Bernalillo County, N.M., the home of Albuquerque, is a gun-free zone for the next 30 days, thanks to a public health order issued by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.
Well, firearms are not technically prohibited from existing in Bernalillo County so much as they are no longer allowed to be visible or on one's person at any time when off private property.
For the next month, all public places in Bernalillo County are to remain free of all guns and firearms, this following the death of an 11-year-old child who was shot. This prompted Grisham to ban guns in Albuquerque and its surroundings for the next 30 days.
At a recent press conference, Grisham explained that "gun violence" is so out of control, in her view, that it now represents a "public health crisis." As such, her solution to the problem is to prohibit the Second Amendment in just one of her state's counties for the next four weeks.
(Related: How exactly will "blue" areas like New Mexico enforce their anti-gun agendas if all their police departments have been defunded?)
Is the right to bear arms negotiable in the event of a "public health crisis?"
It has been speculated for some time now that the next step in trying to abolish the right to bear arms might involve tying it to "health." Since the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) "pandemic" was successful in stripping people of their right to move about and breathe freely, it only makes sense that gun control advocates would take a page from the playbook and attempt something similar.
Grisham apparently believed that her order to keep guns off all public property in Bernalillo County would go unchallenged. She would be dead wrong, it turns out, as there are now multiple pending lawsuits against the order.
Last time we checked, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) never made any exceptions to the Second Amendment for "public health." In fact, it is stated unequivocally in the Second Amendment that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed under any circumstances.
Still, Grisham and her ilk are going to try because why not? Again, it worked so well during COVID to "temporarily" override Americans' constitutional rights under the guise of keeping everyone "safe" that it only makes sense for them to try the same thing again, but this time because of gun violence.
It is already illegal to harm someone with a firearm except in cases of self-defense – and only in some states. Even so, primarily Democrats are fixated on trying to eliminate all private gun ownership because every once in a while, someone commits a crime with a gun.
If we follow that line of thinking, then everything should be illegal because there is no weapon, object, or substance that is 100 percent "safe" at all times. There is always the potential that anything can be misused to harm someone, so should we just ban everything?
"New Mexico's governor has violated the rights of New Mexico's law-abiding citizens in a manner I would only expect to see 90 miles off the coast of Florida," commented Luis Valdes, the Florida Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA), referring, of course, in the latter part of that statement to Cuba.
"In the communist hellscape that is Cuba, criminals will continue to break the law and the law-abiding will suffer because of it."
In addition to banning firearms in public places for the next 30 days, Grisham is also placing increased pressure on locally owned and operated gun shops that will make it harder for them to operate.
The latest news about the U.S. war over guns can be found at SecondAmendment.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.