Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States
The sitting governor of the State of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, appears not to be familiar with the U.S. Constitution, though she did serve three terms as a representative in the U.S. House, for all that may have been worth. I say this because she has issued a thirty-day ban on the carrying of firearms, openly or concealed, in the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County as an emergency public health order to address a rise in gun violence in those areas. The respective heads of law enforcement in those jurisdictions have indicated that they either have misgivings about this order or will not enforce it, though Chief of Police Harold Medina’s public statement to his officers only passed blame to the state police. In a tweet explaining her action, Governor Lujan Grisham stated that “When we're afraid to be in crowds, to take our kids to school – when our very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn – something is wrong. I’m not going to stop fighting for public safety until everyone is safe. Period.”
Out of curiosity, I looked up what security arrangements are provided to the chief executive in New Mexico. According to the department’s Strategic Plan 2021 – 2025, “The Governor Security Bureau is commanded by a Captain and numerous agents. The unit provides around the clock protection for the Governor and his family at the Capital, the Governors Mansion, and while traveling both in and out of state.” The department has regulations regarding the weapons to be used by officers, with the issued handgun currently being a Smith & Wesson M&P in 9mm Parabellum, along with approved long guns for personnel on duty. Off duty officers who have passed their tests and are also carrying identification are required to have a stock concealed handgun in calibers between .38 and .45 inclusive.
There has been no statement from the governor or the state police to the effect that her security detail will be unarmed while traveling in Albuquerque or Bernalillo County.
The governor’s order comes most immediately following the killing of an eleven-year-old boy in a road-rage incident, but the number of homicides in Albuquerque in this year to date is seventy-six, a total that will perhaps come in lower by the end of the year than its recent high in 2022. The fact that when a motive for a killing is known, it turns out to be, according to the Albuquerque Police Department, “individual disrespect,” “drug-related,” or “domestic violence” ought to suggest something to the governor, though more about that in a bit.
First, let me observe that this particular “public health” measure is not the same as restrictions imposed during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Gathering in groups by the nature of the activity increases the spread of viruses, and when a lethal example is racing through the population when no effective means of stopping it are yet available, asking people to limit contact with each other is a reasonable emergency measure—though it is worth noting that during the period of these restrictions, the governor’s mansion used a contingency fund to purchase Wagyu beef, tuna steaks, tequila, and a variety of other luxury items for an unknown number of visitors to the complex either for staff meetings or in anticipation of the lockdowns being lifted. Is it too early to say, “rules for thee, but not for me”? Twice?
Regardless, this latest measure is not the same for the simple reason that while viruses are going to spread through ordinary human contact, bullets only fly when a human being makes them do so or when there is a mechanical failure—the latter case being exceptionally rare. The governor’s ham-handed order treats guns as the equivalent of microorganisms, removing all moral agency from the humans who possess those firearms.
The simple fact is that people with carry licenses—who are also subject to this order—are not the ones committing the homicides that the governor claims to care about. Disarming them will not reduce the rate of killings. And is it really necessary to explain that the people who are committing the crimes are not by and large carrying firearms legally and will not be likely to follow the order?
If the governor wants to reduce the number of shooting deaths or homicides generally, there are solutions that do not involve a sweeping rejection of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has made the supremacy of said document clear in matters like this with the McDonald decision that incorporated the Second Amendment against the states and explained in Bruen that carry outside the home is one of the rights protected in that amendment. A lawsuit has already been filed to challenge the governor’s order, and two state representatives have called for her to be impeached, showing that her rash act is likely to result only in a windfall for lawyers.
I expect a quick tossing out of the governor’s order. The one good result here may be that more people will become aware of just how far gun control advocates are willing to go and how much opposition they face.
There is one odd outcome. David Hogg, founder of March For Our Lives, stated the following on his Twitter account: “I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”
I never anticipated agreeing with him on anything related to guns. Is it time to check land prices in Htrae?