The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> on Friday agreed to take up a challenge to a ban on bump stocks put in place by former President Donald Trump after a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017.
The Biden administration asked the high court to uphold the Trump-era policy. Gun rights supporters also requested the court take up the issue and strike the ban down, according to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC News</a>.
The ban has been litigated in lower courts for years. Federal courts have reached differing conclusions on the issue, which is whether the Trump administration had the authority under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to ban bump stocks.
The United States has long banned machine guns, which are capable of firing multiple rounds per each time the trigger is pulled. A bump stock is a device that can be attached to a semi-automatic firearm and reduce the length of time between trigger pulls by harnessing the gun’s energy from recoil.
Officials estimate over half a million bump stocks were sold in the United States before the Trump administration ordered them turned over to authorities, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4292410-supreme-court-trump-era-bump-stock-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Hill</a>.
The case hinges on the boundaries of executive authority outlined in federal gun laws.
“The interpretive rule did not alter or enlarge the scope of the statutory prohibition on possessing or transferring new machineguns,” the Justice Department said in a court filing, according to The Hill. “The rule instead merely served to inform the public of ATF’s considered view that bump stocks are ‘machineguns’ as Congress defined that term.”
But gun rights proponents disagree. Gun shop owner and firearms instructor Michael Cargill is one of the challengers to the Trump-era reinterpretation of the law. Cargill’s legal team says that use of a bump stock does not fundamentally change the weapon into an automatic firearm.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
“A weapon is not a machine gun if something more is required of the shooter than a single function of the trigger to produce more than one shot,” Cargill’s Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-976/268622/20230607180529147_22-976%20Garland%20v%20Cargill%20Brief%20in%20Opp.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">brief</a> said.
“The plain meaning of that sentence is that a weapon is not a ‘machinegun’ if something more is required of the shooter than a single function of the trigger to produce more than one shot. And, as the Final Rule concedes, the shooter must do considerably more than pull the trigger once if he wishes the weapon to fire multiple shots,” the brief says.

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court Agrees To Take Up Challenge To Trump-Era Bump Stock Ban

Courts

Donald Trump

Guns

Second Amendment

Supreme Court

U.S.

Washington D.C.

Florida Governor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ron-desantis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ron DeSantis</a> pushed back on calls for red flag laws and other gun control laws in the wake of the shooting in Maine this week, saying that he does not believe they are appropriate because they violate a person&#8217;s due process rights.
The Republican presidential candidate made the remarks during a CNN interview Thursday night with Kaitlan Collins on &#8220;The Source&#8221; after 18 people were killed and more than a dozen were injured in Maine after a mentally disturbed man opened fire at two locations this week.
He noted that he views red flag laws as different than someone who is not mentally competent to own a firearm.
&#8220;I think red flag laws have been abused, because people can just lodge a complaint,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Sometimes they&#8217;ll take somebody&#8217;s firearms. And here&#8217;s the thing. It&#8217;s not even Second Amendment, but it is a Fifth Amendment due process issue. Can you take someone&#8217;s property without having an adjudication? So I think it&#8217;s different.&#8221;
When asked if he would support red flag laws if elected president, DeSantis responded: &#8220;No, I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;d be appropriate at all.&#8221;
&#8220;I think the mental health issue in our country, part of it is we do need more institutionalization, there are some people who are dangerous to society, a lot of them get put back on the streets, it will require more resources, but I think that that&#8217;s appropriate,&#8221; he said.
He said that the other part of fixing the issue was to hold violent criminals accountable by keeping them in prison for a very long time and not letting them back out on the streets.
&#8220;If you look at most of the crimes that are committed in this country, it&#8217;s people that have been in the justice system before and have gotten a slap on the wrist,&#8221; he said. &#8220;That&#8217;s happening all over this country, and we will hold people accountable.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
He noted that his state&#8217;s crime rate is at a 50-year low because his administration has enabled law enforcement to do their jobs.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Unlike Donald Trump, <a href="https://twitter.com/RonDeSantis?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RonDeSantis</a> will never support a red flag law as president.
“So it’s safe to say a President DeSantis would not sign any kind of national red flag law?”
DeSantis: “No” <a href="https://t.co/b8GM3J6eLw">pic.twitter.com/b8GM3J6eLw</a>
&mdash; DeSantis War Room 🐊 (@DeSantisWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/DeSantisWarRoom/status/1717718152992166150?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Ron DeSantis

DeSantis Pushes Back On Calls For Gun Control, Red Flag Laws: We ‘Need More Institutionalization’

DeSantis Pushes Back On Calls For Gun Control, Red Flag Laws: We 'Need More Institutionalization'

Crime

Gun Control

Maine

Politics

A federal judge overturned <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/california" target="_blank" rel="noopener">California&#8217;s</a> ban on so-called assault weapons on Thursday, saying the three-decade-old prohibition against semi-automatic firearms violates the constitutional right to bear arms.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego found that a handful of criminals cannot dictate the rules for millions of law-abiding American households who carry firearms like AR-15 rifles for self-defense.
&#8220;California&#8217;s answer to the criminal misuse of a few is to disarm its many good residents,&#8221; Benitez wrote in a <a href="https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znvnzqnrjvl/10192023california_assault.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">79-page ruling</a>. &#8220;That knee-jerk reaction is constitutionally untenable, just as it was 250 years ago. The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy.&#8221;
Benitez, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled in favor of several gun advocacy groups who challenged the Assault Weapons Control Act and other <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-faces-legal-challenges-after-imposing-dozens-of-gun-control-measures" target="_blank" rel="noopener">state laws</a> undermining the U.S. Constitution, which are some of the strictest in the nation.
John Dillon, an attorney for the plaintiffs who sued the state to overturn the law, praised the judge&#8217;s ruling as &#8220;constitutionally sound and addresses the many inadequacies of the State&#8217;s arguments and so-called justifications for this unconstitutional ban.&#8221;
&#8220;We will continue to fight for our Plaintiffs&#8217; Second Amendment rights through any appeal until the State is forced to start respecting these rights,&#8221; Dillon <a href="https://apnews.com/article/california-gun-laws-86d7a9e9ade7964fab464769f52a3f9c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a statement to The Associated Press.
California became the first U.S. state in 1989 to enact such a law after five children were killed in a school shooting.
Benitez reportedly struck down the law in 2021, calling California&#8217;s attempt to prohibit residents from purchasing certain firearms a &#8220;failed experiment,&#8221; and used his famous analogy by comparing the AR-15 to common knives. He reiterated that point again in the introduction of Thursday&#8217;s ruling.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;Like the Bowie Knife which was commonly carried by citizens and soldiers in the 1800s, &#8216;assault weapons&#8217; are dangerous, but useful,&#8221; Benitez wrote. &#8220;But unlike the Bowie Knife, the United States Supreme Court has said, &#8216;[t]here is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country.'&#8221;
The federal judge has repeatedly struck down other California laws pertaining to firearms, including last month when he ruled that the state could not ban magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.
But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed California to continue to enforce the law while the case was pending, and state officials appealed the ruling.
Benitez issued an injunction blocking his latest ruling with a 10-day hold so the state could file an appeal.
California Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a notice of appeal to overturn the district court decision, calling the judge&#8217;s decision &#8220;dangerous and misguided.&#8221;
&#8220;Weapons of war have no place on California&#8217;s streets,&#8221; Bonta <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-appeals-misguided-district-court-decision-assault-weapons" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a news release. &#8220;This has been state law in California for decades, and we will continue to fight for our authority to keep our citizens safe from firearms that cause mass casualties. In the meantime, assault weapons remain unlawful for purchase, transfer, or possession in California.&#8221;
The decision marks another victory for Constitutionalists after the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s monumental decision last year in New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc. vs. Bruen that deemed that longtime restrictions New York placed on carrying concealed firearms violate Americans&#8217; Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Benitez&#8217;s ruling came after the 9th Circuit of Appeals sent the case back to him in light of the Bruen decision.

US-WEAPONRY-ARMS-GUN SHOW

Federal Judge Overturns California’s Unconstitutional Ban On ‘Assault Weapons’ — Again

Federal Judge Overturns California's Unconstitutional Ban On 'Assault Weapons' — Again

California

Constitution

Pro-gun owner groups immediately served a lawsuit to California officials after Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom signed nearly two dozen anti-gun laws on Tuesday — which were designed to control concealed-carry rules and impose a new tax on firearm and ammunition sales.
“This is just the latest assault on our rights in California,&#8221; Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America (GOA), told The Daily Wire in an emailed statement. &#8220;Just as concerning, Governor Gavin Newsom has already made his anti-gun intentions quite clear: he wants to effectively repeal the Second Amendment. Sadly, his acknowledgment that doing so would be the only way to enact more gun control did not dissuade him from violating his oath when he signed this law into effect, but we are fully prepared to fight back.&#8221;
Pratt and the GOA teamed up with Gun Owners of California (GOC) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) to challenge one of the 23 laws signed by Newsom this week, which stem from Newsom&#8217;s effort to maintain his image as one of the nation&#8217;s gun control leaders.
The law — SB 2 — requires gun owners to undergo more training hours, increase costs associated with permits, and prohibit concealed carrying in areas deemed &#8220;sensitive places,&#8221; including all private commercial property unless expressly permitted by the owner. Other detailed provisions include requiring gun licensing authorities to conduct in-person interviews with applicants, review character references, and social media activity and other public statements to decide if the person poses a risk to public safety.
&#8220;While radical judges continue to strip away our ability to keep people safe, California will keep fighting — because gun safety laws work,&#8221; Newsom said in a <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/09/26/governor-newsom-strengthens-californias-nation-leading-gun-safety-laws/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news release</a>, which details the new laws and touts California&#8217;s gun death rate that <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2021 data</a> from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ranked as 43rd out of 50 states with 9 deaths for every 100,000 people.
But according to the gun activist groups, the measure is &#8220;unconstitutional&#8221; and they have stated they would explicitly go after the &#8220;sensitive places&#8221; provision of the law.
&#8220;SB 2 creates a patchwork quilt of locations where Second Amendment rights may and may not be exercised, thus making exercise of the right so impractical and legally risky in practice that ordinary citizens will be deterred from even attempting to exercise their rights in the first place,&#8221; the legal filing reads.
Sam Paredes, on behalf of the board for GOF and in his role as the executive director of Gun Owners of California, told The Daily Wire in an emailed statement, &#8220;Pro-gun groups in California have had success when pushing back on legislation like this – just look at our victory last week against the state&#8217;s magazine ban.&#8221;
&#8220;And just like in that case, we are confident SB 2 will be overturned,&#8221; Paredes added. &#8220;I&#8217;ve been warning governors and legislatures across the country since the Bruen decision that these &#8216;response bills&#8217; will not stand, but unfortunately, many have still been pushed through. That won&#8217;t stop us however – states should fall in line, or we will make them.&#8221;
The California Rifle and Pistol Association also filed a lawsuit to stop the law, which derived from the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-scotus-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions-restrictions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a> earlier this year in the case of New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen that deemed longtime restrictions New York placed on carrying concealed firearms violates Americans&#8217; Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
“These laws will not make us safer,&#8221; Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, told The Associated Press. &#8220;They are an unconstitutional retaliatory and vindictive response to the Supreme Court’s affirmation that the Second Amendment protects an individuals’ right to choose to own a firearm for sport or to defend your family. They are being challenged, and the second they are signed, the clock starts ticking towards a judgment striking them down.”
Most of the new gun laws Californians face stem from Newsom’s effort to maintain his image as one of the nation’s gun control leaders. However, SB 2 and another measure stood out among gun owner groups.
Gun and ammunition sales taxes imposed by the federal government already take 10% or 11%, depending on the type of gun. But under California&#8217;s AB 28 law, the state adds another 11% tax on firearms and ammunition sold by manufacturers and dealers to generate $160 million annually to fund school safety and prevention programs.
The California Rifle &amp; Pistol Assn. <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-09-26/gavin-newsom-gun-control-bills-signed-taxes-ammunition-concealed-carry-bruen-supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> wrote in opposition to AB 28, saying the law would &#8220;unjustifiably place the entire burden of funding efforts to address illegal gun violence on the backs of law-abiding citizens who legally purchase and lawfully use firearms and ammunition.&#8221;
Other opponents of the measure reportedly argued it would dissuade low-income communities from hunting and shooting sports as it would become unaffordable for lawful gun owners to bear the tax burden.
Newsom reportedly acknowledged the new measures would likely fail legal challenges already filed against the state.
&#8220;It may mean nothing if the federal courts are throwing them out,&#8221; Newsom said, according to The Associated Press. &#8220;We feel very strongly that these bills meet the (new standard), and they were drafted accordingly. But I&#8217;m not naive about the recklessness of the federal courts and the ideological agenda.&#8221;

California Gov. Newsom Highlights New State Efforts To Stem Gun Violence

California Faces Legal Challenges After Imposing Dozens Of Gun Control Measures

Gavin Newsom

A <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/california" target="_blank" rel="noopener">California</a> law banning possession and sale of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds was blocked by a federal judge who said the law was unconstitutional in a decision released on Friday.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Roger Benitez wrote in a <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.533515/gov.uscourts.casd.533515.149.0_1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">71-page ruling</a> that law-abiding citizens had constitutional rights to own magazines of greater than 10 rounds, and that there was no historic legal precedent giving California the right to pass such a law.
“Removable firearm magazines of all sizes are necessary components of semiautomatic firearms. Therefore, magazines come within the text of the constitutional declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” Benitez wrote. “Because millions of removable firearm magazines able to hold between 10 and 30 rounds are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and because they are reasonably related to service in the militia, the magazines are presumptively within the protection of the Second Amendment.”
The judge said that California did not justify “its sweeping ban and dispossession mandate,” which was first passed via ballot initiative back in 2016.
“One government solution to a few mad men with guns is a law that makes into criminals responsible, law-abiding people wanting larger magazines simply to protect themselves. The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen,” he wrote.
“The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still,” the judge added.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-66706">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
California Governor Gavin Newsom <a href="https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1705383651159298416" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decried</a> the ruling, referring to Benitez as a “right-wing zealot with no regard to human life.”
“Wake up, America. Our gun safety laws will continue to be thrown out by NRA-owned federal judges until we pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect our kids and end the gun violence epidemic in America,” Newsom posted to X.
Benitez’s order won’t take effect for 10 days as California Attorney General Rob Bonta moves to get a stay on the ruling.

California Law Capping Magazine Capacity Struck Down By Federal Judge

President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joe Biden</a> is reportedly creating the first-ever federal office of gun violence prevention, a step pushed by gun control activists.
Biden is set to make the announcement on Friday, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/19/biden-creates-gun-violence-prevention-office/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Washington Post</a>. The president plans to leverage the new office, which will employ gun control activists in key roles, against Congress to push legislation on restricting firearms.
White House staff secretary Stefanie Feldman, a longtime Biden aide who has specialized in gun control research and legislation, will oversee the office’s work and be its liaison to the White House, the report said. Two senior members of gun control groups – the Community Justice Action Fund’s executive director, Greg Jackson, and Everytown for Gun Safety’s senior director for federal government affairs, Rob Wilcox – are expected to hold positions in the office, according to the Post.
Gun control groups are championing the report ahead of the office’s expected reveal in the White House Rose Garden on Friday afternoon.
“A White House office of gun violence prevention would build on the already tremendous record of President Biden and Vice President Harris on gun safety,” Peter Ambler, the executive director of a gun control group called Giffords, told <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/19/biden-office-gun-violence-prevention-00116966" target="_blank" rel="noopener">POLITICO</a>. “This has been a top priority of ours for years, and it would provide an important center of gravity for leadership across the administration as the President and Vice President implement the historic Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and continue to push Congress to pass legislation to save lives. The hiring of Greg and Rob would show how seriously this administration takes its responsibility to address this crisis.”
Biden’s push for gun restrictions, such as a crackdown on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines, has so far failed to gain enough traction to pass through Congress. The issue was a prominent agenda item in his presidential campaign at a time when he aligned himself with former U.S. representative and failed Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Biden has also called for reforms that would mandate background checks across all gun purchases and strip immunity from gun manufacturers that “knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.” In February, he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/02/14/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-five-years-since-parkland/#:~:text=I%20once%20again%20call%20on,of%20war%20on%20our%20streets." target="_blank" rel="noopener">pitched</a> the proposals as “commonsense gun law reforms.”
Despite his failure to move the reforms through Congress, the president’s administration has taken steps to crack down on gun sellers by reinterpreting federal statutes governing Federal Firearms Licenses.
Critics have panned the Biden administration’s stance toward gun sellers.
“This latest action by the Biden administration is yet another step in their campaign to attack law-abiding gun owners,” NRA Institute for Legislative Action executive director Randy Kozuch told <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nra-biden-admins-proposal-firearms-background-checks-attack-law-abiding-gun-owners" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fox News</a> in September. “The Bipartisan ‘Safer Communities’ Act’s passage is now a pretext to require government permission before exercising a constitutional right.”
“It’s a stark reminder to legislators: give gun controllers any legislative tool, no matter how benign, and they’ll use it to shred the Second Amendment,” he said. “The Biden Administration will clearly use all the tools at their disposal to interfere with our freedoms while doing nothing to stop the violent criminals responsible for America’s recent crime surge.”

Joe Biden

Biden To Announce Office Of Gun Violence Prevention Staffed By Gun Control Activists: Report

Executive

Gun Violence

New Mexico’s Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham replaced a provision in her controversial gun order — banning firearms in the state’s capital city and surrounding areas — changing it so that the order was limited to temporarily suspending guns at parks and playgrounds.
“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 in a <a href="https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2023/09/15/gov-lujan-grisham-updates-public-health-order-focused-on-combating-gun-violence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news release</a> on Friday. “I will not accept the status quo – enough is enough.”
Grisham signed an executive order in early September declaring that gun violence was a public health emergency in the Democrat-controlled state, banning citizens from carrying firearms in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County for at least the next 30 days after a kid was killed during a road rage incident amid a spate of violent crime in the city.
Grisham said the updated order clarifies that the limitation of the open and concealed carrying of guns would not apply to parklands managed by the Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department or State Land Office. She also directed several state departments to help the Bernalillo County Metro Detention Center “ensure adequate staffing, space, and screening for arrested and incarcerated individuals.”
Within days of Grisham announcing the order, the governor faced national criticism, multiple lawsuits, and lost support from New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-ag-rebuffs-nm-governor-refuses-to-defend-gun-carry-ban-in-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> he would not defend her administration in court.
“Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico’s chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence,” Torrez wrote, in part, in a letter. “Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster.”
By the following week, a federal judge <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-federal-judge-halts-new-mexico-governors-suspension-of-gun-carry-laws" target="_blank" rel="noopener">granted</a> a temporary restraining order on Lujan Grisham’s suspension of gun carry laws.
U.S. District Court Judge David Urias, whom President Joe Biden appointed, said the order directly conflicts with the Second Amendment and only applies to Section 1 and Section 4 of the public health order.
Section 1 said, “No person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm … either openly or concealed, within cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021,” according to official government statistics.
Section 4 stated, “No person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm on state property, public schools, and public parks.”
“They just want the right to carry their guns,” Urias said of the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit against Grisham’s Sept. 8 emergency public health order.
State Sen. Greg Baca, the Senate Republican leader, reportedly applauded in a statement Judge Urias’ ruling, calling Grisham’s order “unconstitutional.”
“The governor’s malfeasance and utter disregard for the Constitution is alarming,” Baca <a href="https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/federal-judge-rules-against-gov-lujan-grishams-order-banning-guns-in-public/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>, according to local media. “By her own admission, she believes there are virtually no limits to the exercise of executive power. The Constitution says otherwise, and today, the court took action to remedy her blatant abuse of power against the citizens of New Mexico.”
Grisham <a href="https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/top-state-republican-senator-speaks-on-governors-updated-public-health-order/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> criticized New Mexico Republicans, claiming they have not offered solutions “addressing public safety” in the Southwest state.
However, Baca countered her response, reportedly saying that lawmakers brought forward several solutions during the last legislative session last year that supported denial of bail and increasing sentencing for repeat offenders as some solutions. But the bills never made it past the Roundhouse building.
“The focus has been, now, on guns,” Sen. Baca said, according to local media. “We need to be focusing on the individual who murdered this child. Where is the outcry to find this child’s killer? I have not heard that from the executive branch.”
Ryan Saavedra contributed to this report.

Michelle Lujan Grisham

New Mexico Governor Updates Controversial Gun Order To Albuquerque Parks, Playgrounds

New Mexico

A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order on Wednesday against <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/new-mexico" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Mexico</a> Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham&#8217;s suspension of gun carry laws in Albuquerque and the surrounding area.
The order from U.S. District Court Judge David Urias, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, only applies to Section 1 and Section 4 of the public health order, according to <a href="https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/federal-judge-rules-against-gov-lujan-grishams-order-banning-guns-in-public/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">local media</a>.
“They just want the right to carry their guns,” Urias said of the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit against Grisham&#8217;s Sept. 8 emergency public health order.
Section 1 said, &#8220;No person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm &#8230; either openly or concealed, within cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021&#8221; according to official government statistics.
Section 4 stated, &#8220;No person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm on state property, public schools, and public parks.&#8221;
New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, a Democrat, said this week that he would not defend Lujan Grisham’s controversial gun order in court.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;I am writing to inform you that my office will not defend your administration in the above referenced cases challenging [your order],&#8221; Torrez wrote told Grisham in a letter. &#8220;Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico’s chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence.&#8221;
&#8220;Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster,&#8221; he added. &#8220;I encourage you to engage in a more thoughtful and deliberative process with members of the New Mexico Legislature rather than taking unilateral action that infringes on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens while having little if any discernible impact on the underlying dynamics driving gun violence in our community.&#8221;
This is a breaking news story; refresh the page for updates.

Biden Federal Judge Halts New Mexico Governor’s Suspension Of Gun Carry Laws

Biden Federal Judge Halts New Mexico Governor's Suspension Of Gun Carry Laws

In New Mexico, the Democratic governor apparently thinks the Constitution doesn’t apply to her.
“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 <a href="https://apnews.com/article/albuquerque-guns-governor-concealed-carry-fc5b4b79bf411b8022c3ad58975724d7" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Associated Press</a> reported. “The Democratic governor said she expects legal challenges but she was compelled to act because of recent shootings, including the death of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium this week. Lujan Grisham said state police would be responsible for enforcing what amount to civil violations.”
The New Mexico governor claims that emergency powers give her the ability to simply suspend constitutional law. But the Albuquerque police chief is already saying he won’t enforce her order because it’s unconstitutional: “No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute,” Grisham stated. “There are restrictions on free speech. There are restrictions on my freedoms. In this emergency, this 11-year-old, and all these parents who have lost all these children, they deserve my attention to have the debate about whether or not in an emergency, we can create a safer environment. Because what about their constitutional rights?”
When people speak of political fascism, this is it. When a member of the government simply declares via emergency order that they can willy-nilly violate full-scale constitutional rights based on no actual emergency — we are not talking about a tornado hitting the state or some sort of giant earthquake — that’s fascism. She is basically saying, “I don’t like that people got shot. Therefore, I’m banning you from exercising your constitutional rights.”
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
You could do this for anything. Someone could say, “Listen, we have a national epidemic of hate.” (You’ve seen this in places like Chicago, where the former mayor, Lori Lightfoot, tried to declare that racism was a public health emergency.) You could see somebody like this idiot governor saying, “Racism and hate are public health emergencies, and I’m declaring an emergency. Therefore, you are not allowed to say the following words in my state,” and then just list them. That would be a significant First Amendment violation.
She could go even further. She could say, “You’re not allowed to use the internet because the internet obviously has facilitated so much violence. I’ve decided in my state, you’re not allowed to use it — not on the basis of any sort of elected legislative session, but on the basis of my own judgment that an emergency has now been constituted because I don’t like what is happening.” If all of your rights are simply dependent on one lady deciding she really doesn’t like what is happening in the world, that is tyranny. That is the essence of tyranny.
It’s amazing she would try this, but it was always going to happen. The minute we shut down everything in the world for COVID, and then maintained that for two years, even as the data emerged that it actually wasn’t the sort of national emergency that was being suggested, it was only a matter of time before Democratic officials tried to do something like this.
If this is the new way the Democrats make law, then they could do it on the basis of anything.
And that’s a pretty terrifying prospect.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

Ben Shapiro Editorial Series 01 copy1

The Democratic Governor Of New Mexico Has A Taste For Fascism

Ben Shapiro

Fascism

governor

Gun Laws

Opinion

Readers Pass

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/new-mexico" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Mexico</a> Attorney General Raul Torrez will not defend Governor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/michelle-lujan-grisham" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michelle Lujan Grisham</a>’s controversial gun order, which is facing multiple lawsuits, in court.
Torrez told the governor in a letter Tuesday that he believed the emergency order, which temporarily bans people from carrying firearms in public spaces across Bernalillo County, violated the state and federal constitutions. Because of that, he said his office would not defend the governor against several legal challenges.
“I am writing to inform you that my office will not defend your administration in the above referenced cases challenging” Lujan Grisham’s order, Torrez wrote.
“Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico’s chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence,” his letter continued. “Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster.”
Lujan Grisham <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/12/us/new-mexico-governor-gun-ban-albuquerque-explainer/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">signed</a> an executive order on Friday that banned open and concealed carrying firearms in Albuquerque and the rest of the surrounding county. The governor enacted the order &#8212; to remain in place for 30 days &#8212; after a spate of shootings that killed several children.
“The tragic deaths of 5-year-old Galilea Samaniego in a recent drive-by shooting and 11-year-old Froylan Villegas in a road rage incident should serve as a wakeup call to everyone,” Torrez wrote. “I encourage you to engage in a more thoughtful and deliberative process with members of the New Mexico Legislature rather than taking unilateral action that infringes on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens while having little if any discernible impact on the underlying dynamics driving gun violence in our community.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
BREAKING: New Mexico Attorney General tells the Governor that he won&#39;t defend her carry ban, saying &quot;I do not believe it passes constitutional muster.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/ORat27wAvn">pic.twitter.com/ORat27wAvn</a>
&mdash; Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) <a href="https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1701671575165050927?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 12, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Torrez, a Democrat, joins a handful of other officials in refusing to enforce or defend the order. Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller, also a Democrat, said in a statement to social media that the city’s police force would not be responsible for enforcing the governor’s order. Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen announced on Monday that he would not enforce the order either, calling it unconstitutional.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Lujan Grisham responded to Allen in a statement to the <a href="https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2023/09/12/ag-says-he-wont-defend-lujan-grisham-administration-in-gun-order-lawsuits/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NM Political Report</a>, saying that her administration had “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.”
Lujan Grisham <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/its-not-for-the-police-to-tell-me-whats-constitutional-nm-gov-defiantly-defends-suspending-gun-rights" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in an interview on CNN: “It’s not for police to tell me what’s constitutional or not. They haven’t supported one, not one gun violence effort in the State of New Mexico including domestic violence protections, universal background checks.”
The New Mexico governor has also taken criticism from prominent national progressives over her gun order, such as California Rep. Ted Lieu and gun control activist David Hogg. Each said that the governor’s order violated the U.S. Constitution.

Democrat AG Rebuffs NM Governor, Refuses To Defend Gun Carry Ban In Court

General

Vice President Harris Holds Reproductive Roundtable Discussion

Tyrannical Leftist Woman Tries To Abolish The Second Amendment

Leftists

Matt Walsh

New Mexico Democrat Governor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/michelle-lujan-grisham" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michelle Lujan Grisham</a> banned people from being able to carry guns in Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least the next 30 days after a kid was killed during a road rage incident.
Grisham signed an executive order on Thursday declaring that gun violence was a public health emergency in the Democrat-controlled state.
On Friday, Grisham unilaterally suspended open and concealed carry laws in Albuquerque and the surrounding area. She said that she could further lengthen or renew her order — which was immediately slammed by many as being unconstitutional.
Grisham effectively admitted that her order might be unconstitutional when she conceded that she might not win legal challenges filed against the order.
&#8220;Now I am sure as I go through the rest of this, there will be a lot of questions about whether or not we think we have the legal right to do that. I am sure that before you write this, there will be a legal challenge,&#8221; she said. &#8220;And I can&#8217;t tell you that we win it given all of the different challenges to gun violence laws and restrictions on individual firearm access and control.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
WATCH: New Mexico’s Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham admits she is violating the constitution by suspending the right to carry a gun: 
&quot;There will be a legal challenge and I can&#39;t tell you that we win it&quot;
Her actions are utterly disgraceful. <a href="https://t.co/clLnW3uX5Q">pic.twitter.com/clLnW3uX5Q</a>
&mdash; Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1700617778934276214?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
She was later challenged directly over whether her decision to unilaterally override laws was unconstitutional.
Grisham responded that her decision to declare an emergency gives her &#8220;additional powers.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute,&#8221; she said. &#8220;There are restrictions on free speech, there are restrictions on my freedoms.&#8221;
Grisham then spoke about the 11-year-old who was killed this week and others who have been killed in shootings.
&#8220;But wait a minute, you&#8217;re talking about crimes,&#8221; the reporter pushed back. &#8220;There are already laws against the crime. So how are their rights [inaudible] &#8211;?&#8221;
&#8220;But again, if I&#8217;m unsafe, who&#8217;s standing up for that right?&#8221; Grisham responded. &#8220;If this climate is so out of control, somebody should do something. I&#8217;m doing as much as I know to do.&#8221;
She was asked by a different reporter: &#8220;Do you really think that criminals are going to hear this message and not carry a gun in Albuquerque on the streets for 30 days?&#8221;
&#8220;Uhhh, no,&#8221; she answered.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
WATCH: New Mexico’s Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham shreds the Constitution while trying to strip her constituents ability to carry firearms. 
 <a href="https://t.co/UghVrZb6A2">pic.twitter.com/UghVrZb6A2</a>
&mdash; Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1700629453628436682?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

New Mexico Governor Suspends People’s Right To Carry Guns In Albuquerque

New Mexico Governor Suspends People's Right To Carry Guns In Albuquerque

Menu

Streaming Now