Gov. Grisham's Executive Orders: New Mexico Retailers "Have A Helluva Lawsuit"

There are many debates on what "emergency powers" a governor of any given state has.

The latest is one I spotted on Facebook this morning concerning Gov. "Malevolent Michelle" Lujan Grisham and her "stay-at-home" and retail business closures.

Off the top of my head, this would seem to be a big violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause when big box stores are allowed to operate but small mom & pop retail businesses are forced to remain shuttered. Not exactly equality, is it? And, concerning gun store closures, a violation of the Second Amendment.

But that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

According to this, Grisham's actions are illegal.

Here's the Facebook post:

A discussion regarding cease and desist orders, from Nazi Michelle Wuhan Grisham, to small businesses:

All this was done via Exec. Order, EO; EO's are not law, and funny you mention this as I finished drafting a letter of challenge to an EO in Arizona for a friend. Your friends are in fact having their rights violated in defiance of the Article IV, Section 26, NM Constitution, as well a violation of their 4thA protection; their business being closed in fact, in law, a "seizure" of their property; a seizure must be committed only with a warrant. There was a Herbal store somewhere in NM which I read about on a FB page that told the NM state cops that showed up, when they threatened to close her, to leave, and come back with a warrant, and also to call her lawyer; they left. 

One must understand an EO is not law over the private citizens; an EO only has force and effect of law “WITHIN the executive branch over any, and all agencies in that branch. I don’t want to go to deep and at length here but it’s fairly simple. Art IV, Sec. 26 I mention states no special privilege, under law, can be given to one entity, a person or business, that does not inure(is granted/applies) equally to all others. Since an EO is not law, a governor CANNOT make law, so for a cop to obtain a warrant the cop would have to go to a judge and swear under oath, on a signed/notarized Affidavit, he has evidence of a crime and needs to seize the property; the judge will ask the law the cop is acting under; the cop has NO actual law, one made by the legislature, the only branch in government that can make law(the gov. can NOT make law) the cop, legitimately, cannot cite a law; he’d have to tell the judge he’s acting under an EO. A wise judge at that point would tell the cop to get out of his court room; an unwise judge who would sign such a warrant, based on an EO and will have placed him/herself in a serious lawsuit, along with the cop. 

When we speak of a seizure of property we are not just speaking about taking(seizing) something physical; the business is property; the labor the people who own the store and put into the store is “property”; the loss of income from the closure is a seizure. 

For a short example of this here is a short cite from a court case as how the court views what constitutes a seizure; 

A "seizure" of property occurs when "there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 . 

By closing this business, under threat, and they WERE threatened, did the cops interfere with their possessory interests(an interest in their possession, business, profits)? Yes, they did. And when this business was closed while a similar business sold similar merchandise was allowed to stay open, that is a violation of Art. IV, Sec. 26. 

It was also, to a great degree, a violation of their 5th amendment taking clause absent “due process; their livelihood was taken from them WITHOUT a court hearing(due process). Your friends have a helluva a lawsuit, as do many, many retailers in NM.

NM Sheriffs Preparing "Red Flag Law" Lawsuit

Above, Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace at the Second Amendment
Rally at the Roundhouse on January 31. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

As reported on this blog previously, the state of New Mexico can expect a lawsuit over the new "red flag" law that Gov. "Malevolent Michelle" Lujan Grisham signed into law.

Right now, the state's sheriffs are preparing for such a lawsuit.

According to Bearing Arms:

Cibola County, New Mexico Sheriff Tony Mace says he and other sheriffs from around the state are meeting with attorneys this week as they get ready to file suit over the state’s new red flag law, signed last week by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. 

During the signing ceremony, Grisham said that sheriffs who weren’t prepared to enforce the new law should resign, but Sheriff Mace and other sheriffs are taking the matter to court instead. Mace tells me that the sheriffs will be holding meetings with several different attorneys over the next few weeks to discuss litigation strategies before filing suit to block the law from taking effect. 

Mace believes the new law infringes on the rights of residents in New Mexico, and not just their right to keep and bear arms. He says the law establishes a bizarre “civil search warrant” process that violates the Fourth Amendment, and the seizure of firearms of those who’ve not been accused of a crime, much less convicted of one, is also a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause. 

In addition to the constitutional issues at stake, there’s also the pragmatic argument against red flag laws. As Sheriff Mace points out, when someone has been deemed by a court (in a one-sided hearing) to be a danger to themselves or others, the law gives the individual in question 48 hours to turn over their guns. Seems kind of odd to give a dangerous person two entire days to do dangerous things, does it not? And of course, once the firearms are seized, the dangerous person is left to their own devices. Their knives aren’t confiscated. Neither are their car keys. It’s only the guns that are taken away under a red flag law. The dangerous person is left behind, without any mental health treatment at all.

To read more, go here. 

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Her "Gestapo Red Flag" Law

Liberal Democrats are rushing headlong into enacting "red flag" laws, legislatively known as "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" and thereby turning law enforcement officers into "Gestapo" agents.

These "red flag" laws violate the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms) and the Fourth Amendment (prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures) of people not convicted or accused of any crime, but just going by the "say so" of a petitioner. I have first-hand experience of this.

They also violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Bongino.com:

In the past legislative cycle, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Nevada, New York and Washington enacted or strengthened laws that allow law enforcement and courts to seize weapons from individuals. Currently, 17 states have “red flag” laws. Although each state define their respective law differently, they all lead to dangerous consequences. 

The “Red Flag” laws create a modern day Crucible. As Colorado attorney and author Michael Sabbeth writes, Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GRVOs) and Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), generically known as ‘Red Flag’ laws, are such policies that luminously disclose their intent.” 

Therefore, the laws’ “unintended consequences” are actually the intended consequences of liberal lawmakers. Sabbeth goes on to say: 

Presently drafted Red Flag laws are a toxic stew of Constitutional abuses and wasp’s nest of procedural requirements that will predictably lead to violence without any societal benefit. Their defects have been persuasively presented in many insightful articles crafted by Second Amendment and gun violence data experts… 

Additionally, he notes that “Uniquely frightening and not addressed sufficiently is enthusiasm with which legislators and advocates trash our Constitution and dismiss foreseeable harm.” 

The red flag legislation assumes that its many component systems will work flawlessly: that petitioners will be honest and moral; that judges will act Constitutionally and without bias; that police executing search warrants will be restrained and disciplined; that homeowners will be reasonable under high-stress circumstances; that guns will be stored without theft or damage; and that firearms will be efficiently returned when appropriate. Prudent functioning of these components is unlikely. The legislators know this.

Of course, New Mexico Governor "Malevolent Michelle" Lujan Grisham doesn't give a rat's behind about people's constitutional rights.

In the Silver City Daily Press:

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said Friday she will not abide lack of enforcement by any sheriff or other local government official who opposes a new law intended to reduce gun violence. 

Her comments came during a press conference at which she defended her support of Senate Bill 5, which cleared the Legislature on Thursday and which she intends to sign into law, adding New Mexico to the list of states that have passed what are called “red flag” laws. 

The measure will allow authorities to petition courts to temporarily remove firearms from someone deemed a threat to themselves or others. 

“If just one life is saved, if one potential [dangerous] situation is averted, then we’re doing our job,” she told reporters. 

Her comments came after news that Lea County Sheriff Corey Helton  told people at a Eunice City Hall meeting Monday he would rather go to jail than enforce the law, which he thinks is unconstitutional.

She called such reactions to the legislation simply “emotional responses to not winning.”

Law enforcement officials, she said, “swear an oath and they don’t get to be policymakers.”

So, to save "one life" justifies the trampling the constitutional rights of everyone else? Definitely skewed "logic" on her part. Thank God we have sheriffs like Sheriff Helton!

Part of those oaths she refers to include defending the Constitution of the United States. If a law or ordinance is repugnant to the Constitution, is cannot be enforced. “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void,”  written by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.

If Gov. Grisham doesn't have a copy of Marbury v. Madison, I'd be happy to send her one. This offer also includes a copy of the U.S. Constitution.