We The Patriots USA, INC. v. Grisham, 697 F.Supp.3d 1222

In September 2023 the New Mexico Governor declared a public‑health emergency for gun violence and the NM Department of Health (DOH) issued a Public Health Order (PHO) restricting public firearm possession in specified high‑crime areas, later narrowed.
The original PHO broadly limited open and concealed carry; a TRO temporarily enjoined those broad provisions after Plaintiffs (gun owners and advocacy groups) sued claiming Second Amendment and vagueness violations.
DOH amended the PHO twice; the operative (Second Amended) PHO applies only to the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County and bars firearms in public parks and playgrounds (with enumerated exceptions) through Nov. 3, 2023.
Two plaintiffs submitted affidavits showing they regularly carry and frequent Albuquerque parks/playgrounds, so the court found they have standing to seek pre‑enforcement relief as to those locations.
On the merits the court applied Bruen’s two‑step framework (text then historical tradition). It concluded Plaintiffs had not shown a substantial likelihood of success: historical evidence about park bans was mixed, and playgrounds qualify as “sensitive places” analogous to schools.
Because Plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the court denied the preliminary injunction without reaching the other injunction factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge parks/playgrounds ban	Plaintiffs intend to carry in parks/playgrounds and face credible threat of enforcement	Most plaintiffs lack specific allegations of intent to carry in those locations; only some have standing	Two plaintiffs had standing; others did not, but the case proceeded because some plaintiffs could challenge both restrictions
Park restriction — Second Amendment under Bruen	Park bans are inconsistent with historical tradition; Bruen protects public carry	Historical ordinances and statutes show longstanding regulation of parks; parks regulation fits Bruen’s historical‑tradition test	Court found historical evidence mixed and Plaintiffs did not show a clear likelihood of success on park claim
Playground restriction — sensitive places exception	Playgrounds are not traditional “sensitive places” and cannot be categorically banned	Playgrounds are analogous to schools (vulnerable children) and fit Heller/Bruen’s sensitive‑places doctrine	Court held playgrounds are sensitive places; Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on this claim
Preliminary injunction standard	Plaintiffs argued irreparable harm and merits favor injunction	Defendants argued Plaintiffs cannot meet the heavy burden; merits uncertain	Because Plaintiffs failed to show substantial likelihood of success, PI denied (court did not reach remaining factors)

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes and notes longstanding sensitive‑place exceptions)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated Second Amendment against the states)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (adopts textual/historical‑tradition test for modern firearms regulations)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (pre‑enforcement standing where credible threat of enforcement exists)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (clarifies injury‑in‑fact requirement for standing)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (likelihood‑of‑success and irreparable‑harm central in injunction analysis)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (injunction requires each equitable factor be established)
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Cruce, 972 F.2d 1195 (10th Cir. 1992) (sets the four‑factor preliminary injunction test)
Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Jewell, 839 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2016) (movant’s right to extraordinary relief must be clear and unequivocal)
Schrier v. Univ. of Colo., 427 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2005) (links irreparable harm to likelihood of success)