A Gutsy Move by New Mexico’s Governor

Back in business. Yay!

The Associated Press is reporting that New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, has suspended legal open and concealed carry of firearms across Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least 30 days.

The firearms suspension, classified as an emergency public health order, applies to open and concealed carry in most public places, from city sidewalks to urban recreational parks. The restriction is tied to a threshold for violent crime rates currently only met by the metropolitan Albuquerque. Police and licensed security guards are exempt from the temporary ban.

Cue the screaming and outrage from the Right.

Gov. Lujan Grisham cited several recent incidents of gun violence for her decision.

Lujan Grisham referenced several recent shootings in Albuquerque in issuing the order. Among them was a suspected road rage shooting Wednesday outside a minor league baseball stadium that killed 11-year-old Froyland Villegas and critically wounded a woman as their vehicle was peppered with bullets while people left the game.

Last month, 5-year-old Galilea Samaniego was fatally shot while asleep in a motor home. Four teens entered the mobile home community in two stolen vehicles early on Aug. 13 and opened fire on the trailer, according to police. The girl was struck in the head and later died at a hospital.

The governor also cited an August shooting death in Taos County of 13-year-old Amber Archuleta. A 14-year-old boy shot and killed the girl with his father’s gun while they were at his home, authorities said.

“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,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

This was a gutsy move on the governor’s part. I don’t know that gun violence has ever been declared an official public health threat, although the American Medical Association said it was back in 2016. And the violence has gotten worse since. It will be interesting to see if there is less gun violence in Albuquerque over the thirty days. I expect that this will be challenged in court somewhere.

Jonathan Turley, still challenging Alan Dershowitz for the irritating right-wing attorney gadfly award, predicts the governor will be hit with a massive backlash, and that the suspension will increase support for open and concealed carry. I don’t have a feel for politics in New Mexico.

But what if there is no backlash? There is copious polling telling us that a majority of Americans really, truly want more restrictions on guns, not less. What if the governor pays no political penalties at all? Maybe more politicians will get some guts. Maybe the nation will no longer be hostage to the gun fetishists. This is worth watching;

In other news: This is a story about Elon Musk that would be getting more attention.

Overnight we finally got confirmation of something that has long been suspected or hinted at but which none of the players had an interest in confirming. Last September Musk either cut off or refused to activate his Starlink satellite service near the Crimean coast during a surprise Ukrainian drone attack on the Russian Navy at anchor at its Sevastopol naval port.

Ukraine has made extensive use of naval drones. But it at least sounds like this was supposed to be a massed attack that would have done extensive damage to the Russian Navy and the naval port itself and thus seriously degraded Russia’s ability to launch missile attacks against Ukraine. In other words, it doesn’t sound like this was just any attack, though the details are sketchy.

On its face you might say, they’re Musk’s satellites and he’s in charge of who gets to use them and how. But of course it’s not that simple. It’s a good illustration of how Musk’s economic power has crept into domains that are more like the power of a state.

It’s worth reading the whole post, by Josh Marshall at TPM.

7 thoughts on “A Gutsy Move by New Mexico’s Governor

  1. Agreed the move to block casual carry in public spaces is a good move. Also likely to be struck down by the USSC. But linking the decision to avoidable fatalities makes the decision palatable to most voters. Eventually, either we expand the court or we replace a few conservatives as they age out. But on the issues of abortion and gun control, there seems to be support for human rights. IMO, voters will support expanding the court.

    Elon Musk is a walking argument for a death tax that ends dynastic wealth.

    Moonbat pointed out the Colorado suit has potential. It's a suit IN the state against the Secretary of State demanding Trump not be on the ballot because the federal Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) makes Trump ineligible. This differs from the FL case that was recently tossed because the plaintiff did not have standing, (That suit was filed against Trump in federal court.) 

    Trump is screaming about the Colorado suit, which lends credence to it. 

    If the suit succeeds, it will be appealed to the USSC. My guess is that the high court will NOT rule on whether Trump is ineligible to hold office. They will make the narrow decision based on whether the Secretary of State of Colorado has the authority to remove Trump. This is no favor to the GOP – officials or voters – because no one knows if the High Court might remove Trump if he won in the General. And they deserve to know early enough to select some other fascist.

  2. What's the possible backlash?  More mass shootings?  More rightwingers brandishing firearms?  More Republicans threatening violence and civil war?  More Unconstitutional Sheriff's declaring they will not follow the law?

    This is a good move and if it pushes the issue all the way back to the Supremacist Court, make those 6 sinister fvcks declare MAGIC WORDS in Constitution Trump your children's right to live.

  3. If you read the article about the gun ban in ABQ, it's tragic that the governor couldn't get buy-in from the local police chief.  She apparently expects the state cops to enforce it, instead of the locals. The local cops are either gun nuts themselves or are terrified or unwilling to confront the locals who wield guns. What a mess. It's tragic that these people can't compromise over such a limited ban: a single county for a mere 30 days. 

    It'll be interesting to see how this is litigated. It's not a total ban, just a response to a public health threat. Kudos to the governor for offering more than Thoughts and Prayers™.

  4. Heather Cox Richardson had something to say about Elon Musk. She prefaced her article with all the international trade diplomacy Biden and Harris are undertaking, which involves spending $ in overseas countries to develop markets and banking. She pivots back to the US:

    The idea that public investment in infrastructure serves democratic goals fell out of favor in the U.S. in the 1980s. Leaders insisted that private investment reacted more efficiently to market forces whereas government investment both distorted markets and tied up money that private investment could use more effectively. In fact, the dramatic scaling back of public investment since then has not led to more efficient development so much as it has led to crumbling infrastructure and its exploitation by private individuals.

    In late July the New York Times noted that since 2019, billionaire businessman Elon Musk has steadily taken over the field of satellite internet, infrastructure that is hugely important for national security. In just four years Musk has launched into space more than 4,500 satellites—more than 50% of all active satellites. This means that Musk’s Starlink is often the only way for people in places hit by disasters or in war zones to communicate….

    …Isaacson portrays Musk as frustrated by being dragged into a war. “Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars,” Musk told Isaacson. “It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes.” Since the story broke, Musk has defended his unwillingness to be in the middle of a war.

    But Mykhailo Podolyak, a top advisor to Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky, pointed out on Musk’s own social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, that the same Russian fleet Musk protected went on to fire missiles at Ukrainian cities, killing civilians, including children. Russia is also attacking Ukraine’s infrastructure for exporting grain, which threatens the price and availability of food in Africa.

    The privatization of the functions of government in the U.S. has given a single man the power to affect global affairs, working, in this case, against the stated objectives of our own government. Republican leaders eager to push that privatization have made their case by turning voters against taxes, although the tax cuts put in place since 1981 overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and corporations, permitting a few individuals to amass fortunes: Forbes, for example, estimates Musk’s net worth at $251.3 billion.

    How much suffering has techno-twit and boy billionaire Musk caused, undermining the US government, all with the blessing of free market Republicans?

  5. David French in an opinion piece in the NYT today closed with:

    Musk isn’t promoting liberty; he’s using his power to privilege many of the worst voices in American life.

    Here Musk raised ire using X, formerly known as Twitter.  The unintended consequences of privatization may turn into our biggest national threat.  We really don't need any bigger ones.   

  6. Musk has blessing of Putin.

    The good news is most of the planet sees him for what he is and no longer the pretend wonder boy.

    Now can we get our own satellites and infra structure up please?

    Tired of launch pad experiments instead of great engineering.


Comments are closed.