When New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham declared a complete and total ban on lawful carry in Albuquerque, it sent a shockwave through the Second Amendment and the gun debate as a whole. A number of prominent anti-gun voices called out to say they disagreed with Grisham's move, likely because it undercuts so much of their rhetoric about respecting the Second Amendment.

But that was then, this is now, right? 

Well, not really. While the news surrounding Albuquerque has faded, the fact of the matter is that not only did it happen, but there's really not a whole lot to stop it from happening again.

That's going to take something more.

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a brief last week with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Fort v. Grisham, its lawsuit challenging the New Mexico Governor’s total ban on carry in public parks and playgrounds. The brief can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/grisham.

In a July 24th Order, the Court required the parties to file supplemental briefs answering three questions about the appeal. FPC’s brief explains that “after accounting for the issues the Court has raised, it remains the case that the Court should reverse the decision below and order entry of an injunction against the challenged provisions of the Governor’s order.”

“Plaintiffs have also declared that they will visit parks that are not covered by those ordinances, and regardless, the threat of prosecution under the Governor’s carry ban alone supports irreparable harm and standing,” the brief continues. “In short, the Governor’s ban harms appellants, and their harm can be redressed by a preliminary injunction.”

Oral arguments at the Tenth Circuit are scheduled to take place on September 25, 2024.

The Fort case is part of FPC’s high-impact FPC Law strategic litigation program to eliminate immoral laws and create a world of maximal liberty. FPC is joined in the litigation by one individual FPC member, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association.

Next month, Grisham's rules will have been in effect for over a year, so this is far from over. 

Yes, the rule has been modified from the original complete and total carry ban, but that doesn't mean it's a whole lot better.

The prohibition covers those who wish to carry a firearm lawfully. Historically, though, we know that these are the people who are least likely to cause any kind of problem. Studies have shown lawful concealed carriers are more law-abiding than police officers, judges, and literally every other group you care to name. Prohibiting them is just stupid.

But then we have the rule itself, and while Bruen did allow that some areas were "sensitive" and could be named as gun-free zones, the truth is that Grisham usurped authority to make her public health emergency rules. In so doing, though, she made it really clear why we should be alarmed by any official declarations of a so-called public health crisis.

Someone will get the bright idea to use it to restrict rights.

Hopefully, though, the courts will recognize that Grisham overstepped and that the bans on lawful carry in public parks and playgrounds is blatantly unconstitutional and should die a fiery death.