In a discussion with The New York Times, Governor Grisham asserted her use of emergency authority, describing gun violence as an "epidemic" and thus justifying the state of emergency. She hinted that the order could be extended beyond its initial 30-day period unless gun violence were to magically disappear within that time frame.
Hey Ted, conceal and open carry are state laws that I have jurisdiction over. If you’re really interested in helping curb gun violence, I’d welcome you to join our next police academy class. https://t.co/Odf9fNbO2W https://t.co/17ca1dYpLc
— Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (@GovMLG) September 10, 2023
In contrast, George Mason law professor Robert Leider expressed doubt in the same outlet, suggesting that emergency orders are traditionally issued under circumstances that are more immediately threatening. He questioned the likelihood of the order being upheld in a legal setting, pointing out that there's no existing legal precedent for taking such a measure simply based on general criminal activity.
Over the weekend, State Representatives Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park) and John Block (R-Alamogordo) claimed that Grisham's emergency order was a breach of her responsibilities and called it a basis for her impeachment. Through a press statement, they argued that her actions and comments make her unfit to serve as Governor, accusing her of overreaching her powers. Lord characterized the Governor's decision as a "grossly misguided effort to force a radical, progressive ideology on a public that doesn't want it."
No comments:
Post a Comment