded housing, i.e. governor's mansion, much after the next election.
My fondest dream is that she will be in taxpayer-funded housing.
By which I mean the New Mexico State Prison.
There should be a petition and protests in NM to pressure the sheriff and/or the head of the state police to place her under arrest. And hopefully NM state law requires her to pay for her own criminal defense.
I would also look at citizen lawsuits against her in civil court as well. As an example to all the other democrat gun grabbers
Is this the same Louisiana that in August 2022 made pregnancy termination a chain-gang offense? Next question: Is protection against incoming nuclear weapons more or less important than arming mystical rednecks eager to shoot physicians?
She might not have that much longer anyway, she's being impeached.
Looking at a New Mexico political map, the cities rule, as is the case with all blue states and states turning purple; I think the odds of her being impeached or recalled are about along the lines of such a thing [not] happening in CA.
Doesn't matter what such executives do, their proletariat will invariable support them, with very little to no thinking about it.
New rule: politicians are personally liable, legally and financially, for decisions they make and actions that result. This includes paying legal costs trying to defend laws and regulations that are found unconstitutional.
Is Donald on board with that?
When I’m elected governor, I’m going to suspend the 19th amendment, so I can stop authoritarian cunts like her from ever having power again.
Yep. Don’t pitch the bitch.
Women voters elected Warren Gamaliel Harding, then tossed "new race" prohibitionist Bert Hoover to secure repeal and FDR. Too bad the Alabama Anschluss replacing the LP with another Prohibition Party hasn't celebrated with People's Temple Kool-Ade. A REAL LP could offer to again repeal Comstock and prohibitionism, legalize electricity, trade and production, and help both looter Kleptocracy factions to abdicate more quickly.
Stick her in the pokey.
I really enjoyed writing that...
Maximum security, gen pop. With all the female Mexican gangbangers.
She believes trans women are women, right? So . . .
I enjoyed you writing it too.
🙂
😉
Seriously, though, violating the Highest Law In The Land should logically include the prospect of indictment, trial by a judge and jury of Citizen-Peers, then if found guilty, fines and/or imprisonment, up to life.
Better than poke her in the sticky, for certain.
Couldn't put a bag over that thing and make it do.
It is nice that the Governor’s trial balloon was shot down. That being said, her actions were of a piece with how politicians on the Left view constitutional rights, that they are essentially provisional until they become inconvenient to the desires of the political class and that executive emergency powers on health can justify considerable authoritarian mischief and potential dictatorship.
This was not the beginning of these sorts of decrees (see Biden's shenanigans on vaccine mandates and student loan forgiveness) and it certainly will not be the end from the Democrats.
That is how they roll; incessantly whittling away at any and all aspects of our rights and freedoms that they deem to be an obstacle to really ruling with unlimited power. People like Trudeau and Arden have shown them the way, even within a purported democracy.
Maybe the left goes after your Constitutional rights, and the right goes after your Constitution?
"[Some random bullshit rationalization] allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution"...
Just say no.
I have to wonder where all these Democrats honor to the Constitution goes when they pitch wealth-distribution bills?
“But it’s just soft-core porn!”?
NM voted more solidly Libertarian than any other State before the communo-anarchist VP candidate queered Jo's chances of successfully ignoring women's rights. So who is terrified that some Robert Dear clone will have difficulty getting hold of an AR-15, lots of ammo and even gas bottles to try to burst into flame while machine-gunning a woman's clinic? That's what happened in Colorado even before Mises spokesman Smith made extrajudicial killing of women's clinic staff (and policemen) stated LP policy. I'm ready to lay odds against a gubertnatorial recall vote.
That's all she wrote for her. See ya.
I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website… http://Www.Easywork7.com