September 30, 2023


  • Gun Carry Ban Concerns: Gov. Lujan Grisham’s firearm ban attack faces bipartisan opposition. Critics speculate she’s challenging the Supreme Court’s authority to increase her national prominence.

  • States vs. Supreme Court: Increasing risks of state or federal figures ignoring Supreme Court decisions, which might undermine the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  • Government & Rights: The government is failing in its role of protecting rights enforcement, underscoring the Second Amendment’s importance in protecting against potential tyranny.

We The People Second Amendment Constitution Bill of Rights

This is a follow-up to two recent Arbalest Quarrel articles on New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s unconscionable and unconstitutional “Public Health Order” that Grisham issued on September 8, 2023.

In our earlier article, we pointed to Grisham’s misuse of New Mexico Statutes to support her draconian (original) Order. In our second article, we explored Grisham’s motivation.

Although Grisham expected a backlash—in fact, welcomed it, she probably didn’t expect the ensuing backlash to occur so quickly. And she likely didn’t expect such a vehement backlash from county and city police, from the Mayor of Albuquerque, and the State’s Attorney General. See the article in U.S. News & World Report, posted on September 11, titled, “Outrage Intensifies Over New Mexico Governor’s Temporary Gun Ban as Sheriff Vows Not to Enforce It.”

And she certainly did not expect backlash from fellow Democrats, nor did she expect a call for her impeachment. See The New York Times article, posted on September 17, titled, “Facing Pushback From Both Parties, New Mexico Governor Scales Back Firearms Order.”

But, in an attempt to save face, she didn’t rescind the Order in total.

In a September 15 Press Release, she stated, in pertinent part,

‘I’m going to continue pushing to make sure that all of us are using every resource available to put an end to this public health emergency with the urgency it deserves,” said Gov. Lujan Grisham. ‘I will not accept the status quo – enough is enough.’

Provisions in the updated public health order issued Friday include: Removing the previous provision around firearms and replacing it with a provision that temporarily suspends the carrying of firearms at parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.”

Even now, Grisham can’t find it within herself to admit she was wrong. None of these events needed to happen. But they did happen, and we had pointed out the “why” of this.

Had anyone in the Press given this some thought? Well, a Fox News story, published on September 16 cited an earlier article in the Washington Post, written by Henry Olsen, that did explore some of Grisham’s possible motivations.

Jeffrey Clark, the Associate Editor of Fox News Digital, writes,

Lujan Grisham’s gun carry ban has been met with vocal opposition among Republicans and Democrats over it violating the Second Amendment.

‘The governor is no dummy,’ Henry Olsen wrote in a column headlined, ‘New Mexico’s governor seems to think it’s okay to ignore the Supreme Court.’ 

‘She has held appointed or elected office for nearly 20 years. She couldn’t possibly be so naive to think her order would be uncontroversial even among Democrats,’ he added. 

‘So what was the real intention behind her order?’ the columnist wrote. ‘It could be that, like many ambitious politicians, she simply wants attention. She was said to have been on President Biden’s shortlist when he was deciding on his vice-presidential pick. Perhaps with Biden’s low approval ratings, she decided this is a good moment to raise her national profile. In that sense, she has succeeded wildly, even if her order loses in court. . . .’

Olsen also speculated Lujan Grisham was using ‘her order to show her party how to use this conflict to undermine Supreme Court decisions they disagree with.’

‘But Lujan Grisham could be playing an even longer game than that,’ Olsen added. ‘Democrats remain furious that a conservative-dominated Supreme Court is likely to strike down progressive rulings in the coming years. That means Democratic officeholders in deep-blue states will have to enforce rulings they deeply resent or hate.’”

Let’s take a closer look at a couple of points in the Washington Post story that the Fox discussion of the Olsen article didn’t mention and zero in on those.

Olsen writes,

“State and local officeholders must uphold federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings under the Constitution’s supremacy clause. They cannot simply openly reject a ruling they do not like and refuse to implement it, . . . .

But states and localities do have constitutional authority to make decisions to protect the health and safety of their residents. . . .

This means there is a theoretical conflict between a state’s constitutional authority to protect its citizens and the federal government’s authority to enforce rights guaranteed by the Constitution. . . . Perhaps Lujan Grisham is using her order to show her party how to use this conflict to undermine Supreme Court decisions they disagree with.

Time will tell whether Lujan Grisham’s order is just another failed effort at political signaling or the start of a much more serious [trial balloon] challenge to the Supreme Court’s authority. Either way, the constitutional rights of her state’s residents will suffer.”

Consider the disturbing import of the assertions, “Democrats remain furious that a conservative-dominated Supreme Court is likely to strike down progressive rulings in the coming years,” and “Democratic officeholders in deep-blue states will have to enforce rulings they deeply resent or hate.”

This last point is key. As a Marxist, or simply a crass opportunist politician beholding to her Marxist/Collectivist benefactors, Grisham is a willing tool. Her goal, as a Marxist and/or political opportunist, is to comply with the agenda and goals of her benefactors. Neither she nor they give a damn about the U.S. Supreme Court or any other Branch of the Government. Their goal is to neutralize all three and to do away with the Constitution.

To accomplish that, a major goal of all Marxists is the annihilation of the armed citizenry.

Collectivists much fear the armed citizenry, and rightly so. The armed citizenry is not enamored with the prospect of existing under a state of Tyranny—domination, subjugation, and the total destruction of Soul, Spirit, and Mind.

Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen is, of course, correct in his assertions that “Lujan Grisham’s order flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen” and that “the constitutional rights of her state’s residents will suffer.”

The notion that powerful figures in the State or the Federal Government can ignore U.S. Supreme Court rulings because they happen to disagree with those rulings is deeply troubling, especially where, as here, those rulings cohere plainly with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

But then, Political Progressives and Marxists seek to change the composition of the Court to seat individuals, Marxists, such as themselves, who have no intention to render rulings consistent with and in strict accordance with the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution, as written. Ultimately, they wish to undo it and do away with it. And, in the interim, they wish to sabotage it.

In the interim, these Political Progressives and Marxists simply choose to ignore those rulings that are antithetical to their Collectivist musings and cravings.

Olsen is incorrect in his blanket statement, “there is a theoretical conflict between a state’s constitutional authority to protect its citizens and the federal government’s authority to enforce rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”

That assertion is wrong for two reasons.

  • First, the Federal Government and the States both have a duty to serve the interests of the citizenry. Government of any kind, under a free Constitutional Republic such as ours (and we are the only truly free Constitutional Republic on Earth), has no other purpose than that. There is no conflict on that score.
  • Second, concerning the Nation’s Bill of Rights, the Federal Government enforces nothing and must not be permitted to enforce anything because the Bill of Rights does not come under the purview of Federal Government enforcement (or, for that matter, under State enforcement either).

The citizenry doesn’t need or want either the Federal Government or the States to interfere with the Nation’s natural law rights in any manner. Enforcement is just another instance of interference.

Rather, it is the American people themselves who enforce their fundamental, natural law rights against the Government whenever the Government attempts to infringe on those rights.

The natural law right codified in the Second Amendment has carried the brunt of Government efforts—aided by a flaccid, placid, compliant Press and social media, academia, and with the business and financial sectors—to constrain the exercise of the right precisely because an armed citizenry is the ultimate bulwark against Tyranny.

Grisham(NM), Hochul(NY), Newsome(CA), Murphy(NJ), and the Biden Administration—just a few of the major purveyors of Marxism and toadies of foreign Deepstate powers—have made clear, through their words and their actions, where their allegiance rests. And it does not rest in the precepts and tenets of our Constitution, nor is it tied to this Nation and its people.

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 for free.

For more information, visit:

Arbalest Quarrel

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *