Michelle Lujan Grisham
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (AP Photo/Morgan Lee)
Previous Post
Next Post

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham knows exactly where to go to get fawning media coverage and an agreeable viewing audience for her all-call gun control platform.

Gov. Lujan Grisham joined MSNBC’s Morning Joe just days following the murders of three innocent Americans by a mentally troubled 18-year old. She knew there would be no serious pushback or correcting by the host of her false statements about firearms and lies about the firearm industry.

Then again, that was most likely her goal. And, sadly, it’s standard operating procedure for much of what passes these days for “mainstream media” and journalism.

Facts and Details

Gov. Lujan Grisham’s support for gun control restrictions is already well-known. It’s why she was in consideration to be President Joe Biden’s running mate back in 2019. One of the pillar planks of the Governor’s platform is to ban the possession, sale and transfer of modern sporting rifles (MSRs) in New Mexico.

There are currently more than 24.4 million in circulation since 1990. That means they are more commonly-owned than there are Ford F-150 pickup trucks. I’d guess you couldn’t drive five minutes in New Mexico without seeing an F-150 on the road.

New Mexico’s governor started with the usual “weapons of war” false allegations to demonize all lawful ownership because of the crazed acts of a lone, mentally disturbed individual.

This is a weapon of war…Frankly, no one that isn’t in the military…or trained police department, in my view, no one in America…should own an automatic weapon. There is no reason to own one of those.

In a common tell of how quickly gun control advocates push for more restrictions over the rights of Americans, the governor added she’s still looking for answers following the tragedy. Specifically, she’s looking for answers that indict the firearm, not the crazed criminal.

“I don’t have any of the details yet,” she admitted.

Here’s one. The AR-15 isn’t an automatic firearm. Facts are important and the governor ignores them or simply isn’t bothered about lying to viewers.

AR-15 rifle
Dan Z. for TTAG

Modern sporting rifles aren’t “automatic weapons” as the governor suggests. MSRs are semiautomatic rifles and use the same one-trigger-pull-one-round-expended firing technology that has been in existence for over a century.

It’s also the same technology used by thousands of varieties of handguns and shotguns. Semiautomatic firearms are used every day by millions of law-abiding Americans for self-defense, hunting and recreation and it’s their Constitutional right to do so.

Automatic firearms are highly regulated and are subject to all local, state and federal regulations, including the 1968 Gun Control Act and the 1934 National Firearms Act.

Gun Control’s Favorite Lie

Gov. Lujan Grisham answered questions to throw out all the gun control talking points she could think of. It wouldn’t make for a successful media appearance if she didn’t repeat one of gun control’s favorite lies – that the firearm industry has immunity from lawsuits.

“We’re also looking at, you know, legislation that didn’t pass our last legislative session, to go after gun manufacturers,” the governor added.

She’s talking about repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). President Biden utters the claim that firearm manufacturers have “immunity” from lawsuits but they don’t. Gov. Lujan Grisham’s staff should show her the numerous fact checks by Washington Post, PolitiFact, CNN, the Associated Press and others who have all stated the claim is false.

(AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

PLCAA is bipartisan legislation signed by President George W. Bush that simply codifies bedrock principles of tort law. It bars lawsuits against members of the firearm industry from those seeking to blame them for the criminal misuse by remote third persons – or criminals – of lawfully sold, non-defective firearms. It’s no surprise the effort to repeal the PLCAA in New Mexico failed, though the governor vowed to keep trying.

Age-Based Ban

In this country, when an American turns 18 years old, they are recognized by the law as being an adult and are fully vested in their Constitutional rights. They can vote, they can marry and have children, they can serve in the military, they can make decisions in their lives on their own. That includes purchasing a firearm for self-protection or any number of legal reasons. Gov. Lujan Grisham wants to change that.

“I have an issue with young people… having access to firearms at all,” the governor explained. “I think we need to raise that age, I’m going to ask for that again and expect to win it in the legislature.”

The governor may want to take a look around and wait on that demand. Florida enacted a law that banned the sale of all firearms to individuals aged 18 to 20 years old and that is currently being challenged in the courts in NRA v. Bondi.

NSSF filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in support of the NRA’s petition for a rehearing en banc in the case, arguing the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense includes the right to acquire those arms.

The laundry list of gun control restrictions favored by Gov. Lujan Grisham was lengthy. Some of her neighboring states – namely California, or others like Illinois and New York – already impose nearly everything she recited as her goals. And yet in those states, criminals continue to disregard the law.

Gov. Lujan Grisham should take a closer look at getting tough on criminals and holding them accountable for their crimes instead of pushing for more unconstitutional laws that will be ignored and only impact New Mexicans who already follow laws.


Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Commit an act of academic excellence – purchase your unique dissertation online now. Your dissertation is not only the result of years of hard research, but also the key to your future success thesis service https://dissertation-service.com/thesis-writing . We offer you a unique opportunity to purchase a dissertation online created especially for you. Our team consists of highly qualified professionals with extensive experience in writing dissertations in various fields of knowledge.

      • In my world the quick response to governor grisham from Gun orgs. would be as follows…Well governor grisham, you ignorant slut, you must not know History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is an agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide. Your response is?

        • Well that’s a funny response to SanyaPepega I must say. It was talking about making all kinds of money and I doubt it knows anything about racism or roots, well it might know about roots. Food is scarce in them countries that know about making all kinds of money.

        • “Your response is?” It’s in the article.

          “Frankly, no one that isn’t in the military — this is a weapon of war — or a trained police department, in my view, no one in America who isn’t in one of those two situations should own an automatic weapon. There is no reason to own one of those. Secondarily, I have an issue with young people without training, support, mental health support having access to firearms at all. I think we need to raise that age. I’m going to ask for that again. I expect to win it in the legislature. We have a safe storage law so that parents are now liable if their children have access to firearms or are taking them to school. We’re doing all of that work, because I think you’re exactly right. There is no reason. We’re also looking at legislation that didn’t pass our last legislative session to go after gun manufacturers.”

    • Are you looking for a job of your choice??? Can’t find the job you want even after visiting different websites? Considering your needs, we have organized our website with all categories of jobs, visit this link now….. https://Ukcash1.blogspot.com/

  2. Moderated. Koo-el. Second time in 14yrs

    “Facts are important and the governor ignores them or simply isn’t bothered about lying to viewers.”

    “Facts” are not important; not at all. What is important is the ability to emotionally charge your “base”, and “get out the vote”.

    If you listen to the gun-grabbers, they don’t care about facts, but only ridding* themselves of fear, regardless of the facts.

    *Fear is the driver for the “base”, but the weapon/tool of those who really control politics. “Fear” always leads to the demand that someone else (i.e. government) remove the fear.

    • What Liberals can’t get through their thick skulls is the fact that only the Law-abiding follow the laws. Laws mean nothing to the criminal. Laws only further restrict those who follow the laws, making them more and more vulnerable. Besides, an unarmed populace is where racism and religious bigotry thrive. Disarming the populace is also the first step taken when a tyrant is about to take over the government.

      • “What Liberals can’t get through their thick skulls is the fact that only the Law-abiding follow the laws.”

        “Liberals” are acutely aware that the law-abiding will obey the laws. That is the intention. Reducing crime is a hopeless adventure.

      • “When you’ve no clue how to fix a problem blame the gunm.”

        Wish I had known that when taking my finals at university.

  3. These Leftists will never learn. We Americans believe in the rights of our fellow citizens to be able to defend themselves against the Left’s criminal element.

  4. Open lawless border is a much larger threat as terrorists , Chinese nationals , drug cartels , human smugglers traffic millions into the USA.

    Diseases like drug resistant T.B. come with them, there is no screening.

    Former Officer was made the bad guy for doing his job. – @Matt_Bracken48 Twitter.

    ” I stopped a vehicle for a minor traffic violation. When I made contact with the driver I learned he did not have a valid driver’s license and was in the United States illegally from Mexico.

    I placed him under arrest and called ice to see if they wanted to deport him.

    I called for a tow truck and made a inventory of the items inside of the vehicle. Once I open the trunk on the vehicle I found hundreds of stolen driver’s license and social security cards.

    I was reprimanded for my actions and sent to a cultural diversity training class.”
    @614clinton – May 23

    U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 4:
    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion”

    • We have met the enemy and the enemy is those who vote these idiots into office either by ignorance, sheer stupidity, or immoral character. Our borders are not being enforced on purpose. The Democrats think that by flooding our country with illegal immigrants they can change the voter demographic into a solid Democrat voter bloc, especially in the swing states.

  5. Her Regime is actively covering up Wrongful Deaths by Law Enforcement in New Mexico.

    ‘Wrong Served Warrants’ involving the State’s Red Flag Laws where the wrong person at the wrong address is served……..FUCK HER!!

  6. What’s Monsanto Mommy doing there? I thought she retired. Bloombucks just too good to pass up.

  7. Remember this. A missing child from Georgia was found dead at a New Mexico lot.
    Raided by local police after Feds did not act as I recall.
    Alleged to be training shooters.


    But you lawful citizen are the problem.

  8. A weapon of War.
    Yup, that’s one of the reasons the Second Amendment was written, to guarantee We The People had the power to defeat a tyrannical government using weapons of war.
    Now that’s out of the way their next problem is how to ban the Second Amendment, nah , just infringe the sht out of it, much easier then an out right ban.
    The Right To Wear Shoes Shall Not Be Infringed.
    as long as they’re not made of leather, have shoe strings or metal fasteners, do not contain any synthetics, contain no metals, are not made for combat, mountain climbing, running,walking, boxing, dancing ,baseball, basketball, football, soccer, golf, bowling, roller skating,
    do not have a height 3 and 1/16 inch above of your ankle, are of round toe design only, does not have an aggressive tread pattern, does have an aggressive tread pattern, can not be thrown, can not be slipped on or off, are not of the color Black, Brown, Green, Yellow, Red, White, Blue, are not Made in USA, are not imported.
    Congress shall give BATFES the legal authority to change the definitions as or if we the people improvise ways to circumvent the not infringements.

  9. If they cant get the gun they’ll go after the boolits

    Via The Firing Line

    Pennsylvania bill put 5 cent tax on every round of ammo. All ammo to have serial number on bullet base and casing. Database creation. All other ammo becomes illegal after Jan 2024. * ( HB 586 )

    • “All ammo to have serial number on bullet base and casing.”

      None of the micro-stamping is designed to find actual perps, but to identify and punish victims of firearm theft/robbery.

      • Going after criminals is difficult and dangerous.

        Going after law-abiding citizens, much less so.


        • “Going after criminals is difficult and dangerous. Going after law-abiding citizens, much less so. Priorities.

          True, dat.

      • Damnit now I am going to have even more competition for reloading components. Not even in my court circuit either…..well they already had that sort of thing in discussion so see what happens.

        • The writing was on the wall when the Hillarys were talking about a 5000 % TAX on all ammo.

    • dems in PA are throwing a lot of shit up against the wall…only the senate can put a stop this…we’ll be watching

  10. Instead of worrying about guns, she should worry about the blue meth problem in her city.

  11. We have *excellent* news in rolling back the administrative state from the SCotUS :

    Sackett v. EPA was decided in a 5-4 ruling :

    “Supreme Court rules against EPA in dispute over regulating wetlands”


    And yes, the fascist Left is flipping the fuck out :

    “BREAKING: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court severely weakened the Clean Water Act in Sackett v. EPA. This is a catastrophic loss for water protections across the country and a win for big polluters, putting our communities, public health, and local ecosystems in danger.”


    • “BREAKING: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court severely weakened the Clean Water Act in Sackett v. EPA. ”

      5-4 decisions are always good when in our favor, illegitimate when ruled in favor of our political opponents. I think SC rulings should require a super majority; at least 6 votes to reach a “decision”, potentially limiting party line votes of “the Supremes”.

      • From the article, it was actually 9-0 against the EPA:

        The court ruled unanimously in favor of the Idaho couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, that brought the case, but split 5-4 in its reasoning

      • ” I think SC rulings should require a super majority; at least 6 votes to reach a “decision”, potentially limiting party line votes of “the Supremes”.”

        In that case, the 5-4 Heller v. DC decision is tossed in the trash.

        With no ‘Heller’, there’s no ‘Bruen’.

        You really wanna go there?

        • “In that case, the 5-4 Heller v. DC decision is tossed in the trash. With no ‘Heller’, there’s no ‘Bruen’. You really wanna go there?

          As noted: we are happy when 5-4 goes our way, but consider 5-4 against as some sort of illigitimate travesty of justice.

          If we could have a 6 vote majority to decide a case, an injunction against all parties would freeze the matter, and require resubmit at some future date, when one side or the other can be more persuasive.

          Essentially pointing out the problem with 5-4 splits. Are we happy with the current judicial process….that mostly goes the way of the Dimwitocrats/Leftists?

        • Essentially pointing out the problem with 5-4 splits. Are we happy with the current judicial process….that mostly goes the way of the Dimwitocrats/Leftists?

          Sam, whether one is “happy” with the current judicial process (I am not – it is far too slow. This EPA case started in 2008 FFS) is irrelevant – because that is the set of rules we have agreed to.

          With calls to pack the court, or the current court being illegitimate (because Obama’s “pick” didn’t come up for a vote, and ACB got rushed through), Democrats want to change the goalposts – always, which is far scarier in the long run.

          Consider that rulings like Roe v Wade, or Dred Scott were 7-2. Does that make either legitimate?

        • “If we could have a 6 vote majority to decide a case …”

          I find those terms acceptable — once we seat another originalist judge on the SC.

          Further, not being able to define a word such as “woman,” is an immediate disqualifier.

      • making the Supreme Court 13 in number is a better idea and what better time then now.
        JRB 2024

        • “making the Supreme Court 13 in number is a better idea and what better time then now.”

          IIRC, at one time, an SC justice was the chief judge of an appeals circuit, meaning the SC justices equaled the number of appeals court circuits. Today, we would have 13 seats on the SC.

        • You’re correct. Dred Scott was decided because of how the Law was, not How they wanted it to be. The much vilified Chief Jusice Roger B. Taney did not support Slavery as some revisionists claim. He believed the practice a Great Evil, and had freed the slaves he inherited as a young man, long before he was appointed to the bench. Being a Jacksonian Statist though, he also believed strongly that Congress had no power over the issue of Slavery, and that its continuance or destruction lied solely in the hands of the States. Taney did condemn the National Abolitionist Movement, considered them Aggressors who were provoking the eventual Secession of the Southern States with their inflammatory rhetoric and actions. Taney authored Dred Scott v Stanford as the Constitution and then Bill of Rights was written, so as a Jurist, he didn’t allow his personal views to influence his decision. A commendable stand that the current crop of Jurists attempting to Legislate from the Bench need to look to.
          Taney attempted to settle the debate of whether Congress could act or not through the majority decision.
          Today, he’s much vilified, but in truth, he was one of the wisest individuals ever appointed to the bench and set an example of Following Constitutional Law that should be revered. Taney excoriated Lincoln for suspending Habeus Corpus in a masterful display of a Legal Mind. Lincoln’s only response was to declare Non Aquiessence.
          The Statist attitude was a prevalent belief before the Civil War on both sides of the Political Spectrum. Which answers the question of why men like Lee, Jackson, Longstreet and so many others, the cream of the Officer Corp of the US Army, could abandon their Federal Oath to defend their Allegiance to their States. The Civil War settled that debate of State v Federal Supremacy. Sadly, it can also be argued that’s when we ceased to be a Republic.

  12. New Mexico is a state where “white privilege” exists. For wealthy, ESG, politically connected white people like Alec Baldwin. Who can shoot someone to death and not be prosecuted for it.
    Donald Trump on the other hand is wealthy, has a high ESG score. But is not politically connected. He would be prosecuted.

  13. Look when you elect morons like that over and over again… when you get the government, you deserve… you can’t fix stupid or Democrats..

    • We can “fix” Democrats the same way pets are fixed. There will be some screaming and blood however.

  14. Governor Grisham and Gov Newsom go to opposing corners at the back of the classroom and put on the Dunce Caps of idiocy. When it comes to weapons both negligent in their ability to decipher right from wrong and analyze what the real problem is and come to a logical conclusion and remedy. The problem is not guns, it is people getting guns who should not be getting guns. Ask them what they have done to identify those persons with deficient medical conditions and have their names placed upon the Background Check List to deny access and what have they done to prosecute those who have been denied access by lying on the federal form for Background checks.

  15. People of the gun , your free speech and opinion will be used against you.


    NOW – Biden says U.S. government agencies will take over 100 “bold and unprecedented” actions to “fight hate” and antisemitism.

    So what , that has nothing to do with guns , right ? Wrong.

    “State Representative and State Senator to express your opposition to House Bills 1024, 1025, 1026, and 1027 – a package of bills from Rep. Dan Frankel (D-Allegheny) that would give government the tools to punish disagreement with radical gender ideology.

    These bills invite anonymous tips of so-called *hate based intimidation* that could be weaponized against those who speak up about human sexuality, marriage, and what it means to be male and female. ( or any other topic ) This could further weaponize our cancel-culture and result in state-sanctioned discrimination”.

    So, your ” wrong think ” opinion will be called ‘ evidence of hate ‘ making you a gasp…. ‘threat’. See how that works ?

    ” Seize those guns ! “

    • IMO, what’s really bad isn’t the lack of intelligence on a particular item an elected official has. It’s the general lack of intelligence on most/all items of significance. My long time concern hasn’t necessarily been “what is .gov doing regarding guns today”, it’s “what is .gov doing in the thousands of other areas that I’m not in tune with”. My general assumption is – if it’s bad with guns, it’s bad in most other areas as well.

      Coupled with the fact that the individuals that vote for them often have no clue who or what they are voting for.

      Assume, for a moment, that you are of average intelligence. That simply suggests that there are at least 150 million people in the US that are dumber than you. That is depressing.

  16. @300BlackoutFan

    The SC, or any other judicial proceeding should not be concerned, whatsoever, with the social impact of a decision. Doing so makes the decision(s) highly political, rather than “legal”. Societal impact is the purview of the legislative bodies, not the courts.

    Regarding original RvW, the decision was 7-2 (it is the system we agreed to follow); overturning that decision should be at least 6-3 (“super majority”). Note: the original RvW was not a legal, but societal decision; the federal govt/courts were not delegated power to regulate abortion. Instead, the SC struggled to wring their decision from the notion of “privacy”. Without delegated power, the SC should have deferred to Amendments 9 and 10.

    As to Dred Scott, the constitution did not delegate to the federal government power/authority to regulate the slave trade. The morality/popularity of law is not a proper consideration when dealing with law.

    The underlying point is that if we demand a simple majority of the SC to determine what a law is/is not, we forfeit the right/privilege to complain about the outcome based on impacts of judicial decisions. Precedent of court rulings should not be set by simple majorities.

    For far too long, the nation has traded what the law is, for what it should be/could be.

    • Dred Scott was ultimately decided as a property dispute. Mr. Scott was considered property, and property does not have rights. Part of the majority opinion opined that if property did have rights, then as a human, Mr. Scott would have been able to keep and bear arms. This was part of Justice Thomas’s majority opinion in Bruen indicating that 2A has always referred to an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

      Therefore, the Dred Scott case was just as much a morality decision as Roe v Wade (today, in the US, we do not consider persons to be property, and yet human trafficking is a thing, albeit illegal. What happened to Epstein???).

      My point was simply that arguing everything should be a super-majority decision isn’t where the goalposts are right now, and many super-majority decisions of SCOTUS have been wrong – morally and/or justly. I think we can generally agree that Wickard v Filburn was, and continues to be, a terrible decision, for The People. And yet, it was 9-0.

      • “I think we can generally agree that Wickard v Filburn was, and continues to be, a terrible decision. And yet, it was 9-0.”

        And it avoided a strictly party line vote; which is good. (the decision was lunacy itself)

        Dred Scott was properly decided because the Constitution did not permit the government to regulate slavery as an issue. The means for permitting government to regulate was/is a constitutional amendment (eventually ratified as the 13th Amendment), which is too hard for people who subscribe to the folly of ,”We can’t let law stand in the way of doing what is right.”

        The system we have is what we have; doesn’t make it prudent.

  17. @Man with no name
    “Further, not being able to define a word such as “woman,” is an immediate disqualifier.”

    Any sentient attorney will tell you that tightly defining anything will work to your disadvantage. Vagueness and dissembling are your best friends.

  18. @Southern Cross
    “Better to co-opt the criminals to their cause.”

    Done, and done.

  19. Grisham is a Certified Liberal Idiot, and has proven that time and time again.
    If you’re well endowed however, she will give you a personal tour of her office.

  20. The claims of politicians who are pushing to restrict anything to Americans should, upon the filing of a complaint that meets some conditions, be made to undergo an analysis for faulty logic and for non-adherence to the Constitution and federal laws and laws on the books in their jurisdiction.

    There would have to be committees, commissions, panels, or administrative offices to handle the complaints.

  21. @Bemused Berserker

    “The Civil War settled that debate of State v Federal Supremacy. Sadly, it can also be argued that’s when we ceased to be a Republic.”

    As with gun control laws today, the Statists were trying to circumvent the Constitution via simple legislation, rather than take the trouble to amend it. Curiously, those same people who could not bother with an amendment (because they hadn’t the votes), eventually amended the Constitution to end slavery. But only after proving, once again, “might makes right”.

    The self-evident proof after 1865 that “the Republic” was no more remains to this day in the change of the phrase “the United States are”, to “the United States is”.

  22. A terrible state politically but a beautiful one to visit. How could the Dems have such a hold on this state?

Comments are closed.