L&T Publisher Earl Watt
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham may have done something that no other American has been able to do — she united Republicans and Democrats, but probably not the way she intended.
A tragic shooting took place near Albuquerque in a road rage incident that left an 11-year-old boy dead and the killer has yet to be found.
In response to the tragedy, Grisham declared a health emergency and banned conceal and open carry in Bernalillo County where Albuquerque is located.
Grisham, a Democrat, was met with resistance from Republicans. She expected that. But what she may not have expected was Democratic Sheriff John Allen refusing to enforce her gun ban because he considered her actions “unconstitutional.”
Joining the sheriff in opposition Grisham’s order were the mayor of Albuquerque and the district attorney — all Democrats.
Not only that, but even the ACLU has denounced the move as had the NRA. When was the last time those two organizations were on the same side?
In a rare rejection of a far-left attempt at government overreach, even Democrats have condemned Grisham’s move as she claims she is fighting for public safety.
In her justification for stripping law-abiding citizens from the right to protect themselves, Grisham stated that the right to have a gun was just a suggestion.
When asked by a reporter about violating her oath of office and the Second Amendment of the Constitution, Grisham responded, “No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.”
For that alone, she has disqualified herself from serving as the governor of New Mexico.
Perhaps Grisham missed the class that discussed how rights in America were not only absolute but inalienable. Simply put, you can pry my Constitutional rights from my cold dead hands.
Grisham is staking her political life on the premise that she is committed to public safety at all costs, including shredding the Constitution.
If her position were true, the Second Amendment wouldn’t exist. The entire purpose behind it was to make sure no government could ever disarm the population, like she just attempted to do in New Mexico.
Her misguided claim is that “absolute” rights do not exist since there are some restrictions on gun ownership or on the freedom of speech.
But those minor restrictions do not open a pathway for gun bans, confiscations or silencing all criticism about the government.
It’s clear to see where she got this twisted view of America. The federal government, as well as state governments, used a pandemic to strip people of their rights to their own health care choices, the ability to go to work and to school, and are still considering another mandated new variant of the vaccine.
In an effort to silence any criticism of this overreach, the government colluded with Big Tech to remove and ban views that disagreed with those positions, all in the name of public safety.
Now, the Second Amendment is at stake by another overzealous leader who believes she can unilaterally strike down laws that allow open and conceal carry.
In another lunatic remark, Grisham justified her actions by saying to gun control activist Tedd Lieu, “Hey Ted, conceal and open carry are state laws that I have jurisdiction over.” Those laws protect citizens to have their Second Amendment right. They can’t be enhanced or extended by a governor’s whim. That’s why we have laws in the first place.
In her zeal for public safety, she has lost all perspective on individual liberty. In her view, we should each be incarcerated at dusk to insure no crimes are committed. And if certain political speech is deemed dangerous “in her view,” why not lock them up, too?
Public safety is a rallying cry used by communists and socialists for decades. In the name of safety, you can do anything, or at least that is what Grisham believes.
Some Republicans in the New Mexico House are drafting articles of impeachment, and it is completely justified.
No governor can usurp dictatorial control by declaring a health emergency for violence as a ruse to remove guns from law-abiding citizens.
When asked if criminals would follow her mandate, she admitted the truth — “No.”
This isn’t about safety. It’s about control.