Opinion
The unilateral action by New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declaring a ban on civilian possession of a firearm, whether open or concealed, in public “to remain in effect for the duration of the public health emergencies. . .” is unconstitutional, unconscionable, and illegal.
But, apart from the illegality of Grisham’s Public Health Order on Second Amendment grounds and U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen rulings,,,
…the Order runs afoul of New Mexico’s own state Statutes!
This latter matter has not yet been discussed. We do so here.
We begin with the phrase “Gun Violence,” which appears in the Governor’s Public Health Order. For the longest time, the Anti-Second Amendment establishment has raged over this thing, “Gun Violence.” The idea implicit in ‘Gun Violence,’ if one insists on the expression, is that of ‘Criminal Violence’, where a criminal uses “a gun” in the commission of a crime. In that commonsensical view the phrase ‘Gun Violence’ simply denotes criminal use of guns, nothing more.
So why not eschew talk of Gun Violence for the appropriate expression, ‘Criminal Violence’?
Doing so would drive public policy where it belongs, on crime and criminals and away from the mechanism criminals sometimes employ, although not invariably, to do their horrible misdeeds.
But Democrats and Progressives don’t want to talk about crime and criminals. They don’t even want to talk about criminal use of guns. They only want to talk about guns and reducing the number of them, and that creates a real problem.
For, who is it that owns and possesses most of those “guns?” The answer is tens of millions of innocent, rational, responsible, law-abiding citizens.
And why do tens of millions of Americans wish to keep and bear guns?
Well, they do so for many reasons, all lawful, and one of which stands out as predominant: self-defense.
But little mention of this finds its way into the public square because Democrats and a sympathetic Press won’t allow it. They don’t want it. Anti-Second Amendment elements in Government, in the Press, and in the greater society have their own uses for ‘Gun Violence.’ It is they, after all, who have coined the expression.
And that phrase is the driving force behind the Governor’s Public “Health” Order.
Boiled down to its essence, the tacit message conveyed is this:
“Guns are a virus, a virulent contagion, and like all virulent contagions, must be rooted out, quarantined, and eradicated, and I, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, intend to do just that!”
The idea of Guns as a virulent contagion is not a novel idea. It goes back decades.
In 1995, in an Academic Article, Don Kates and others wrote (Guns And Public Health: Epidemic Of Violence Or Pandemic Of Propaganda?) about the strategy to deny one’s exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense by viewing guns as a health menace. The article’s writers referred to this strategy as “The Public Health Agenda.”
“In 1979 the American public health community adopted the ‘objective to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership,’ the initial target being a 25% reduction by the year 2000. Based on studies, and propelled by leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the objective has broadened so that it now includes banning and confiscation of all handguns, restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms, and eventual elimination of firearms from American life, . . . .
This follows the health advocate sages’ avowed intention to promote the idea that firearm ownership is an evil and that its elimination is a desirable and efficacious means of reducing violence.” From “Guns And Public Health: Epidemic Of Violence Or Pandemic Of Propaganda?”, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 513, Spring, 1995, by Don B. Kates, et. al.
Viewing “Gun Violence” as a medical matter is inane. It involves tortuous use of a literary device, metaphor, as a mechanism upon which to design and implement public policy.
The metaphor is that guns are like a virulent plague and must be stamped out. And Governor Grisham’s Order is based on the metaphor of “Guns As Virulent Virus.” She attempts to apply the metaphor to law. That is absurd.
Our free Constitutional Republic is grounded on law, not metaphor.
Nonetheless, Grisham trusts that she can skate around the Second Amendment issue and the constraints of State law by focusing on guns as a public health menace. She hopes that no one will bother to notice the card trick and the use of metaphor she employs to do this.
Unfortunately, pervasive and undeniable lunacy doesn’t prevent ideological fanatics who wield immense power from thrusting their lunacy on everyone else, embroiling us all in their nightmarish reality.
So, why isn’t anyone attacking the Governor’s lunacy head-on? That is where attention should first be directed.
Grisham cites several New Mexico State Statutes. Do they offer her support? Let’s see.
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-5 provides that,
“A. A state of public health emergency may be declared by the governor upon the occurrence of a public health emergency. Prior to a declaration of a state of public health emergency, the governor shall consult with the secretary of health. The governor shall authorize the secretary of health, the secretary of public safety and the director to coordinate a response to the public health emergency.”
But the pertinent question here is whether the mere possession of guns in public equates with “Gun Violence” such that this “Gun Possession” qua “Gun Violence” falls within the legal definition of a ‘Public Health Emergency’ under New Mexico law.
In New Mexico, public health emergencies fall within the purview of N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 24-1-1 — 24-1-44.
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-2 says this:
“As used in the Public Health Act [Chapter 24, Article 1 NMSA 1978]:
A. ‘condition of public health importance’ means 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; . . . .”
So, then, Does “a condition of public health importance” include “Gun Violence” qua “Possessing Guns in Public” under New Mexico law?
No, it does not. For this kind of thing does not fall within the purview of New Mexico’s “Public Health Act” and, therefore, cannot be construed as a “Public Health Emergency” under New Mexico law, as shown below.
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-3 is the applicable “Definitions,” and Section. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-3 (G) defines the phrase, ‘public health emergency.’
“‘Public health emergency’ means the occurrence or imminent threat of exposure to an extremely dangerous condition or a highly infectious or toxic agent, including a threatening communicable disease, that poses an imminent threat of substantial harm to the population of New Mexico or any portion thereof.”
Does the phrase “exposure to an extremely dangerous condition” that appears in the afore-cited statutory section embrace “Gun Violence” qua “Possessing Guns in Public” under New Mexico Law?
Such an idea would be a stretch—an impossible stretch. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-2 explains why.
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-2 (Purposes of the Act) says,
“The purposes of the Public Health Emergency Response Act [12-10A-1 NMSA 1978] are to:
A. provide the state of New Mexico with the ability to manage public health emergencies in a manner that protects civil rights and the liberties of individual persons; [emphasis added]
B. prepare for a public health emergency; and
C. provide access to appropriate care, if needed, for an indefinite number of infected, exposed or endangered people in the event of a public health emergency.”
Paragraph “C” implies the presence of an ongoing and serious chemical, biological, or epidemiological hazard, causing illness to many people. Such a health emergency is objective and the harm caused to many is measurable and extensive.
A health emergency does not include criminological problems, sociological concerns, or matters deriving from political biases or animosities.
Moreover, Paragraph “A” makes abundantly clear that any declaration of a public health emergency must be conducted in a manner that “protects civil rights and the liberties of individuals.”
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is one such fundamental civil right that requires protection when the New Mexico Governor declares, as here, a “Public Health Emergency.”
But how can the exercise of a fundamental civil right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—that the governor implies is a public health emergency (for that is what the New Mexico Public Health Order targets), and one that must be harshly dealt with—truly be considered a health emergency under New Mexico law when that health emergency is the very fundamental civil right that must, as New Mexico law makes clear, be protected during an emergency?
The answer is: It cannot! That is the crux of the problem for Grisham and her “Public Health Order.”
Governor Grisham’s Order is legally incoherent, incompatible with State Statute, logically inconsistent, and, on analysis, overtly nonsensical.
We hope someone challenging Governor Grisham’s “Public Health Order” in Federal or State Court will make that argument.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.
