Because Stephen Stamboulieh is a stud, he got the restraining order on behalf of the GOA against the governor and state police of NM in her gun ban edict.

Here it is (121113193136).

The only thing I’d say is that the case seems simple enough to me that the judge should have vacated the edict altogether and rendered it null and void, and enjoined them from enforcing it – ever.

He did indicate that the plaintiffs were likely to win the case on the merits, but there are unfortunate phrases in the ruling, like this.

Although the State of New Mexico raises important safety concerns, at this stage it fails to demonstrate that the public safety concerns overcome the public’s interest in preventing constitutional violations.  At a fuller hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, the State of New Mexico may present more detailed information about how public safety strongly weighs against issuing a preliminary injunction because of the dangers and safety concerns associated with firearms. However, given Bruen’s clarity that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2122, the Court concludes that issuing a TRO to prevent the violation of a constitutional right would be in the public interest.

The judge is still, even now after Bruen told him not to do it, trying to play a public interest balancing act.  As Stephen told him in his brief, that balancing judgment was made when the second amendment was ratified.  It’s unconstitutional to try to do it again.

However, this is a win, and I’ll take a win.  We’ll have to leave the rest to Stephen.  And God.  Because Stephen is doing God’s work.

I'm not commenting on the veracity of this, but, in this day and age, be wary of facial recognition, even on the private level. Wear a hat, sunglasses, and even a mask. Don't post photos of yourself or allow photos of yourself to be posted online. Don't do things in public that… https://t.co/wk3VgwQt6A

— Don Shift (buy my books) (@DonShift3) September 11, 2023

There are two ways to look at this.  The first is that it’s a chance to get into trouble.  Hide yourself.  Wear sunglasses.  Wear a hat.  Dress in an unfamiliar way.  Borrow a neighbor’s car to get there.  Leave your cell phone at home.

The second is even more interesting to me.  Let it all happen.  Identify yourself.  Set up a lawsuit that will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Only they can decide.  Or maybe they already did.

Via WiscoDave.

News from New Mexico:

Counties in several states, including Colorado and Illinois, have passed similar resolutions recently in opposition to newly passed or potential gun restriction measures.

Balderas, a Democrat, wrote in a letter to the state’s law enforcement agencies that it was their duty to enforce the measures.

“As law enforcement officials, we do not have the freedom to pick and choose which state laws we enforce,” Balderas said, according to The Albuquerque Journal.

So that’s his strategy.  Consider that.  A “prohibited person.”  Who might that be?  Someone who stole a weapon?  A convicted violent felon?  No, someone (person A) who, in the privacy of their own home or in a parking lot somewhere, sold a gun to another person (person B), and that other person (person B) committed a crime with it.

In this case, apparently the attorney general will allow, or even assist, the families of victims of the violence perpetrated by person B to file suit, presumably civil suit, against the Sheriff of the county in which the transaction took place.

And said transaction was supposed to be known by the Sheriff of that county – exactly how?  I see Castle Rock v. Gonzalez and Warren v. District of Columbia being pertinent here.  And I think the attorney general and victims’ families will lose in court.

Nice try.

News from New Mexico:

ALBUQUERQUE – A nonprofit that pushes for gun-control laws nationwide sent letters Wednesday to numerous New Mexico sheriffs, asking them to provide records related to their coordinated stance against gun-control laws that they do not plan to enforce.

The Brady Center, a Washington, D.C.-based organization, said it requested emails from the sheriffs under the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act, with demands for emailed communication among sheriffs and gun-lobby representatives.

Attorney Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Center said his group is seeking the emails to learn “what possible basis” the sheriffs have for declaring they won’t enforce the laws. Brady also wants to obtain any communication the law enforcement officials had with the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups.

I’d be nice to tell them to blow it out of their collective asses, but since it comes with a requirement by law, the Sheriffs are answering.

But I can answer for them.  Concerning “what possible basis,” it violates the constitution.  There, I’m glad I could be of assistance.  Now, go back to your worship of Baal, you pagans.

News from New Mexico:

Extensive advocacy work by proponents of stronger gun regulations in New Mexico has led to a new law that will require federal background checks for most gun purchases, including online sales and at gun shows.

Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who took office in January, signed Senate Bill 8 into law on Friday. It will take effect in July.

“We all have a constitutional right to be safe in our homes and communities,” Lujan Grisham said, according to the Albuquerque Journal.

At an emotional signing ceremony, the governor was accompanied by several young people, law enforcement officials, and gun reform advocates, the Associated Press reported.

The governor is an idiot.  There is no such constitutional guarantee and she can’t quote one.  As we had discussed earlier, there is a problem is utopia.

… in New Mexico, 30 of 33 county sheriffs have signed a letter pledging to not help enforce several gun-control measures supported by Democrats in Santa Fe, according to the state’s sheriff association. The sheriffs, who are elected, say they are heeding the wishes of voters in the counties they serve. More than two dozen counties in the state have enacted “sanctuary” resolutions backing the sheriffs and affirming that no tax dollars in their jurisdictions should go to enforcing the proposed laws.

[ … ]

Democratic New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said local officials should comply with state and federal law but declined to say what measures he would take if they don’t.

Local Sheriffs could stop this all in its tracks if they chose to.  The AG didn’t say what measures he would take because he doesn’t know what to do with men who hold weapons and refuse to comply.

Weapons.  Refuse to comply.  There’s a moral to that story, yes?

News from New Mexico:

ALBUQUERQUE – A bill to expand background checks on private gun sales in New Mexico that’s awaiting the governor’s promised signature is presenting a key question for law enforcement as it heads for her desk: How do they expect to enforce it?

Debate over the bill exposed a rift in the state over gun rights before it won final approval in the Legislature this week and was sent to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who has described it as common-sense reform.

A large majority of sheriffs has vowed not to enforce the law, arguing it burdens lawful gun owners and will be difficult to enforce. That’s because a gun most likely would have to be used in a crime before law enforcement could investigate whether it had been purchased unlawfully, according to the bill’s opponents.

But others, including Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza, say the measure will provide a public safety tool. For example, he said officers could follow up on complaints that felons or others restricted from owning firearms are obtaining them.

Doña Ana County Sheriff Kim Stewart said the measure offers deputies the ability to ask gun owners they encounter how they obtained a gun, just as they are now able to ask motorists if they are licensed to drive. It also offers private gun dealers increased opportunity to determine that they are not selling to a felon.

“I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask them to do this one thing,” she said.

The bill is the first of a handful of proposed gun reforms this year to clear the Legislature, despite outcry from dozens of sheriffs and others that the law may infringe on state residents’ gun rights.

In an interview, University of New Mexico law professor Joshua Kastenberg said the law is “constitutionally sound,” but that he sees both those for and against the measure having compelling arguments.

“It’s more a political policy debate,” he said.

[ … ]

Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace said he believes the bill violates his constituents’ rights.

As president of the New Mexico Sheriff’s Association, he organized a push for the county law enforcement officials to present draft resolutions to their commissioners declaring their jurisdictions Second Amendment sanctuaries. He said 26 out of 33 New Mexico counties have approved the resolutions.

New Mexico elected officials generally take oaths pledging to uphold both constitutions, as well as state laws.

What else would you expect a law professor to say?  There are two things here, the first being whether it should pass constitutional muster (it shouldn’t) and the second is whether it will as determined by the black robed tyrants who sit on the bench.  The answer is that it will, of course.

“Doña Ana County Sheriff Kim Stewart said the measure offers deputies the ability to ask gun owners they encounter how they obtained a gun …”  Answer: It’s none of your damn business.  Or better yet, “I’m being represented by my lawyer so you’ll have to pose the question to him.”  Don’t ever talk to the police, and don’t answer any such question.

Unless it’s a “Terry Stop” it’s unconstitutional, and if the stop is legitimate, don’t answer his questions.

As we watch the proliferation of gun control laws in America both at the national and state levels, you can expect to see more of this sort of thing, where local and state representatives, law enforcement officers and other authorities hand-wring over what to do with such unenforceable laws and regulations.  You can expect them to worry more about the danger to cops of trying to enforce things like this, and you can expect more cops and lawyers to fabricate all kinds of myths about what those laws allow them to do.

You can expect a requested swelling and bloating of the police state, but with unfunded liabilities approaching 300 trillion dollars, no money or personnel will be forthcoming.  And finally, you can expect more lies from the controllers about how this is a “common sense” proposal that will aid public safety.