The National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) wasted no time taking legal action as both filed federal lawsuits Saturday.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its state office indicated they may also take New Mexico to court asking for up to $2 million in damages for each citizen affected by the order.
NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch told Fox News Digital that Grisham’s move ignores both the U.S. Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution.
“Instead of undermining the fundamental rights of law-abiding New Mexicans, she should address the soft-on-criminal policies which truly endanger its citizens,” Kozuch observed.
Further, lawmakers in both state houses declared they will file their own federal lawsuit to intervene in Grisham’s act.
On Thursday, the governor declared an emergency after an 11-year-old was killed in a yet-unsolved apparent road rage incident. Then she brought the hammer down on Friday. Even those with valid permits will be banned from carrying a weapon openly or concealed in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County for 30 days.
In her announcement, Grisham referenced crimes such as murder and stealing guns. Both are already quite illegal. When asked about the obvious disconnect between the issue and her reaction, she claimed her emergency order was primarily about sending a message to law enforcement to conduct more arrests.
Is it even conceivable that the First Amendment could be suspended to “send a message?”
Grisham was asked if state residents with valid carry permits should be singled out for arrest, and her response was telling. “I can make the point that maybe they should be.”
The governor claimed that she did not violate her oath of office to uphold the Constitution because she has emergency powers that allow exceptions to enforcing the law of the land. “If we ignore this growing problem without being bold,” Grisham tried to explain, “I’ve said to every other New Mexican, ‘your rights are subjugated to theirs.’”
In a moment of clarity, Grisham admitted the prohibition will not likely impact those who carry out acts of violence.
Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller (D) quickly confirmed that his city’s police department will not enforce the ban on carrying weapons. Rather, “our officers will continue to enforce all criminal laws, combat gun violence and push for needed justice in our city.”
Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen declared he will not place his deputies in the uncomfortable position of “prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.”
Grisham attempted to justify her action as responding to a state public health emergency. That did not appease even those on the directly opposite side of the gun control issue.
David Hogg is a well-known anti-Second Amendment activist, and even he saw the glaring legal flaws in the reckless announcement. Posting on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Hogg observed, “I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”
Then there’s the issue of the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices ruled in last year’s New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen that there is a constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense outside of the home.
The landmark decision established two clear tests to determine the constitutionality of a gun control measure. The first is whether a law restricting public carry of firearms affects citizens’ Second Amendment rights. The second is whether the law aligns with the nation’s history and tradition of gun regulations.
The Arizona order clearly runs afoul of both.
