The reactions to New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s “emergency” order banning the carrying of firearms in Albuquerque were largely what one might expect – especially coming from the right. But surprisingly, many on the left took issue with the order as well.
Even though the Democratic Party is firmly in the anti-gunner camp, several individuals criticized the order despite their virulent advocacy for gun control laws that restrict the right to keep and bear arms. However, as the Libertarian Party’s Mises Caucus pointed out, there might be more to this than meets the eye.
Shortly after the news broke about Gov. Lujan Grisham’s authoritarian order, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), who has likely never seen a firearm he didn’t want to seize, slammed the order as unconstitutional.
Lieu:
I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution. https://t.co/kOhLMtaOl2
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) September 9, 2023
I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.
To make things even more perplexing, anti-gunner activist David Hogg also chimed in, taking issue with the governor issuing her order under the guise of declaring a public health emergency.
I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.
I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution. https://t.co/6GfbOZLc7g
— David Hogg 🟧 (@davidhogg111) September 9, 2023
At the heart of this debate is the Second Amendment, which protects people’s gun rights. The order raises a serious question: Can a state-led public health emergency order, or any others, override a natural right that is protected by the Constitution? The answer is a clear “no,” and Lieu and Hogg seem to agree.
However, the Mises Caucus published a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, urging caution for liberty-minded people encouraged by leftists not immediately rushing to defend Lujan Grisham. They pointed out that while it appears these individuals are defending natural rights, they could very well have ulterior motives.
“David Hogg and Ted Lieu don’t care about your rights; they just want the feds to be the ones to violate them,” they wrote.
A number of liberty minded people took a positive view of the messaging from @davidhogg111 and @tedlieu regarding the unconstitutional actions of New Mexico governor Grisham. They both said exactly the same thing, “There is no such thing as a state public health emergency…
— Mises Caucus (@LPMisesCaucus) September 11, 2023
Full tweet:
A number of liberty minded people took a positive view of the messaging from @davidhogg111 and @tedlieu regarding the unconstitutional actions of New Mexico governor Grisham. They both said exactly the same thing, “There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution” a message certainly provided by their DNC handlers. It is important to read between the lines when assessing these statements, they say there is no “state” exception, because they want to normalize the idea of a “federal” exception to the constitution. It’s an attempt to leverage rhetoric to set the stage for future federal top-down mandates, while fostering the idea that states and by extension more local levels of governance should have no say in the matter. It’s a “limited hangout” a little taste of sanity to get you further invested in a narrative. David Hogg and Ted Lieu don’t care about your rights, they just want the feds to be the ones to violate them.
The group’s use of the term “limited hangout” refers to a tactic in which one reveals a bit of the truth in order to draw attention away from an underlying deception. It is a rhetorical sleight of hand intended to put their opponents at ease. After all, they might be anti-gunner zealots, but maybe they aren’t that crazy, right?
The truth is likely something far different. What could be happening here is that while they acknowledge that such an order might not be viable coming from a state government, the federal government might be given latitude to do so in the future.
Indeed, President Joe Biden and his merry band of anti-gunner Democrats have been trying desperately to pass radical and ridiculous gun restrictions ever since he took office. Since the makeup of Congress has not allowed them to advance this agenda, the White House has resorted to other means through executive orders and having the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives pursue other ways to curb gun rights.
This discussion highlights the ongoing struggle between states’ rights and federal authority. Should states retain the power to make these decisions, or should the federal government be empowered to impose one-size-fits-all-holsters mandates?
Of course, it is worth noting that if Democrats can get away with cracking down on gun rights at the state level, they will surely go this route just as they did in Illinois, New York, and California. However, Lujan Grisham’s order was pushing the issue further than the nation would accept, and the likes of Lieu and Hogg know this. So, in this vein, it would make sense for them to push back against it – even if it’s just for appearances.
Make no mistake, these people want to take your guns. They simply realize that they can’t go as far as Lujan Grisham has at this moment in time, although they would certainly like to. For this reason, it is important for liberty-minded people not to be fooled. These people mean business, and so should we.
