Guv Goobered Big Time
New Mexico’s Lujan Grisham Reveals How Far She Tilts
Second Amendment rights recently came under attack in Albuquerque
and Bernalillo County, New Mexico. when Democrat Gov. Michelle
Lujan Grisham “suspended” the right to bear arms as a “public health emergency.”
One thing about covering gun politics that never gets tiring is being able to observe, and then report, just how extreme some politicians can get when they try to hammer down on Second Amendment rights and reveal their true nature.
Try this on for size: When nationally known 20-something anti-gunner (and one time media darling) David Hogg says a gun control scheme is over the line, it’s probably time to step back, take a deep breath and go for what’s behind door number two. But that’s not what New Mexico’s Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham did last month when she literally suspended the Second Amendment in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County, drawing loud criticisms from gun rights activists, a call for impeachment and a handful of federal lawsuits on Second and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Fox News reported all of this, as did other media.
This is the sort of thing which qualifies for the “Big Oops” award.
Further inflaming tempers, she responded to a reporter’s question about constitutional issues by stating “No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.” Well, that’s her view, and a myopic one it is.
Liberal California Democrat Congressman Ted Lieu went on social media with this: “I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”
It was a bit after Lieu’s message appeared on “X” (formerly Twitter) that Hogg weighed in, almost verbatim: “I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”
Were they operating off the same script, in an effort to make it appear that some gun control extremists have their limits? Perhaps they were stunned that one of their own would so brazenly cross into the toxic waste dump of gun control.
A few critics have theorized Lujan Grisham was floating a trial balloon to see just how far she could push the envelope. Anti-gunners learn from such endeavors, so they can push a little farther next time if they aren’t completely shut down from the get-go.
Even if someone is licensed to carry, they could not do it under the
terms of Gov. Lujan Grisham’s edict, which local lawmen refused to
enforce, and which drew federal lawsuits from gun rights groups.
While the hard left was criticizing Lujan Grisham, the Second Amendment community was downright scathing in its reaction. Federal lawsuits were filed by the National Association for Gun Rights, Gun Owners of America and Second Amendment Foundation (with the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association and Firearms Policy Coalition).
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms observed at the time, “There is no way Gov. Lujan Grisham’s order can withstand constitutional scrutiny. Nevertheless, New Mexico voters must make her own this if she runs for re-election in 2026. In the meantime, voters can penalize her party with their votes next year, same as Democrats have been penalizing gun owners for decades, for crimes they didn’t commit. This would be karma in its purest form.”
CCRKBA, the grassroots gun rights group which co-sponsored the recent Gun Rights Policy Conference in Phoenix, said the governor’s action underscored the importance of gun owners turning out for elections. A heavy turnout of Second Amendment voters just might prevent such folks from getting elected.
While Lujan Grisham isn’t up for re-election until 2026, Gottlieb suggested penalizing Democrats in 2024 “same as Democrats have been penalizing gun owners for decades, for crimes they didn’t commit. This would be karma in its purest form.”
Lawsuits Look Like This
When an organization goes after a politician in court, it’s good to have a substantial argument. In the New Mexico case, that was easy. Lujan Grisham’s order was a flagrant attack on the Second Amendment, which too many people on the left seem to forget was incorporated to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, a Second Amendment Foundation case.
Lawsuits contain some fairly drab reading. Read enough of them and you’re ready to insist attorneys sign up for a remedial writing class before you realize they have to read like a Jack Webb script for an old “Dragnet” episode. Attorneys must be precise because opposing attorneys will be picking nits, and making motions, and filing responses to responses, all of which causes such cases to drag on tediously for weeks, months or maybe even years. Rather than striving to see justice done, it is sometimes more like the legal combatants try to prevent justice from ever being done.
Under Lujan Grisham’s prohibition, which gun rights groups immediately
declared was unconstitutional, even licensed concealed carry was not allowed.
If you’re carrying concealed, nobody should be able to detect your sidearm.
Here’s an example of how lawsuits read, this one from a SAF case known as Fort v. Grisham “This restriction is in flagrant violation of Plaintiffs’ right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, a right that has been clearly established by the United States Supreme Court. Indeed, the Orders perversely target the right to carry in the places where self-defense is most necessary.”
Here’s how the lead plaintiff in the case is described: “Plaintiff Zachary Fort is a natural person, a citizen of the United States and New Mexico, who resides in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. He is a law-abiding citizen who currently possesses a valid concealed handgun license. Fort regularly carries a lawfully owned firearm for self-defense in public in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. Because of the unconstitutional restrictions related to the declared emergency, and his fear of enforcement, Fort can no longer carry a firearm in public. If it were not for the challenged restrictions, Fort would resume carrying firearms in public for self-defense in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. Fort is a member of each of the Organizational Plaintiffs.”
It’s hardly Ian Fleming or Mickey Spillane, but it explains things to the judge, which is the purpose of the document.
Behind the headlines are hours of work, often on weekends and frequently creeping well into the evening hours; you know, when people who habitually tell others to “Keep up the good work” are themselves at home with their families, teaching their kids to play catch, or taking them to hunter education classes, or maybe just sitting around watching reruns.
Reader Responses
Insider was delighted, and in no small way impressed, that the column “Ethics Or Elitism?” garnered so many reactions, most of them via private email.
Dave’s habit of plugging grouse with a pistol, and the debate it stirred over “ethics,” is still getting a reaction.
Dave:
I’ve been meaning to drop you a note commending your political column. I quite like it: well done. Wish you didn’t have to do it, but keep it up.
This morning I saw the piece about grouse hunting (don’t know how old it is.) Yes sir, there are lots of high-brow grouse men out there. The elite of hunters, the cream of the crap, I mean crop. Many years ago, I was one of them: member of the Ruffed Grouse Society and never missed an RGS shoot at the Campfire Club. One year, I won a 1 lb. Ziploc bag of wild rice! For many years, the most important week of the year was the annual trip to the Pocomoonshine Lake Lodge in Maine for a week of grouse hunting. I went to Wales once to shoot, but that’s another story. I used several different shotguns, but the favorite was a Browning S/S side lock with two triggers, which was replaced by a Parker repro 28 ga. And yes, grouse hunters were a cut above, without question.
When I moved to the Northeast, I became a Deputy Sheriff, which continued for 20+ years. One of the other deputies was a Maine local who also enjoyed grouse hunting. When he told me he shot grouse on the ground while walking on old trails, I was certain that I was being introduced to Maine humor. Unfortunately, that was not the case … Different mindset.
Over time, I experienced a 180-degree change in my thinking. The bottom line is, you’re out to kill an animal. Period. If it makes you feel better to say harvest, go ahead. I don’t come home with harvested birds, I show up with dead ones. As far as the comment, “give the animal a fighting chance”… seriously? Drive to the hunting spot, get undressed, then go into the woods and get whatever you’re after. You may take nothing with you. Nothing. Leave the key under the car and let a friend know what you’re doing. That will increase the odds of them finding you …
Hunting is about killing an animal, whether you do it fancy or simple, this is not the time to be critical of your fellow hunter.
R. Grunfeld
Dave replies: Cultural or regional differences among hunters makes life interesting, and campfire conversations lively! You definitely retained your perspective about hunting, which, at the end of the day, is not about “catch and release.” You’ve obviously learned a couple of things through life’s journey, and that’s always a good thing. Thanks for reading Insider Online.
Well Dave please keep on doing what you’re both hunting and writing. I never was a sport hunter, I hunted to feed my family because I made a $1.50 per hour building harvesting machines and drove an old station wagon. I have hunted birds, waterfowl, elk, deer, squirrel (and) rabbit to feed my family. I am in my 80s and can’t hunt anymore. Now, I must face the masses of rude people who complain about me being in the way because I move too slow and talk on cellphones that must be long distance because I can hear them three aisles over. Today is full of people with a mouth full of gimme and a handful of I want. There’s a lot I could talk about the righteous folk out there and their code of ethics when no one is looking. Good hunting.
Ric
Dave replies: Many people today do not understand subsistence hunting, and only think of hunting from their perspective. For many people hunting is recreation. For others it is necessary to eat.
Here’s a reaction to the column on giving your handgun a facelift — “Dress it Up” — which appeared in August:
I enjoyed the article. Personalizing and upgrading a revolver is a personal thing, so I can’t say I would have done everything you mentioned. For the most part, I can’t fault the things you did … except for one thing. Personally, I find the New Vaquero hammer an abomination, and I would have changed that out with a stock hammer with the shorter spur. However, that didn’t stop me from enjoying the article. I’ve been happily shooting a variety of .45 Colt single-actions, using a load of 6 grains of Alliant Red Dot capped by numerous bullets. (Lyman 452460, Lyman 454190, Lyman 454424 and the RCBS 270 SAA.) All seem to shoot at least adequately well … when I do my part. The Red Dot load was one I learned from Mike Venturino over 30 years ago. Had dinner with him many years ago and fondly remember the experience.
William B. Peel
Dave responds: Thanks, Bill and remember, my little essay was really aimed at getting readers to try their own modifications. I disagree about the New Vaquero hammer. I think it’s terrific, but to each his own. Thanks for reading Insider Online!
