After engaging in what many viewed as an embarrassing display of hubris in her attempt last fall to issue “Executive Orders” attacking the right to keep and bear arms and ammunition, New Mexico's Democrat governor backed off the orders - but her hubris seems to remain, as last week she fought for the EO move in the New Mexico Supreme Court and engaged in another bold attack.
Michelle Lujan Grisham Friday announced a new load of rights-attacking proposals that, she says, will be heard in a special 30-day session of the state legislature set to start on Tuesday, January 16.
Andrea Vacchiano reports for Fox News:
“New Mexico Republicans are accusing Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of undermining the Second Amendment after the Democrat introduced gun control proposals on Friday.
Lujan Grisham announced that a 30-day state legislative session slated to begin Tuesday that will include ‘the largest and most comprehensive public safety package in our state's history.’”
Funny, but pointing government guns at peacefully-minded people who want to own, or DO own, certain kinds of firearms, telling them they can’t exercise their right to acquire a means of self-defense, or telling them they must wait and produce private information to agents of the state – those don’t make the peacefully-minded people safer. As FBI Uniform Crime Stats going back many years show, there is a strong correlation between increasing legal gun ownership and decreasing violent crime. And, as regions with heavy anti-gun statutes show, the “bans” don’t stop guns from reaching the criminals who want them.
“The gun control proposals include a 14-day background check waiting period on gun purchases, prohibiting guns in polling places and parks, and a minimum age requirement of 21 years on semiautomatic firearm purchases.”
Over and above the continued use of the amorphous term “semi-automatic” – which doesn’t really mean anything other than the fact that a gun is NOT automatic – we must note that none of these bills is in any way constitutional. They are highly immoral threats by people in government against other people who would like to peacefully arm themselves.
Meaning that Governor Grisham and those who propose these bills actually are the people engaging in threats of gun violence -- state-held, tax-fed, gun violence – against innocent, rights-blessed individuals.
Related: Hunter Biden, Second Amendment Hero?
But they seem not to care about rights, and, instead, want to work within the already fictive legal land that generations of disrespectful, deceitful politicians have constructed since FDR cronies passed the 1934 Firearms Act.
And they seem to think that one of their most promising vectors of attack will be open new doors to civil lawsuits against gun makers.
Writes Vacchiano:
“The package also includes the Firearm Industry Accountability Act, which would ‘amend the state statue [sic] to allow gun manufacturers to be held liable for deceptive trade practices.’”
This indicates that Grisham and her gang have read the 2005 federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which prohibited federal courts from hearing interstate liability suits against gun makers and sellers should the firearms be used in violent criminal acts – a statute that many Republican members of Congress passed because of the looming threat of spurious attempts to bankrupt gun makers for “liability” if their product didn’t malfunction, but, instead, if it worked properly in the hands of a criminal.
With only a few exceptions – such as if the seller knowingly sold the firearm to someone who had signaled an intent to use the product for criminal purposes, the default position would be blockage from federal courts almost all liability suits against the gun makers.
But, as the leftist, anti-gun-rights Gifford Center tells its visitors, there are a few ways to skirt the statute, and that’s Grisham’s vector of attack.
“Generally, PLCAA prohibits plaintiffs from bringing what the law calls ‘qualified civil liability actions’ against these industry defendants. ‘Qualified civil liability actions’ are civil or administrative proceedings for damages or other relief brought by any person, including a governmental entity, ‘resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse’ of firearms, ammunition, or firearm or ammunition component parts by the plaintiff or a third party.7
Importantly, PLCCA provides six exceptions to its general industry immunity….”
And one of those is:
“An action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, if the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”
So, they want to attack the right to sell or obtain a firearm by threatening gun-makers over what they SAY when they market the guns.
But, unless a gun malfunctions, the result of its use should not be place the maker in any sort of liability danger. To do so would be akin to claiming that a car-maker could be liable for advertising its product and not including in said ad a warning that someone might use the vehicle in a hit and run.
Related: Undeniable Truth: Gun Control Activists Support Threats Of Gun Violence Against Innocents | MRCTV
Vacchiano offers words from Grisham that indicate an utter lack of care for this reality:
"’The constitutionality questions are beginning to be very complicated in the arena of gun violence,’ Lujan Grisham said at a press conference Friday. ‘We are going to continue this effort, following what is going on around the country.’”
Perhaps Grisham isn’t up to speed on the matter of the Second Amendment, but “constitutionality questions” are not complicated at all.
They are simple, spelled out by the Second Amendment phrase, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
To avoid embarrassing herself again, Grisham might want to stop pushing pretenses, might want to steer away from threatening gun makers and buyers with new openings to fatuous liability suits or government prohibitions and waiting periods, which, themselves, are infringements on natural rights.
Perhaps she knows she won’t succeed. Perhaps she is pushing this simply to get applause from her leftist base.
And perhaps, as we noted above, she can’t feel embarrassment at all, because she is so toweringly hubristic, she will continue to march along her bellicose path, threatening peaceful people all the way.
Follow MRCTV on X!
Bidenomics after 35 Months: Six Charts the Media Don’t Want You to See https://t.co/krntSWmrjb
— MRCTV (@mrctv) January 16, 2024