New Mexico governor suspends right to carry ("emergency" order)

And you also Sir…………………



Well fortunately the 9th circuit shot it down. However I believe in the contract for the insurance, it does not cover testing of law.


I wonder if other states can temporarily freeze our rights to bear arms in certain emergencies. I agree that in emergencies, that’s when we are most vulnerable and in higher need to self defend. It does not make common sense to me to suspend our rights.

When Covid-19 pandemic was at its highest peaks, a lot of folks didn’t know what to expect, but I don’t remember if any states issued a temporary hold on conceal carry. Although the economic slowdown influenced delays in new issued permits.

I don’t know if when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, if in the Gulf area, there were any restrictions - but I remember hearing bout an uptake in violence during the disaster.

I had heard of officers being troubled by too strict of firearm laws, and voicing their concerns. That takes a lot of guts, as their jobs could be on the line. I imagine many of them know who are responsible firearm owners Vs. criminal element who might have a firearm not linked to any background, and thus they may respect the legal owners.

How can we thank/support them and those who support us?


We shall see, won’t we. There are 3 Chinese curses applicable: (1) May you live in interesting times; (2) May you come to the attention of higher authorities; and, (3) May ALL of your dreams come true.

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms was intended by the founders to preserve the ability of the governed to resist a tyrannical government. It’s not about fighting crime or self-protection from street thugs. It’s intended to balance the coercive power of government against the power of the governed.

When and under what circumstances do the governed oppose a tyrannical government? I don’t know, but may you live in interesting times.


NM Governor: We’re experiencing an surge in violent gun crime. So the obvious answer is to subdue the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves.


And now she’s stating the open drug use in GFZ’s are the problems that law enforcement needs to stop immediately.
Her and Fetterman should collaborate


A worthwhile read, providing a little more color on the topic.


“No one right now in New Mexico, and particularly in Albuquerque, is safe at a movie theater, at a park, at a school, at a grocery store, at an Isotopes game, at the university,” Lujan Grisham said. “You just aren’t safe. I can’t guarantee it, and neither can the men and the women who put on a uniform every day.”

And what do the majority of those locations prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying? Hum. :thinking:


“Her and Fetterman should collaborate”

Whistling, “If they only had a brain!”

The problem is this…SLAP! No it’s THIS! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

These people need a Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch thrown @ them…

1 Like


40 States and the Federal Government prohibit the Seizure of Guns During Emergencies (

40 States and the Federal Government prohibit the Seizure of Guns During Emergencies

Feb 23, 2021 | Featured, Gun Control Laws

CPRC original research Gun Control Laws Laws prohibiting the seizure of guns during emergencies


I believe several States tried to close down firearm shops at various points during the height of the Covid situation. Some States stopped issuing permits to carry.

After Hurricane Katrina local LEOs and the National Guard went door to door to confiscate firearms from licensed and registered firearm owners. This was happening while half the LEOs had abandoned their posts to get their families out of the city and armed gangs were roaming the streets. It took many of the owners several years and a lot of legal fees to get their firearms returned.

So the answer is yes, government officials can and will do pretty much whatever they want once an emergency is declared regardless of whether or not it is legal.


Beat me to it.


What’s wrong with it? They were just following orders.


Yup just following orders even though Louisiana is apparently one of the States that supposedly doesn’t allow firearm confiscation. Was anyone ever prosecuted for violating that law? That’s a rhetorical question the answer of course is no:(


So the answer is yes, government officials can and will do pretty much whatever they want once an emergency is declared regardless of whether or not it is legal.

^^^^THIS is a CLEAR and PRESENT DANGER to our FREEDOMS! ^^^^(and or lives)

They will try this again…



I don’t think I mention the actual Second Amendment for the same reason. However, I confess I do tend to overuse the phrase 2A rights but in a more general broad sense, loosely. It kinda unites us.

Delving into what the actual 2A meant or means is “opening up a can of worms” - I learned the hard way, I won’t make any pals debating until no end, especially I think my being in the minority.

I actually agree with you as to why the writers of the amendment from 1791, were not thinking about the average citizen saving his/er life from street violence.

My point was I think it’s not fair or right to revoke our carry rights during an emergency, but rather it’s a time when we may most need such rights. JIMHO.

At a state level, such carry rights have numbers, such as Law 456C (for discussion sake). Just does not seem right that one state’s head/governor has such power to revoke Law/right 456C, per se. You said it first, such an exercise of power sounds tyrannical to me.

Once again, ‘Kudos’ to those officers, courts and Judges who are kind to us and challenge such tyranny.

No luv lost though. “Spiked” ice cream on me/my treat. Cheers. :slight_smile: