Posted on 09/13/2023 4:37:55 PM PDT by lightman
When New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham issued "a public health emergency order" that purportedly suspended the right to bear arms in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County last week, her justification was seemingly straightforward. "I have emergency powers," she told The New York Times. "Gun violence is an epidemic. Therefore, it's an emergency."
Grisham's stunt was widely condemned as blatantly unconstitutional, even by some leading gun control supporters. But her legal rationale also underlined the perils posed by the sweeping emergency powers that legislators in many states have granted governors -- a problem that was abundantly clear during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Grisham, a Democrat, laid the ground for her ban on public possession of operable firearms last Thursday when she declared that gun violence in New Mexico "constitutes a statewide public health emergency of unknown duration" under the state's Public Health Emergency Response Act. That law defines a "public health emergency" as "an extremely dangerous condition or a highly infectious or toxic agent, including a threatening communicable disease, that poses an imminent threat of substantial harm."
Grisham also invoked New Mexico's All Hazard Emergency Management Act, saying gun violence "constitutes a man-made disaster causing or threatening widespread physical or economic harm that is beyond local control." In her gun order, which she issued the next day, Grisham asserted that violent crime is also "a condition of public health importance," which New Mexico's Public Health Act defines as "an infection, a disease, a syndrome, a symptom, an injury or other threat that is identifiable on an individual or community level and can reasonably be expected to lead to adverse health effects in the community."
Those labels were meant to trigger the "emergency powers," Grisham claims. The All Hazard Emergency Management Act, for example, says the governor may issue "necessary orders" to carry out its provisions, and it specifically authorizes the governor to "prohibit" the "possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person in any place other than his place of residence or business, except for peace officers."
During the pandemic, Grisham relied heavily on these laws when she issued many scientifically dubious edicts. In November 2020, for example, she banned outdoor activities and required New Mexicans to wear masks whenever they left their homes, which she said they should not do "unless it's an emergency or for an essential need like food and water."
Unlike gun violence, COVID-19 was a literal epidemic. But Grisham thinks both threats empower her to act like a dictator for however long she deems necessary. She repeatedly renewed her COVID-19 emergency orders and is threatening to do the same with her gun decree, which initially lasts for 30 days but can be renewed indefinitely.
It seems unlikely that the persistent, omnipresent threat of violent crime constitutes the sort of "emergency" that New Mexico legislators had in mind. But the more important point, repeatedly confirmed by state and federal courts, is that even properly defined emergencies do not nullify constitutional rights.
Two gun rights groups immediately challenged Grisham's order in federal court, noting that it defies last year's Supreme Court decision upholding the Second Amendment right to possess guns in public for self-defense. Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said they would not enforce the order, and two Republican state legislators said it was grounds for impeachment.
"I support gun safety laws," Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said, but Grisham's order "violates the U.S. Constitution," and "there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution." Gun control activist David Hogg concurred.
Grisham admitted that her order was unlikely to pass legal muster and, even if it did, would not affect the behavior of criminals. But if it encourages legislators to reconsider the wisdom of letting governors rule by decree based on open-ended emergencies that they themselves declare, it will have served a useful purpose.
Nothing says asshole democrat tyrant as much as surrounding yourself with armed guards then cancelling everyone else’s right to their last line of defense.
A warm up for tyranny that was imposed by a republican prez.
Sad part is that we might eventually see a real need for emergency powers but the government will have misused it so much that it won’t fly, costing the lives of people.
Too much crying “wolf” from the CDC, NIH, etc.
Few will heed when a REAL epidemic strikes.
Comrades, you will turn in all guns so we have a harmonious society.
Jacob Sullum
|
Sep 13, 2023
name fix
I want this to go to the SCOTUS, let them rule on emergency powers.
I would have had my vehicle stolen and could have been seriously injured or killed by a criminal if she were governor here in Texas recently. More details later. This post is to explain why I have posted that she must be tried for treason and adequately punished.
well, some people in some states saw the emergency powers stuff in action. you have an idea of how your state and local govt would act if they were given these powers.
should the governor be trusted with them?
should they be open ended ?
Should the person declaring the emergency use language to describe things as they aren’t
was that day an actual constitutionally protected protest or did everyone in the media all call it a specific something it wasn’t so they could trigger a bunch of trumped up charges
at this point I am not sure I would agree to allow any governor emergency powers.
unless there could be an emergency vote in the legislature, with the people from the governors party excluded from voting.
that is the only way I could see the emergency powers thing working. Maybe not even then
“[A]n infection, a disease, a syndrome, a symptom, an injury or other threat that is identifiable on an individual or community level and can reasonably be expected to lead to adverse health effects in the community.”
Patriot Act was the “nose under the tent”, and now we’re all covered in hoof mark bruises.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.