Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Lujan Grisham's Illegal Gun Order Gets Wrecked by Judge, Injunction Now in Place
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Jack Carlson
Sep 13, 2023, 7:38:14 PM9/13/23
to
On 13 Sep 2023, "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> posted some
news:udtfat$2ambq$2...@dont-email.me:
> NEW: Lujan Grisham's Illegal Gun Order Gets Wrecked by Judge,
> Injunction Now in Place
>
> Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham just lost the first major battle over her
> illegal suspension of gun rights in New Mexico.
> A judge put a temporary injunction in place after arguments concluded
> in the courtroom, finding that the order to suspend open and concealed
> carry rights in "high crime" areas was likely unconstitutional.
>
> ??BREAKING??
>
> In a HUGE WIN thanks to NAGR's lawsuit, a New Mexico Judge has
> issued a
> TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER on the Governor's executive order banning
> the public carrying of firearms in Albuquerque and the surrounding
> county.
>
> Join the fight here: https://t.co/9vF5enc960
> pic.twitter.com/c8bfol9UOf
>
>
> - National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) September 13,
> 2023
> The injunction will stay in place for 14 days, during which both sides
> will be allowed to make motions. After that, a decision on whether to
> extend the injunction or make a ruling will be made. For now, New
> Mexican gun rights are secured.
>
> According to reports, the governor's lawyer started to get noticeably
> animated in the courtroom at one point and likely didn't help Lujan
> Grisham's case.
>
> The governor's lawyer is starting to raise her voice, saying the
> governor
> thinks the Second Amendment doesn't trump people's "right to walk down
> the street." Says the judge should wait 30 days to see if the order
> reduces crime.
>
> - Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 13, 2023
> The idea that law-abiding gun owners who are following state laws on
> open and concealed carry are a threat to people walking down the
> street is nonsense. It's the kind of ridiculous false dichotomy that
> the left always tries to push in regard to guns. Regardless, it is
> flatly untrue to state that the Second Amendment is somehow
> subservient to public safety concerns. That's not how the Constitution
> works. Governments, federal or state, can't simply decide that an
> enumerated right poses a threat and suspend it.
>
> That the governor's legal team would even try to make that argument
> shows how little thought was put into the illegal order. It's becoming
> more and more obvious that Lujan Grisham acted on impulse and ended up
> in a corner she doesn't know how to escape. You could tell by her
> initial press conference and subsequent social media posts that she
> simply has no idea how to actually defend what she has done, not
> legally or morally.
>
> I don't have a crystal ball, but it looks like Lujan Grisham destroyed
> her political career for a cheap stunt. It's going to be exceptionally
> tough for her to run for the U.S. Senate or the presidency with this
> now on her resume. Even Democrats have abandoned her, and voters will
> never be able to trust her judgment again.
>
> If the outcome is indeed that Lujan Grisham has spent her last term in
> office as an elected official, that will be a punishment more than
> earned. A politician who is willing to sign an illegal order that
> suspends enumerated rights is willing to do just about anything, and
> that's a scary proposition. Run, don't walk, to keep people like that
> out of public office.
>
> https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/09/13/new-lujan-grishams-illegal-gun-
> order-gets-wrecked-by-judge-injunction-now-in-place-n2163787
A politician who knowingly signs illegal orders should be tarred,
feathered and immediately permanently removed from office.
news:udtfat$2ambq$2...@dont-email.me:
> NEW: Lujan Grisham's Illegal Gun Order Gets Wrecked by Judge,
> Injunction Now in Place
>
> Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham just lost the first major battle over her
> illegal suspension of gun rights in New Mexico.
> A judge put a temporary injunction in place after arguments concluded
> in the courtroom, finding that the order to suspend open and concealed
> carry rights in "high crime" areas was likely unconstitutional.
>
> ??BREAKING??
>
> In a HUGE WIN thanks to NAGR's lawsuit, a New Mexico Judge has
> issued a
> TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER on the Governor's executive order banning
> the public carrying of firearms in Albuquerque and the surrounding
> county.
>
> Join the fight here: https://t.co/9vF5enc960
> pic.twitter.com/c8bfol9UOf
>
>
> - National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) September 13,
> 2023
> The injunction will stay in place for 14 days, during which both sides
> will be allowed to make motions. After that, a decision on whether to
> extend the injunction or make a ruling will be made. For now, New
> Mexican gun rights are secured.
>
> According to reports, the governor's lawyer started to get noticeably
> animated in the courtroom at one point and likely didn't help Lujan
> Grisham's case.
>
> The governor's lawyer is starting to raise her voice, saying the
> governor
> thinks the Second Amendment doesn't trump people's "right to walk down
> the street." Says the judge should wait 30 days to see if the order
> reduces crime.
>
> - Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 13, 2023
> The idea that law-abiding gun owners who are following state laws on
> open and concealed carry are a threat to people walking down the
> street is nonsense. It's the kind of ridiculous false dichotomy that
> the left always tries to push in regard to guns. Regardless, it is
> flatly untrue to state that the Second Amendment is somehow
> subservient to public safety concerns. That's not how the Constitution
> works. Governments, federal or state, can't simply decide that an
> enumerated right poses a threat and suspend it.
>
> That the governor's legal team would even try to make that argument
> shows how little thought was put into the illegal order. It's becoming
> more and more obvious that Lujan Grisham acted on impulse and ended up
> in a corner she doesn't know how to escape. You could tell by her
> initial press conference and subsequent social media posts that she
> simply has no idea how to actually defend what she has done, not
> legally or morally.
>
> I don't have a crystal ball, but it looks like Lujan Grisham destroyed
> her political career for a cheap stunt. It's going to be exceptionally
> tough for her to run for the U.S. Senate or the presidency with this
> now on her resume. Even Democrats have abandoned her, and voters will
> never be able to trust her judgment again.
>
> If the outcome is indeed that Lujan Grisham has spent her last term in
> office as an elected official, that will be a punishment more than
> earned. A politician who is willing to sign an illegal order that
> suspends enumerated rights is willing to do just about anything, and
> that's a scary proposition. Run, don't walk, to keep people like that
> out of public office.
>
> https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/09/13/new-lujan-grishams-illegal-gun-
> order-gets-wrecked-by-judge-injunction-now-in-place-n2163787
A politician who knowingly signs illegal orders should be tarred,
feathered and immediately permanently removed from office.
Siri Cruise
Sep 13, 2023, 8:58:49 PM9/13/23
to
Jack Carlson wrote:
> A politician who knowingly signs illegal orders should be tarred,
> feathered and immediately permanently removed from office.
Nobody knows if it is illegal. It was enjoined because a judge
> A politician who knowingly signs illegal orders should be tarred,
> feathered and immediately permanently removed from office.
thought it might be. It's still to be decided.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.O / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
Scout
Sep 14, 2023, 9:22:05 AM9/14/23
to
"Jack Carlson" <jc...@toins.ca> wrote in message
news:udth55$187n2$1...@news.mixmin.net...
Which according to cases adjudicated by SCOTUS:
Can be brought against any state, county or city official, officer, or
employee
That such individuals have NO immunity from such a suit
That if successful the individual(s) sued are PERSONALLY liable for payment
of any awards granted.
In short, you are suing the person, not their office, position or job, and
thus have no immunity or protection from either the suit or the consequences
of such a suit.
While I'm not aware of any specific ruling by SCOTUS on this matter it would
be consistent that they couldn't use government resources or personal in
their defense.
0 new messages