The Fantasy of Peace & Safety!

[ImminentDanger]

Why Tolerate a Govt Engaging Against Our Rights?
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano - 08September2022
https://www.newsmax.com/judgeandrewp...08/id/1086537/

Every move you make
And every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
I'll be watching you.

— "Every Breath You Take," Song by The Police

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to privacy. Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it doesn't create the right; it limits government interference with it.

Last week, President Joe Biden misquoted the late Justice Antonin Scalia suggesting that Justice Scalia believed that the Bill of Rights creates rights. As Justice Scalia wrote, referring to the right to keep and bear arms but reflecting his view on the origins of all personal liberty, the Bill of Rights secures rights, it doesn't create them; it secures them from the government.

Those who drafted the Bill of Rights recognized that human rights are pre-political. They precede the existence of the government. They come from our humanity, and, in the case of privacy, they are reinforced by our ownership or legal occupancy of property.

The idea that rights come from our humanity is called Natural Law theory, which was first articulated by Aristotle in 360 B.C. The natural law teaches that there are aspects of human existence and thus areas of human behavior that are not subject to the government.

Aristotle's views would later be refined by Cicero, codified by Aquinas, explained by John Locke, and woven into Anglo-American jurisprudence by British jurists and American revolutionaries and constitutional framers.

Thus, our rights to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, to worship or not, to associate or not, to defend ourselves from crazies and tyrants, to own property, and to be left alone are all hard-wired into our human natures by God, the uncaused cause.

Nature is the means through which God passes along His gifts to us. We come about by a biological act of nature, every step of which was ordained by God.

His greatest gift to us is life, and He tied that gift to free will. Just as He is perfectly free, so are we.

In exercising our free wills, we employ rights. Rights are claims against the whole world. They don't require approval of a government or neighbors or colleagues.

The same rights exist in everyone no matter their place of birth, and each person exercises them as she or he sees fit.

The government should only come into the picture when someone violates another's natural rights. So, if someone builds a house in your backyard, you can knock it down and expel the builders or you can ask the government to do so.

Suppose the builders haven't consented to the existence of the government? That does not absolve them. Though government is only moral and legal in a society in which all persons have consented to it — this is Thomas Jefferson's "consent of the governed" argument in the Declaration of Independence — the only exception to actual consent is the use of government to remedy a violation of natural rights.

Professor Murray Rothbard examined all this under his non-aggression principle (NAP): Initiating or threatening force or deception against a person or his rights is always morally illicit. This applies to all aggression, even — and especially — from the government.

The folks building a house in your backyard have either used force or deception to get there. Both violate your natural rights and the NAP.

Now, back to the Fourth Amendment and privacy. In a famous dissent in 1928, which two generations later became the law of the land, the late Justice Louis Brandeis argued that government surveillance constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and thus, per the express language of the amendment, cannot be conducted by the government without a warrant issued by a judge. He famously called privacy the right most valued by civilized persons and described it as "the right to be let alone."

Today, this is the most violated of personal rights; not by judges signing search warrants for surveillance, but by government officials — local, state and federal — ignoring and evading the natural right to privacy and pretending that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to them. The linchpin of the amendment is the judicial determination of the existence of probable cause — meaning that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed, and that there is evidence of that crime in the place to be searched and in the things to be seized.

Today, the feds, and this has been picked up and mimicked by local and state police, have told themselves that so long as they are not looking for evidence of crimes, they needn't follow the Fourth Amendment.

Today, the government rarely bothers to obtain a search warrant for surveillance because it is cumbersome to do so and because it is so easy to surveil folks on a massive scale without one.

Today, the National Security Administration — America's 60,000-person strong domestic spying apparatus — captures every keystroke on every desktop and mobile device, and every conversation on every landline and mobile device, and all data transmitted into, out of or within the United States.

Moreover, you'd be hard-pressed to find a geographic area that is not covered by police using hardware that tracks the movement and use of mobile phones. When Edward Snowden passed on to journalists the facts of massive warrantless spying in the Bush and Obama administrations, he had the journalists put their mobile devices where his was — in his refrigerator, as anywhere else would have alerted his former colleagues of their collective whereabouts.

The government spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually just to watch and follow us. Who authorized this? Why do we tolerate a society where we have hired a government to secure our rights and instead it engages in aggression against them?

(Bolding mine)

Hopefully, there is still time to defeat (or minimize) these trends by proper voting at the ballot box. Elsewise, brother against brother may yet come back to visit the 'UNunited States'... The disturbing fact that the principle 'Truths', of the Declaration of Independence and later Constitution & Bill of Rights, are no longer 'SELF-EVIDENT' may be the deciding factor of our future...


...

[ImminentDanger]

Why you should use cash to buy guns
By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, September 14, 2022
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...h-to-buy-guns/

OPINION:

Under pressure from the governors of New York and California and their enormous state pension funds, Visa, Mastercard and American Express have agreed to keep a list of commercial transactions made through their credit card systems at gun shops.

These credit card middlemen make more money the more purchasers spend, but this pivot to social activism, though lawful, is dangerous to freedom and manifests an antipathy to constitutional norms by the corporations whose services many of us employ without a second thought. Of course, the government involvement is unconstitutional.

The pension funds, managed by state government officials with known animosities to lawful gun ownership, are large shareholders in credit card companies. Their public pressure on the credit card companies to do anything to chill lawful gun ownership constitutes the use of government financial power to erode Second Amendment rights, which the Supreme Court has upheld three times since 2008.

The government officials who have pushed the credit card companies to do this apparently do not take seriously their oaths to uphold the Constitution. Or, perhaps, they deceptively take the oath of office to a Constitution as they wish it to be, and not as the court has interpreted it.

The court has defined the right to keep guns in the home in a case called Heller, and the right to carry guns outside the home in a case called Bruen, as fundamental personal rights of pre-political origins. Stated differently, the right to own, carry and use a gun is a modern-day extension of the ancient right to self-defense, which is a natural right. The court recognized that adults may own, carry and use the same level of weaponry that the bad guys do and that the government uses.

This is so because the dual purposes of the Second Amendment are to recognize and protect the right to shoot crazies and thugs who are killing or threatening innocents before the police arrive and the right to shoot at agents of a totalitarian government or an invading force.

Just three months ago in the Bruen case, the court ruled that the Second Amendment's protections are not second-class, rather they are coextensive with the protections of the First Amendment. That amendment, of course, recognizes the natural rights to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to associate or not with whomever you please, and to worship how you wish or not. These rights -- along with the rights to self-defense, property ownership and the right to be left alone -- are the fundamental natural rights utilized by all rational persons in the pursuit of happiness.

Now, back to the big-state pension funds cajoling the credit card companies to keep records for the government. The records are of no commercial value to credit card companies. If you buy a $2,000 gun safe or $2,000 in gun safety lessons or $2,000 in guns and ammunition at a gun shop, the credit card companies' lists will just show a $2,000 gun shop purchase. They will not show the item acquired.

Since the right interfered with here is fundamental -- that's the highest category of rights we have -- it is unconstitutional for the government to lift a finger against it. From 1934 to 2022, the states had near carte blanche to interfere with gun ownership outside the home. That was based on a now reversed, poorly articulated and profoundly unjust Supreme Court decision called Miller v. U.S, in which only the government's lawyers were heard. And the states made the most of the authoritarian authorization Miller granted to them.

Yet in 2008, and again this year, the Supreme Court finally recognized that Miller was wrongly heard (hearing only the government's side of the case) and wrongly decided (holding that the Second Amendment only protected state militias). Thus, the same big-government states that Miller unleashed, Heller and Bruen now restrain.

The anti-gun crowd has difficulty accepting this, just as they do any court decision that liberates folks from government clutches. Yet, we and they would all lead the howls of complaint if the credit card companies reported our book purchases or internet usage fees to the government.

We already have massive spying on us by the feds and the states. This is done not by search warrants as the Fourth Amendment requires, but by government at all levels ignoring the Fourth Amendment.

As this column argued last week, the billions of dollars spent on this surveillance is largely without express legislative authorization and consists at the federal level of the exploitation of the intelligence community's secret budgets, and at the local and state levels of police slush funds with expenditures not authorized by a proper legislative body after a proper public debate.

Where does all this leave us?

It leaves us with the certain knowledge that many of our elected officials -- folks we have hired to protect our rights -- do not take their oaths of office seriously. It leaves us with a national gun registry nowhere authorized by the Constitution. And it leaves us with the knowledge that the feds have yet another avenue on which to violate our privacy by creepily looking at our credit card bills. Many states already unconstitutionally keep track of gun ownership. Thanks to the credit card companies, the feds can now do so as well.

What should you do if you used a credit card to make a gun shop purchase and the feds come knocking at your door asking to see your hardware? You should ask to see their search warrant. They won't have one, in which case you should politely say, "Have a good day" and close and lock your door. Then call your local police and report unwanted knocking on your door by an armed stranger.

Does anyone in government take rights seriously?

Does anyone in government take rights seriously?

The near universal answer is NO! Because the government would lose power(s) if they did take our Rights seriously!

...

[ImminentDanger]

Jim Jordan accuses 'woke analyst' at FBI of labeling
veteran-led group a domestic terrorist organization

by Victor I. Nava - September 15, 2022
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...e-analysts-fbi

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said on Wednesday that he has received information from a whistleblower accusing the FBI of labeling groups as domestic terrorist organizations even after they have been investigated and not deemed to be a threat.

Jordan, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday that the whistleblower alleges the FBI has designated a veteran-led group, American Contingency, a "domestic violent extremism" organization despite the group having been investigated and cleared as a nonthreat by the FBI in 2020. Jordan further accuses the FBI of recharacterizing cases as "domestic violent extremism" to pad its data artificially in order to advance a political narrative.

"Mike Glover is a veteran doing good work out there, but some woke analyst at the FBI says, 'We're going to investigate this guy,'" Jordan said on Fox News on Wednesday, referencing the founder of American Contingency.

Jordan went on to say that if you "display the flag, you own a gun, and you voted for Trump, you're somehow in that category that Joe Biden says are extremist or fascist."

American Contingency's website says the group is dedicated to "fostering a network of people and teams who are prepared to respond and able to recover from difficult situations," including aiding communities affected by natural disasters. Glover claims he is a former Green Beret.

Jordan said in the letter to Wray that the FBI deemed American Contingency a potential threat because Glover "exercised his First Amendment right to speak out in protest of the federal government" and appeared to be "rallying individuals to 'take action.'"

Citing internal FBI notes, Jordan said the bureau "rifled through Glover's life — obtaining his military records, his veteran's disability rating, and even his monthly disability benefit — before concluding that American Contingency 'desires to assist Americans in preparing themselves for catastrophic events and not to overthrow the United States Government.'"

However, Jordan said the bureau went on to label the group a violent extremist group in an FBI alert even after determining American Contingency was not a threat.

In July, Jordan said whistleblower disclosures described the level of politicization within the FBI's leadership as "rotted at its core," with the bureau pressuring employees to label groups and people domestic extremists despite lacking the criteria to meet such a classification.

Jordan concludes his letter to Wray by asking the bureau to provide the House Judiciary Committee documents related to the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide on Militia Violent Extremism and an explanation as to why the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Strategic Unit did not include symbols, images, phrases, events, and people from left-wing violent extremists' groups in the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide.

Liars lie because it is 2nd nature for the them to do so. The liberal left is using every opportunity to produce as many LIES as possible. Reality and Truth are trampled every minute of every day as they try to create their preferred society, by leveraging governmental power!

...

[Gman106]

What I don't understand is the left's desire to end gun rights while at the same time attacking and defunding state and local police out of existence. Wouldn't that put everyone's safety and security at risk? Oh wait...a federal police force under their control. Got it.

[Brick]

What I don't understand is the left's desire to end gun rights while at the same time attacking and defunding state and local police out of existence. Wouldn't that put everyone's safety and security at risk? Oh wait...a federal police force under their control. Got it.

A federal police is only part of it!

[ImminentDanger]

Gun-Free Zones Are 'Magnets' for Attacks
By Nicole Wells - 28 March 2023
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/j...28/id/1114167/

Dr. John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, told Newsmax Tuesday that gun-free zones are "magnets" for gun crime because the criminals know that people are unarmed and cannot defend themselves.

"The people that these laws stop are law-abiding citizens and the killers take advantage of that," Lott said during an appearance on Newsmax's "The Chris Salcedo Show." "The fact that they know that law-abiding citizens will obey these laws and that these gun-free zones mean nobody can protect themselves in those areas actually encourage the attacks to occur -- it's a magnet for those attacks."

"Would you want to put a sign in front of your home that says your home is a gun-free zone if you were being threatened?" he continued. "I don't think anybody would go and do that. It's not like the criminal would go and say, "Well, he doesn't have any guns there, they're not allowed. I can't go in and do the attack." It actually causes them to want to attack there."

Commenting on the Nashville, Tennessee attack on a private Christian school by a former student that left three children and three adults dead on Monday, Lott said that "media bias has helped contribute to this problem."

"One of the things that the media just refuses to report on are the parts of the diaries and manifestos where these mass murders explain why they picked the targets that they do," he explained. "I mean, look at the Buffalo grocery store mass murderer last year. He had a long discussion in his manifesto about why he picked the place that he did. He wanted to go to a place where he said victims would not have permitted concealed handguns to defend themselves because, he said, that would make it much more difficult for him to go and kill people. He's not the only one. They say that time after time."

"What you need is armed teachers," he said. "We have 20 states in this country, including parts of Texas, which have armed teachers. We have thousands of schools, yet there's not been one single attack where anybody has been killed or wounded in any school that has an armed teacher there. All the attacks have occurred in places where guns are banned."

Nashville Police Chief John Drake identified the suspect in The Covenant School attack as Audrey Elizabeth Hale, 28, and said that she identified as male. While there was no immediate official word on a possible motive, Drake told NBC News, "There's some belief that there was some resentment for having to go to that school. Don't have all the details to that just yet."

...

[ImminentDanger]

A look into the future of the USA:

Kitchen knives could be confiscated from suspects' homes under U.K. proposal
By Matt Delaney - The Washington Times - Wednesday, April 19, 2023
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...uspects-homes/

British police could seize kitchen knives if they believe the blades will be used to commit crimes, according to a proposal by U.K. authorities.

Britain's Home Office also might ban some machetes and zombie-style, or decorative, knives, with harsher penalties for the sale and possession of the instruments, The Telegraph reported.

Those found responsible for moving such weapons -- including belt buckle knives, butterfly knives and push daggers -- could face up to two years in jail under the proposal. The current punishment is six months behind bars.

"The thugs wielding these deadly knives aim to terrorize their victims and the public, and too often even carry out horrific or fatal attacks," Home Secretary Suella Braverman said, per the newspaper. "They are emboldened by the cowardly idea that carrying these blades inflates their own status and respect."

Ms. Braverman said the proposal provides greater latitude for police to "seize, retain and eventually destroy bladed articles if they have good reason to believe they will be used in crime" when they are lawfully inside a home.

Chris Philp, the U.K.'s minister for policing, said adults with prior knife and weapon offenses could also be stopped and searched by police.

The push for tougher knife laws come after the U.K. witnessed more than 50,000 knife offenses last year, an 11% increase from 2021.

50,000 knife offenses last year! Criminals being violent with whatever is available is NOT SURPRISING!
Just keep cycling them thru the judicial system - I'm sure they will become non-violent eventually???!!!???

Is this what Peace & Safety looks like without guns?

...

[ImminentDanger]

'Tidal wave' of gun laws struck down a year after Supreme Court Bruen ruling
by Kaelan Deese - June 12, 2023
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...s-bruen-ruling

The Supreme Court's decision to strike down New York's gun law last year has been hailed by Second Amendment advocates as a landmark decision and a fundamental new test of firearms law. In Part One of this series, Starting Pistol, the Washington Examiner will investigate how the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen opened the floodgates to successful legal challenges. Part Two on Tuesday will look at the 27 states shifting to become permitless carry and the blue state permitting laws that are under legal challenge.

The Supreme Court's landmark 6-3 opinion on gun laws, emphasizing "historical tradition," has quickly become a vital lifeline for gun rights advocates challenging state firearms regulations in lower courts.

The high court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen on June 23 last year, in which Justice Clarence Thomas, the most conservative justice on the bench and a staunch defender of Second Amendment freedoms, wrote for the majority that New York's 108-year-old "proper cause" concealed carry regime was unlawful.

"It's the framework that is going to be used on almost all challenges that will be coming up regarding the Second Amendment," Tom King, executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the plaintiff in the landmark case, told the Washington Examiner.

Although the ruling directly affected New York's law, it had a sweeping influence on other states, leading lawmakers to evaluate new regulations complying with the Supreme Court decision while preserving strict ownership laws. Attorneys general in California, Hawaii, and New Jersey issued similar directives informing residents they could no longer require concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate a justifiable need to carry a handgun.

In the immediate eight months after the Bruen decision, there were 31 successful claims in lower court legal fights where it's been cited, according to Jake Charles, an associate professor at Pepperdine University’s Caruso School of Law who has tracked lawsuits against firearms laws.

"It's definitely more than 31 claims now," Charles told the Washington Examiner, nearly 12 months after the decision. His data from June of last year to February indicate a 14.6% success rate out of around 212 lower court cases that cited the recent Bruen opinion.

The count of successful claims in firearms disputes post-Bruen dramatically upstaged the immediate effect of 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller, which established the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms inside the home but did not have as big of an effect on lower court decisions in its immediate aftermath.

That's because it took until the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision, which incorporated and applied Heller to the states, for litigants to begin to see just 5% successful claims out of 327 lawsuits that cited Heller between 2008 and 2010, according to a 2018 Duke Law Journal analysis from Eric Ruben and Joseph Blocher.

"As Joseph and Eric’s work shows, successful claims after Heller trickled in like a stream, with only a small handful of wins even a year-and-a-half out from the decision; Bruen, by contrast, has come on like a tidal wave," Charles wrote in his study.

The new framework under Bruen is already in play in a challenge by a gun store owner and several gun rights groups in Illinois, which said the state's new law blocking civilian sales or transfers of many types of commonly owned semiautomatic rifles does not conform with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation.

Illinois gun shop owner Robert Bevis argued in the high court filing that there “cannot be the slightest question” that Illinois’s restrictions violate the Second Amendment right to possess firearms and that the district court judge in his case hadn't gotten the "message" the justices intended with Bruen.

“This Court intended Bruen to be a course correction and a reminder to the lower courts that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” said Bevis, who was denied an emergency application at the Supreme Court on May 17 on procedural grounds but is moving forward with the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

There are still significant differences in success rates for civil claims compared to criminal claims, which won far less often, according to Charles's analysis of federal court decisions that cited Bruen and involved the Second Amendment.

Challenges to commercial regulations, unlawful gun use, the National Firearms Act, bail conditions, and sentence enhancements have failed each time. But claims involving carry licensing or allowing private property owners to forbid gun carry have won every challenge thus far. Claims involving age restrictions, sensitive place bans, and "ghost gun" rules have succeeded around half the time.

"We're still seeing lots and lots of claims that fail, most often challenges to the felon in possession ban," Charles said.

Some lawyers are finding a vestige of hope that the novel Bruen test could benefit clients facing investigations over violations of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. While President Joe Biden publicly denounced the Bruen decision, attorneys for his son Hunter Biden are planning to lean on the landmark gun decision, should he be charged in an investigation into whether he lied about drug use on a federal firearms application in 2018.

Bruen's inception began with a dispute between the NYSRPA and the state over the 1911 Sullivan Act, which at the time made possession of a handgun without a permit a crime. Petitioners asked the court specifically "whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense."

The ruling marked the first time the 6-3 conservative majority on the high court weighed a Second Amendment dispute and resulted in the majority meeting petitioners in the middle to find New York's long-standing discretionary permit regime to be unconstitutional and that gun laws overall must have a basis in the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

While Thomas's majority opinion effectively rendered public carry a constitutional right, the ruling notably draws limits, stating that "even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster." Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned a concurring opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts that noted that states can maintain licensing regimes such as background checks before issuing public carry permits.

While gun control activists have criticized the Supreme Court’s historical test, they contend that many gun restrictions will likely survive some legal challenges. "That means that judges can continue to find many gun regulations constitutional — if they so choose," according to a March 17 blog post from the Alliance for Justice, a liberal judicial advocacy group.

Disagreements on statutory interpretations of federal gun laws can also lead to splits in circuit courts later on down the road, which often form an opening for Supreme Court justices to review petitions over those disputes.

Andrew Willinger, executive director for the Center of Firearms Law at Duke University Law School, told the Washington Examiner the "million-dollar question" is whether Bruen signals a trend where the justices will take up more Second Amendment disputes.

"Or is it going to be something like Heller, where the court just sits there and doesn't take a case for a long time? There were essentially 10 years [between] McDonald and Bruen where the court received a lot of petitions and did not take a single major Second Amendment case," Willinger said.

"I think that this court is somewhat more likely to take these cases and to hopefully clarify a little bit about what this Bruen test looks like, but we'll see," Willinger added.

It's great to see the continued effect of the Bruen decision. I hope those successes continue.

But, with the ongoing destruction of our representative government & free society (with NO MONUMENTAL OUTCRY from the general public) we may have already slipped past the edge of no return, despite these legal victories for this freedom, simply because they do not turn back the tide of overwhelming destruction.

While these 2A victories are necessary, there is a need for overwhelming public pushback on the Liberal Leftist agenda of socialist & Marxist ideals & methods, which has been forcefully & successfully accomplished. There will continue to be a massive effort to nullify the effectiveness of the 2nd Amendment, even when its existence is 'technically' acknowledged.

As it has always been, the attack on our freedoms is much wider than the assaults on the 2nd Amendment. In effect, these victories might be a matter of winning some battles but losing the war. If people are so focused on just the 2A fight, that they allow the rest of our republic to be destroyed, then the ultimate purpose of the 2A, to protect the Founding Principles incorporated in the Freedom-based Contitution, will have been neutered.

...

[ImminentDanger]

Interesting chart in this article: Permitless carry expands to majority of US after Supreme Court gun ruling
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...tus-gun-ruling

...

[ImminentDanger]

N.M. governor issues order suspending right to carry guns in public across Albuquerque
By Morgan Lee - Associated Press - September 8, 2023
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...o-suspend-ope/

SANTA FE, N.M. - New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday issued an emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least 30 days in response to a spate of gun violence.

The Democratic governor said she expects legal challenges but was compelled to act in response to gun deaths, including the fatal shooting of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium this week.

The firearms suspension, classified as an emergency public health order, applies to open and concealed carry in most public place, from city sidewalks to urban recreational parks.

The restriction is tied to a threshold for violent crime rates currently only met by the Albuquerque area. Police and licensed security guards are exempt from the temporary ban.

Violators could face civil penalties and a fine of up to $5,000, gubernatorial spokeswoman Caroline Sweeney said. The governor wants the order enforced by Albuquerque police, county sheriff's deputies and state police.

Under the order, residents still can transport guns to some private locations, such as a gun range or gun store, provided the firearm has a trigger lock or some other container or mechanism making it impossible to discharge.

Lujan Grisham acknowledged not all law enforcement officials were on board with her decision.

"I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer," she said at a news conference, flanked by law enforcement officials, including the district attorney for the Albuquerque area.

Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said in a statement late Friday that he has reservations about the order but is ready to cooperate to tackle gun violence.

"While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold," Allen said. "I am 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 their constitutional right to self-defense."

Lujan Grisham referenced several recent shootings in Albuquerque in issuing the order. Among them was a suspected road rage shooting Wednesday outside a minor league baseball stadium that killed 11-year-old Froyland Villegas and critically wounded a woman as their vehicle was peppered with bullets while people left the game.

Last month, 5-year-old Galilea Samaniego was fatally shot while asleep in a motor home. Four teens entered the mobile home community in two stolen vehicles early on Aug. 13 and opened fire on the trailer, according to police. The girl was struck in the head and later died at a hospital.

The governor also cited an August shooting death in Taos County of 13-year-old Amber Archuleta. A 14-year-old boy shot and killed the girl with his father's gun while they were at his home, authorities said.

"When New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game - when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn - something is very wrong," Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

The top-ranked Republican in the state Senate swiftly denounced the governor's actions Friday to restrict guns as a way to stem violent crime.

"A child is murdered, the perpetrator is still on the loose, and what does the governor do? She targets law-abiding citizens with an unconstitutional gun order," Sen. Greg Baca of Belen said.

Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, applauded the governor's order as a courageous and necessary step to curbing gun violence, even if the measure's legal fate is uncertain.

"If it saves one life, then it's worth doing," Viscoli said.

Since 2019, Lujan Grisham has signed a raft of legislation restricting access to guns, including a 2020 "red flag" law allowing police or sheriff''s deputies to ask a court to temporarily remove guns from people who might hurt themselves or others, an extension of background-check requirements to nearly all private gun sales.

She also signed a ban on firearms possession for people under permanent protective orders for domestic violence.

Friday's order directs state regulators to conduct monthly inspections of firearms dealers statewide to ensure compliance with gun laws.

The state Department of Health will compile a report on gunshot victims at New Mexico hospitals that includes age, race, gender and ethnicity, along with the brand and caliber of firearm involved and other general circumstances.

While it is unlikely that this egregious violation of the 2nd Amendment will stand the test of constitutionality, the very fact that the effort is being made demonstrates so very clearly the mindset of the Liberal Leftists. They blame the inanimate object (guns) for the immoral acts of the IMMORAL CRIMINALS. And they promote the idea that more laws will make criminals more obedient, despite the fact they already ignore the existing laws. It is really an imbecilic concept.

Liberal Leftists are a constant danger to American liberties and to the safety of American citizens. They will willingly strip the law-abiding citizen of their right to self-defense in the name of this idiotic concept of Criminal Control. They are willing to destroy America with their 'claimed good intentions' (proven to be lies).

UPDATE:

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's gun carry ban blocked by federal judge
by Kaelan Deese - September 13, 2023
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...30-day-gun-ban

A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked the New Mexico governor's executive order barring concealed and open carry of firearms in the state's most populous county.
<SNIP>
U.S. District Judge David Urias granted a temporary restraining order that blocks enforcement of her order.
<SNIP>
The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the groups that sued against the governor's order, said Urias would issue a written order on Wednesday or Thursday but that his temporary block went into effect immediately.

Urias is slated to hold a hearing on motions for a preliminary injunction against the executive order on Oct. 3.

...