Last week, New Mexico Governor Lujan Grisham declared a public health emergency in order to limit New Mexicans ability to carry firearms in public.
https://www.governor.state.nm.us/
Governor announces statewide enforcement plan for gun violence, fentanyl reduction – Plan includes 30-day suspension of concealed, open carry in Albuquerque and Bernalillo Country
What just happened in New Mexico? Are there shootouts following an earthquake, a flood, or a fire? Was there an invasion of MS-13 gangs? Why the public emergency?
The recent shooting deaths of a thirteen-year-old girl on July 28, a five-year-old girl on August 14, and an eleven-year-old boy on September 6, as well as two mass shootings this year spurred the governor to declare gun violence a public health emergency on Thursday. Today’s public health order includes directives to curb the gun violence and drug abuse that the Governor has declared to be public health emergencies.
“As I said yesterday, the time for standard measures has passed,” said Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. “And when New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game – when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn – something is very wrong.”
“Gun violence is an epidemic in America, and I’m done letting it be an epidemic anywhere in my state,” she told The Washington Post. “Enough is enough.”
These events are awful certainly, but they are not so unusual or out-of-the-ordinary that they require a public emergency. If the number of shooting incidents are the standard for suspending a U.S. Constitutional right, then action should have been taken after even more horrific events. Why wasn’t similar action taken in 2017 when 60 were killed at a Las Vegas concert (the worst mass shooting in US history)? Why not in 1972 when gun homicides were at their highest rate ever? Hundreds of thousands have died from gun violence the last fifty years, yet New Mexico waited until 2023 to take such action.
Semi-automatic weapons have been available nearly 200 years; they became widely used during the US Civil War 160 years ago. Why do these particular straws break the camel’s back? The governor’s argument is not convincing. Deaths of a few individuals in New Mexico is not enough to suspend the second amendment which many of us believe protects more lives and more freedoms than it threatens.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-homicide-in-the-us-since-1950/
Everyone, the NRA and Republicans included, agree these incidents are tragic; all wish to prevent them, but temporarily suspending second amendment rights does not fix the problem. This right has lasted 230+ years, so it is incumbent on the governor to make the case it is no longer needed. After all, she wants change, so she must make the case. Don’t demand others make the case for the status quo. She tried, bless her heart. She held numerous press interviews the last week. In an interview with a sympathetic CNN network, the governor notes New Mexico has “the third highest gun-related deaths in the nation”.
Rationale for the ban seems to be summarized by the following:
“Fewer guns are the streets makes everyone safer . . . This bold action makes sure you are safe going to the grocery store . . . going to a baseball game . . . on a hiking trail . . . ”
Something is wrong, but are people dying because America has too many guns or because of the evil in human nature? I would say it is the latter, but let’s dig deeper.
The Numbers
I am open to the governor’s argument, but sound bites are insufficient. First: how risky is going to a baseball game or hiking a trail to start with? Governor Lujan says we need to curtail the right to carry a gun so ordinary activities will again become safe, but ordinary activities are pretty darn safe to begin with. The numbers tell a story:
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/
There are roughly 20,000 gun deaths annually in a country of 335 million, so, the chance you will die from gun violence in the USA this year is roughly 1 in 17,000 (assuming we are equally at risk). There were roughly 43,000 vehicle deaths in 2021 which means you are twice as likely to die in a car accident this year. I am more likely to die driving to the mountain trail or the ballgame than I am hiking the mountain trail or attending an event. Why declare a public emergency for gun violence, but ignore the bigger threat of car accidents? We could restrict your driving time, lower the speed limit on the interstate, and require only divided highways. These actions would undoubtedly save lives (but they won’t garner many votes).
Let’s stipulate the chances of dying from gun violence are small but still relevant. We must also stipulate your relative safety varies greatly depending on your location and your behavior. I don’t live in bad parts of Chicago, Memphis, Atlanta, Albuquerque, or any other large city, and I do not regularly engage in criminal or gang-related activity, so the 1 in 17,000 number overestimates my risk. I cannot quantify the risk exactly, but in my neighborhood (and in thousands of other neighborhoods), going to the grocery store or ball game, or hiking a trail are not risky activities. We know this instinctively already. In fact, the governor knows this herself because her order only applies to the city of Albuquerque and the country in which it resides; the level of violence in the remaining counties does not warrant action. However, the subtlety about who exactly is impacted is lost during the public discussion. If a restriction like Governor Lujan’s is ever tolerated, it will quickly expand to banning all guns in all instances.
The chance you will be injured by a firearm (accidentally or otherwise) are more significant, about 1 in 3,000. Many, especially small children, are indeed needlessly injured by guns. Gun safety is indeed a serious matter. Yet, your chances of being seriously injured from the COVID vaccine (1 in 14) are 214 times greater than being seriously injured by a firearm:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on October 3 released new data revealing that 782,900 people reported seeking medical assistance, emergency care and/or hospitalization following the Covid-19 injection.
How about those apples? I thought COVID vaccines were safe and guns are the bigger problem. Don’t accept all the narratives sold. The point is life contains many risks, and there is no way to eliminate all risks. If I stay at home for an entire year, as many did during the COVID pandemic, life is still risky. Yet, for political reasons, our leaders focus on certain risks, those risks they can manipulate to increase their own power (or to limit our control of our own lives). Why else do they downplay the COVID vaccine risk, a risk which threatens all individuals, but emphasize gun violence deaths which are limited to certain areas of the country?
It’s All Been Tried Before
Gun bans have been tried before. Automatic weapons have been virtually banned (with very limited exceptions) since the 1940s. The real issue today is limiting access to semi-automatic weapons. The US Congress banned “assault rifles” in 1994; it did not consider handguns, the overwhelming source of gun deaths in the US, and it only banned a handful of (semi-automatic) rifles, allowing hundreds of other rifles to be sold. Even if you believe fewer guns would save lives, it should be clear this law was never going to be impactful.
Several U.S. localities have had their own gun bans. DC banned handguns for 32 years before that ban was overturned:
https://www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller
District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller (1939).
Homicides in DC were highest before the gun ban was lifted and they fell for several years after the ban was lifted. So, why do so many still believe gun bans actually mean fewer deaths?
Chicago has also tried gun bans. Chicago accounts for 1 in 29 gun deaths in the USA in recent years (695 deaths in 2021). Again, there is no correlation between handgun restrictions and fewer deaths. There is no visible change between the years before and after Chicago’s handgun ban was deemed unconstitutional in 2010. Other factors account for the rise and fall of gun deaths.
Some point to European countries which have lower rates from gun violence, but does that mean lower rates of violence altogether?
gun-control-argument-is-flawed
Knifings in London now rival the gun problem in New York City. Furthermore, in the UK, you can’t purchase a butcher knife for your kitchen and carry it home. Dummy politicians think they can change human nature. Banning guns may have an impact for a time, but will do little to deter determined and deranged criminals. Jim Jones killed 909 people with Kool-Aid forty-five years ago. The Nazis killed millions in gas chambers. Criminals in London have found new ways to kill. In the U.S., hammers, fists, and blunt objects account for more deaths than AR-15s.
Courts have allowed many restrictions on gun ownership, but they have also never green lit blanket gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, the New Mexico governor doesn’t appear to understand the value of the second amendment. We shouldn’t eliminate this right because of her ignorance. She must make the case events have progressed to such a point this is the only measure to reverse course. She hasn’t done that.
Governors are limited in power and there are checks and balances in New Mexico as well as the rest of the US. Furthermore, the US Constitution Supremacy Clause says national laws trump state laws. A governor doesn’t have the authority to override the national restriction on banning guns. Governor Lujan Grisham claims her authority comes from her ability to declare an emergency and take actions not allowed during “normal” times. Yet, she never made the case that this is truly an emergency. If this action is accepted, any governor could declare any emergency based on anything they don’t like to suspend any one of our Constitutional rights. Political leaders would love to find ways to circumvent the restrictions the Constitution imposes on their power. We must never tolerate such shenanigans.
Backlash
From the broader perspective of the Democrat Party, the point is to determine if the American people will tolerate 2nd Amendment limits, and then expand restrictions until we have European-like gun bans. However, this restriction was not well tolerated, not even in the blue state of New Mexico.
Immediately after the restriction, many citizens carried arms to an Albuquerque protest. The sheriff refused to enforce the law during this rally.
Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he did not want to endanger his deputies by making them enforce the ban.
“This order will not do anything to curb gun violence other than punish law-abiding citizens who have a constitutional right to self defense,” Allen said at a press briefing.
Some outspoken gun critics have surprisingly taken opposing stances. U.S. Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) said on X:
“I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.
Gun-control activist David Hogg, a survivor of a 2018 Florida school shooting, said:
“I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”
In response to the lack of support, a federal judge stayed the governor’s order on September 13. If there had been more support for the new law, I wonder if the judge would have had the courage to stand up to the governor? In any case, this test is failing, but it will be tried again.
To address the question I posed in the title, let’s call this attack (and other similar attacks) on the Constitution an INSURRECTION. That term has been thrown about carelessly the last few years, but here is a situation where it actually applies. How about impeachment for those who attempt to undermine the principles of the U.S. Constitution? Whether she is sincere or not, Governor Lujan Grisham is a lawyer who should know better. She provides an emotional appeal to unjustly grab more power for her office, an emotional appeal which doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. I call her action un-American and grounds for impeachment. These attacks on the Constitution will stop only if there is accountability for our political leaders.
Another Power Grab
The First Amendment is under an ever bigger threat than the Second. This ruling regarding government’s violation of the First Amendment came down back in July:
judge-restricts-biden-officials-from-colluding-with-big-tech
US District Court Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, determined Tuesday that the White House likely colluded with Big Tech to censor protected speech during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“During … a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Doughty wrote in his 155-page order.
The case was brought forth by Republican Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who is now a GOP senator from the Show-Me State.
I highlighted this lawsuit last year; Dr. Fauci was deposed for eight hours during it:
The Elusive COVID Truth: Basic Data Tells the True Story – Seek the Truth (seek-the-truth.com)
In eight hours, Dr. Fauci did not recall the facts in 174 instances. That’s more than 21 instances per hour. He couldn’t go more than a few minutes without having to be reminded of his own actions by the investigators themselves.
This seems like a problem. In another ruling earlier this month:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/08/politics/biden-administration-social-media-lawsuit/index.html
The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain administration officials – namely in the White House, the surgeon general, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation – likely “coerced or significantly encouraged social media platforms to moderate content” in violation of the First Amendment in its efforts to combat Covid-19 disinformation.
The 5th Circuit left in place part of the injunction that barred certain Biden administration officials from “threatening, pressuring, or coercing social-media companies in any manner to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content of postings containing protected free speech.”
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has also been investigating First Amendment violations as well:
house-judiciary-subpoenas-big-tech-on-feds-censorship-collusion
The FBI paid Twitter $3.5 million from October 2019 to February 2021 to process its moderation requests, according to a document released by Musk.
House Judiciary Committee Republicans alleged in November that the FBI receives “private user information from Facebook” through a “partisan” endeavor likely known as Operation Bronze Griffin, “but without the user’s consent or the legal process the FBI would otherwise need to independently pursue such user-related information.”
The Intercept in October exposed an online portal through which authorities with a government or law enforcement email address reportedly can request the removal of “misinformation” from Facebook or Instagram.
You can defend big tech saying they have “protected” us from inaccurate information, but big tech has not done its homework. Information which was later validated was censored for extensive period:
Facebook banned discussion of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s possible role in the COVID-19 pandemic until mid-2021. Federal officials who steered funding to risky research lab said it was an unfounded conspiracy theory, but one that later gained broader credibility — including from US spy agencies — as one of two plausible explanations for the origin of the pandemic that has killed more than 1 million Americans.
How about this case: the CDC published the VAERS information below, Wisconsin Senator Johnson highlighted it, and then the CDC (and others) censored him for highlighting their own research. Is this not true or is this inconvenient?
Sen-Ron-Johnson-accuses-CDC-of-censorship-of-own-COVID-vaccine-info
The platform’s new leadership later explained to Johnson that executive branch officials, particularly from the CDC, “communicated with social media companies, including Twitter, about ‘COVID Vaccine Misinformation,’” the senator wrote.
On August 28, Senator Johnson wrote in a letter to CDC Director Mandy Cohen:
Although many of the documents Twitter produced to me had already been made public by certain state attorneys general as part of lawsuits against the Biden administration, the information Twitter provided showed a clear and concerted effort by the CDC to censor those who tweeted about VAERS data. Based on the timeline below, it appears that CDC’s efforts to coordinate with Twitter to discredit posts about VAERS shortly followed my own public statements about VAERS data and the mainstream media’s condemnation of my remarks
Shouldn’t such behavior get one in trouble? Apparently, only if the story told conflicts with one we want to hear:
Former Twitter executives last week testified to the House Oversight Committee that they could not remember key details regarding the platform’s October 2020 suppression of The Post’s reporting about documents from Hunter Biden’s laptop that link President Biden to his family’s overseas business deals in China and Ukraine.
The problem is attacks on the First Amendment are ubiquitous and there has been no accountability. The mold has been broken. Our political leaders have learned how to effectively violate the First Amendment and avoid consequences. President Trump was called out for a non-insurrection on January 6; those attempting to undermine the Constitution the last few years should be labeled insurrectionists as well. Then they should also be impeached for such actions. That might begin to commence to start to fix the problem.
Dave
https://seek-the-truth.com/about/
https://seek-the-truth.com/
Seek the Truth 