The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico’s Judge Kea W. Griggs denied an emergency motion filed by defendants, including far-left, gun-grabbing New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, to stay a preliminary injunction. This injunction had previously halted a public health order issued by the New Mexico Department of Health, which temporarily banned firearms in public parks in Bernalillo County and Albuquerque.
The court’s decision is a significant setback for Gov. Lujan Grisham’s administration, which had sought to implement these firearm restrictions as part of a broader public health emergency declaration due to gun violence. Critics argue that this move by the governor and her administration is an overreach of executive power, questioning the effectiveness and legality of such firearm restrictions.
The court’s order underscores a failure on the part of the governor’s team to provide sufficient historical evidence justifying the firearms ban in public parks. The ruling cites the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, which establishes a standard for evaluating Second Amendment cases based on historical tradition. The court found that the defendants, including the governor’s office, did not meet the burden of showing a historical tradition of banning firearms in public parks.
The Court wrote that the “[d]efendants’ arguments are contradictory. They cite … three shootings [that] occurred in Albuquerque parks before the public health order’s ban on firearms in Albuquerque parks, as proof that a ban is necessary. However, those shootings occurred during what Defendants allege was a separate firearm ban imposed by the City of Albuquerque.”
It further added that the defendants “assert or imply that by referencing the months of September and October in his declaration, Plaintiff was asserting he only attends parks in September and October, and no other time. The Court disagrees.”
This decision raises serious questions about the governor’s approach to public safety and constitutional rights. The insistence on pursuing a public health order that restricts Second Amendment rights without adequate historical justification reveals a grievous disconnect with legal precedents and historical standards.
The rejection of the governor’s motion also reflects on the broader issue of balancing public safety with constitutional rights. While the intention to address gun violence is commendable, the method of implementing such policies must align with constitutional standards and historical precedence.
Furthermore, the ruling also vacated the temporary stay of the preliminary injunction pending briefing on this motion, thereby allowing the earlier court decision to enjoin the firearms ban in public parks to stand. This outcome is a clear indication that executive actions, particularly those impacting constitutional rights, must be carefully scrutinized and justified within the established legal framework.