Yes, another commentary on the New Mexico crisis.

The Western Journal reported and in part and commented: ”  When pressed on why the civil order was required, instead of something like, say, better law enforcement, Grisham stressed all of the “value” that this order would give her (yes, her.) “The value of the order is that it gives me three things,” Grisham said. (And yes, she really did say “gives me.” A Freudian slip, perhaps?) After rattling off a word salad that would make Vice President Kamala Harris blush, Grisham made her most curious point of all: That the Constitution is, somehow, not absolute. “If there’s an emergency — and I’ve declared an emergency for a temporary amount of time — I can invoke additional powers,” Grisham said, in her best attempt at a comic book supervillain monologue. “No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.” Well, then. Look, a deep disdain for the U.S. Constitution is hardly a unique feature of deep-blue Democrats. So maybe all of her aforementioned yammering is what you’d expect from “leaders” of her ilk. But this writer would be remiss not to bring up one last genuinely scary comment this woman made. A reporter at the news conference told the governor, “If someone’s got a concealed permit, in Albuquerque, walking on a public street in, they’re not going to get arrested.” She responded, without a hint of irony: “I can make the point that they maybe they should be [arrested.]” Yes, this is a United States governor openly calling for the hypothetical arrest of a law-abiding citizen, literally walking on the street. That is utter insanity and pure evil … which is a fitting tagline for the modern Democratic Party and everything that it represents.

David Correa’s WaronGuns.com had this headline: Naked, undisguised tyranny,” and wrote in part: “They don’t even try to hide their appetites for our freedom anymore. Any LEO who enforces this will have chosen his side.” His comments were prophetic: even the new Chief of the Albuquerque Police Department gang claims that it will be Feds enforcing Luhan Grisham’s decree, not the thugs that infest APD. The County Sheriff also – within hours – stated that he and his people will support the Constitution.

Which brings us to the question: just what does a “State of Emergency” allow a bureaucrat, an elected official, even a legislative body to do? In a free nation, as supposedly all Fifty States are, is a state of emergency justification or authorization for suspending (temporarily or not) ANY God-given right? Especially one specifically spelled out by the Federal and State constitutions? (Whether or not it is obvious that the denial of rights will have any effect at all on the problems the state of emergency is supposedly addressing?)

Dear readers, please tell us here at TPOL: can you find ANY such power granted to any government official or body to deny ANY right protected in any State constitution. Or the US Constitution of 1787 as amended. ANY!? We can’t in the ones with which we are familiar.

Indeed, the closest we can find to giving any government such power is found in that justly condemned and sickening 29th article of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” As in the US Constitution the phrase “general welfare” is abused and twisted, and the excuse of “public order” invoked generally by those seeking more power and more wealth at the expense of others.

And from a practical point of view, the actions that New Mexico’s Empress has decreed are precisely the opposite of what truly would solve the problems of crime-ridden Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. The open and concealed carry of firearms has been demonstrated time and time again throughout American and world history to reduce the crime rate and to further promote public order and the general welfare. Definitely when we look at attacks and killing of innocent people. Not just by the hated guns, but by knives and fists and stones thrown from overpasses. (The connection with the fentanyl crisis is less direct, but I for one am completely baffled by how prohibiting the carrying of weapons reduces the sale and consumption of fentanyl or any recreational pharma.)

How many people will be wounded or die in Bernalillo Count before the courts rule this blatantly illegal executive order is unconstitutional? Miz Michelle and others claim that the Feds will enforce this, and maybe they will. Have orders already gone out for the FBI, BATFE, etc. and other agencies under the supposed benevolent control of the senile Uncle Joe to do that? How quickly will courts point out the violation of constitutional protections if that is done? Will these things even make it to and through the courts in 30 days? After all, who controls the courts?

We shall see. In the meantime, what can New Mexicans do if they fear being rounded up and imprisoned or fined for violating her decree? Those in the most populous county of the State? They can flee to other counties in NM and pray for relief and denial of her ability to expand the decree. Her selecting a retired Chief of the State Police to be her Gun Czar does not bode well for hopes otherwise. Can they stand their ground and fight? Possibly. Can they flee to other States? Not Colorado of course, and probably not Arizona. Texas and Utah and Oklahoma are at least possibilities. If people do, welcome them, help them, and encourage and prepare them to go back to New Mexico to restore freedom and liberty. Even if it must be by force of arms.