Gun rights group sues New Mexico over order banning guns in public in Albuquerque
Gun rights group sues New Mexico over order banning guns in public in Albuquerque
A gun rights group sued New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) and other state officials on Saturday over an emergency order banning firearms from being carried in public in Albuquerque. The Na…
A gun rights group sued New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) and other state officials on Saturday over an emergency order banning firearms from being carried in public in Albuquerque.
The National Association for Gun Rights, alongside Albuquerque resident Foster Haines, filed suit just one day after Grisham announced the public health order temporarily suspending concealed and open carry laws in the city.
The group argued that the order violates their Second Amendment rights, pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
You're viewing a single thread.
Public Safety should always come first.
I don't agree, there are plenty of accepted risks, and there are many cases where public safety could be prioritized at the expense of individual liberties. COVID is a recent example, extremely stringent lockdowns, freedom of movement suspensions, etc would likely decrease deaths as in Australia.
Fine. No vehicles, no candles, no walking around without a helmet on. Public safety is number one!
Vehicles require licenses and you are regulated where you can drive. Many, MANY fire codes have been written for home goods, furnishings and house materials to prevent fires from common things like candles. You must wear a helmet on bicycles or motorcycles (and other things similar) in most states.
So, yes?
And you aren't regulated on where you can shoot? What accessories you can have (state dependant)? How long your barrel can be wothout paying a $200 tax for no reason that effectively just limits the poor and disenfranchised?
...And you think that there isn't an entire federal agency devoted largely to regulating firearms...? Spoiler: the BATF exists, but there are limits on what they can do. This is beyond the scope of their power, because they can't violate the constitution and court precedent.
Except we have people arguing against registration. In my state all you have to do is be 21, not have a felony, and maybe pay child support and you're good. Have a gun.
Yes? Registration is not a good thing, so I'm not seeing a problem?
Well. That's a dumb take on it.
So is talking in absolutes.
We do have regulations on vehicles, fire, and in most places helmet use...
Vehicles and candles have uses that are not "I want to kill". Guns dont.
Guns do in fact have other uses. Namely self defense, which while yes some killing may be involved in defending oneself with a firearm, "want" is a liiiiitle far since most would rather just not be in a life or death situation that would necessitate armed self defense, though assuredly they are glad to be able to use it to "not die" as opposed to "dying by the attacker's hands."
Also hunting, USPSA, IDPA, etc.
No, actually. A gun's purpose is to maim or kill. "Self defense" is simply a phrase for "I will hurt you back more than you hurt me". It doesn't change the purpose of a gun. It would likely take decades, but we could absolutely lower the amount of guns the US has. People just think that's too hard and refuse to care that a household with a gun is more likely to get shot and die than a household without one.
Question, why do the rights of a murderer superceede the rights of their murder victim?
The problem is that “Public Safety” is an arbitrary metric. A Governor can’t strip citizens of Constitutional rights under the guise of some perceived “Public Safety” concern. It’s a complete violation of the Constitution.
Put simply: this is a horrible look for Democrats. Especially for a party that compared Trump to Hitler 24/7. This is what actual tyranny looks like. A single leader unilaterally stripping away rights from their citizens due to a self-declared “emergency”.
Gun homicide rates arent arbitrary
Is it gun homicide rates or violent crime rate that is used for determining where carrying is restricted?
Guns only have a role of homicide, they lead to more homicides, so they should always be restricted.
Guns are a force equalizer, they make victimizing anyone- weak or strong, a risk
Then why is it more likely to die from a gunshot if you own a gun? Aren't guns supposed to make sure you don't die?
Permanently Deleted
A lot of reasons, people who feel the need to buy a gun are likely at higher risk of gun crime. For any significantly high enough group of people who own guns, some will be reckless and hurt themselves or provoke others. People are unempathetic and don't realize pointing a gun at others constitutes a deadly threat- to name a few reasons. Why do* you think?
Aren't guns supposed to make sure you don't die?
Guns are designed so that their owner can immobilize a threat to their life as effectively as possible, that doesn't mean all people use them for their intended use case. Cars aren't designed to crash, but the more people that drive cars increases the risk of crashes. I personally am in a lot of cities at night- and would feel safer with a gun. I'm not exactly of a threatening stature, I'd rather be able to defend myself in those situations than just be at the mercy of basically the person attacking me who's bigger than me. There are tons of examples of people be paralyzed, getting concussions, or killed by people attacking them with fists, blunt objects, or knives when they're getting mugged. There is only one way I could (if carrying a gun were possible) credibly deter that.
There are tons of examples of people be paralyzed, getting concussions, or killed by people attacking them with fists, blunt objects, or knives when they’re getting mugged. There is only one way I could (if carrying a gun were possible) credibly deter that.
I assume you must be referring to just giving them your wallet, because having a gun doesn't really protect you from hand to hand violence by an attacker. Fights are risky and guns are a much much better tool for aggression than responding to a suddenly violent situation. Unless they're calling you out from across the saloon, by the time you know you're in danger they're usually too close. Carrying a gun just means you also get to give them your gun, not that you start blasting the bad guys.
I assume you must be referring to just giving them your wallet
You are naive to assume that always resolves it, there are also various reasons that someone cannot afford to do that.
because having a gun doesn't really protect you from hand to hand violence by an attacker.
Why not?
Fights are risky
Agreed, I'd rather people have the opportunity to get what they can to minimize that risk.
Unless they're calling you out from across the saloon, by the time you know you're in danger they're usually too close.
That's not true, you can shoot someone who is attacking you still. You can shoot someone who's running at you with a weapon.
Carrying a gun just means you also get to give them your gun, not that you start blasting the bad guys.
Why do you assume they would know you have a gun?
You are naive to assume that always resolves it, there are also various reasons that someone cannot afford to do that.
How many times have you heard of muggers randomly beating people up once they've surrendered their valuables in your local area vs. just online paranoia? You say "you spend time in cities at night", but I've lived in cities for decades, including walking late at night, seen drug dealing and been shouted at by mentally ill homeless people, and both never have felt the need to be armed and also never needed to be so. My preparation for a questionable area is "don't bring a lot of cash", not fantasies about how someone holding me up with a knife will somehow let me draw and use a gun while they stand there. Handguns just aren't good self-defense weapons.
And if you can afford a gun, you can afford to lose the loose cash in your wallet. You'd need to be mugged regularly for a gun to be cheaper than the cash.
Agreed, I’d rather people have the opportunity to get what they can to minimize that risk.
Minimizing risk is giving them the money, or failing that actual self-defense courses for close combat, not imagining a ranged weapon will protect you when at arms length. There's a reason self-defense courses don't teach gun-fu, but instead de-escalation/situational awareness, followed by running away, and only then if that's not immediately available, stunning attacks that give you the window to escape. Even highly skilled combatants want to get away from a fight ASAP. If you try to point a gun at someone with a knife to you, you're likely to just end up in a wrestling match followed by likely losing it and getting shot.
That’s not true, you can shoot someone who is attacking you still. You can shoot someone who’s running at you with a weapon.
What scenario are you imagining where your attacker is running at you waving a knife from a distance? That's just not how muggings work. Even in this scenario, anything under 6 meters means the attacker stabs you before you draw and fire.
but the more people that drive cars increases the risk of crashes.
The irony
How so? Of course if more people have guns there is more of a risk of someone getting shot, I don't think anyone denies that.
They make a lot of things a fatal risk. Bad relationship? Road rage? Wanna be famous? Guns have let all these things be motivation for murder.
Bad relationship?
Kitchen knife
Road rage?
Baseball bat
Wanna be famous?
Car
All far from comparable alternatives to a gun. Seriously, i encourage you to look up baseball bats in road rage incidents, and imagine a gun instead. And all of these things have roles outside of homicide.
Neither are abortion rates. You’d support a governors ability to end all abortion in a state under a public health emergency?
Abortions are beneficial
To be fair, so are some homicides
Never
Hitler says what
Hitler was pretty pro homicide
He was also pretty xenophobic. Unfortunately, thats a bad combination.
Classic whatabout-ism:
- “I think we need a solution to an issue”
- “What about this completely different issue that has absolutely nothing to do with what you just said? Checkmate idiot”
Can Governors create Laws?
That is basically the bog standard gun nut talking point:
"The issue isn't all these guns being used to shoot kids that are firing rounds specifically designed to cause horrific trauma to bodies and negate the effectiveness of the body armor cops wear. The issue is that the world is not a utopia. So fix hunger, crime, wealth inequality, gender dynamics, space travel, and energy production. Then we can talk about my sick ass assault rifle". Right wing nutbags will add on "people not having christian values" and left wing nutbags will say that any form of gun control is inherently racist.
Instead of having all these laws, we should simply solve the problem of evil.
The problem with the term "abortion" and banning it is that an "abortion" is an umbrella term for many things.
When a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (embryo is forming in the fallopian tube, baby cannot develop and it will kill the mother) the "fix" is called an abortion. There is no scenario where the embryo can mature (they *need" to be attached to the uterine wall) and it would 100% kill the mother.
Another one is an incomplete miscarriage. It's when the embryo/fetus dies, but doesn't come out. And the fix is usually a D&C, which technically (in medical terms) results in, and is considered, an abortion.
While I personally do not agree with abortions (in the context of avoiding an otherwise healthy pregnancy). I would never shame or coerce someone from getting one. It's not my decision, and it doesn't involve me. I'm not part of the equation.
And despite my disagreement, I think anti-abortion laws are not only wrong, but also harmful.
The problem with the term 'gun rights' and banning them is that 'gun rights' is an umbrella term for many things. When a person owns a firearm for self-defense or hunting, and it is used responsibly, it is considered an exercise of 'gun rights.' There are also situations where the use of firearms is necessary for self-defense and protection.
Another example is target shooting or competitive shooting, which is a legitimate and responsible use of firearms. These activities are all grouped under the term 'gun rights.'
While I personally may not agree with unrestricted access to firearms (in the context of avoiding unnecessary risks and violence), I would never shame or coerce someone from exercising their Second Amendment rights. It's not my decision, and it doesn't involve me. I'm not part of the equation.
And despite my disagreement, I think restrictive gun control laws are not only wrong but also harmful.
Just like with abortion, the debate over gun rights is multifaceted and involves differing perspectives on individual rights, public safety, and the balance between regulation and personal freedom.
Your argument is basically "people who don't break the law are fine, so we shouldn't let people who do break the law ruin for the rest of us". Sounds like nuance, but it's not.
The colloquial abortion is only the fetus-deletus one
The colloquial abortion is only the fetus-deletus one
What? I assume you're suggesting that elective surgery to terminate a healthy pregnancy is "the only fetus-deletus one".
If that is what you mean. Then no, you are wrong. Because the scenarios I outlined above are not hypotheticals. They are literal and direct examples of women who were refused treatment for those conditions in states that have banned abortions. The medical staff were legally unable to provide the medical intervention those women needed to save their lives. Some of them had to travel out of state to get treatment. I don't know what happened to all of them.
No. But if a republican were to have data showing a public emergency related to wide spread abortions and imposed a partial ban that provides carve outs for medical and hardship purposes? I would be angry, but that would likely get widespread support throughout the country as it removes most of the horror stories of abortion bans and just leaves people having their lives ruined because of a broken condom.
And... that is what we have here. If your job requires you to carry a firearm (cop or rent a cop), you still can. Otherwise, you can leave it in your trunk with a trigger lock or whatever else. Nobody loses the Right to own fifty assault rifles and, if King Chuck comes a knocking you can still pull your M4 out of your trunk and defend America. You just have a few extra steps before unloading on the station wagon that you feel cut you off in a parking lot.
You somehow missed the fact that this isn’t a law. No elected member of the New Mexico Legislature voted on this. This is one person in the Executive Branch deciding they can write and impose law at their will. And you support this?
And you ignored their comment completely.
You don't understand the Constitution. Those tights come with restrictions. It's part of the text.
This is going to court. Let’s see who understands the constitution more.
To be clear- you’re saying this will 100% hold up in court?
You mean the thing that's up for interpretation and said interpretation has changed several times over the last two hundred and fifty years? Are you trying to say that there's only one correct way to read the Constitution?
Slippery slope, this shows other states they can do the same thing towards other rights that you might not like. Next thing you know it's the wild west with each state doing what they want.
Funny enough, the wild West regularly banned the carrying of handguns within city limits.
It's why there was a shootout at the O.K. Corral.
Permanently Deleted
The Earp brothers were not the good guys there.
Next thing you know it’s the wild west with each state doing what they want.
The entire idea behind state's rights.
No, not like that! It should only be about things that don't affect me! Like enslaving minorities!
Slippery slope,
That's a logical fallacy. We are already seeing states impose their will illegally against minority groups.
There have been other states that don't allow carrying guns in public for a long long time.
And they passed laws for that, which is following the process if thats the will of the people. Downvote me all you want, but a single person declaring an unconstitutional emergency will lead to crazier shit like too many fraud ballots so we shutting down all voting in this area.
As of now guns rights like all other rights should be defended whether you like them or not unless you don't mid your other rights being curtailed too one day.
Except the 2nd amendment wasn't always interpreted to mean that people can carry guns with no to very little restrictions. At the time guns had a one shot action. You couldn't shoot up a crowd and kill fifty people within a few seconds. The current interpretation of civilians owning and carrying guns during every day life is very recent.
The people cheering this on would be LIVID if a Republican Governor unilaterally suspended all abortions in a state by declaring abortion a “public health” emergency.
These people have no idea what they’re cheering on.
Abortions and guns are basically the same thing in america
You don't need an AR-15 to defend your home, just go on the porch with a double barreled fetus and fire a shot into the air!
This is the same people who want to stack the courts or end the filibuster. They're short sighted idiots.
Except the court size has changed at least a few times in our nation's history. Guess those people were short sighted, too. You're right about the filibuster. We just need to all band together to vote out Republicans, fix our government, and ban all gerrymandering.
They were and it's why they finally settled on 9...
Yes because it's only republicans that are the issue.....
It’s a complete violation of the Constitution.
I think you might be over reaching there, unless all these concealed and open carry folk were members of a “well regulated militia” and nobody noticed… There are plenty of otherwise “infringing” restrictions on bearing arms; you can’t point a gun at a cop just because your right to bear arms is enshrined in the second amendment, you can’t wheel a functioning howitzer with you wherever you go. You can’t own a sawn-off shotgun.
Ahh one of you "well regulated" types, eh? You do understand how the english language works, correct?
"A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."
Now, who has the right to keep and eat food in this above scenario, "the people" or "a well balanced breakfast?"
You are arguing the point but missing the context.
The Governor decided to do this unilaterally using a “Public Health Emergency”. This is not in regards to a bill passed by both chambers of New Mexicos Legislative Branch. This was the sole decision of a single person. The Executive Branch is detailed with carrying out the orders of the Legislature. They do not create Laws. That is what she is trying to do.
I do agree that, generally speaking, the Executive Branch isn’t designed to create laws, but it literally has these powers. PHEs, Martial Law, Executive Orders; the Executive Branch has tools in statute to meet the needs of crises.
I was arguing the context though tbf, I have my personal opinion on the ownership of weapons, however I’m not an any and all means person. That said, I leave an exemption in my thinking for emergencies, and the state of play in Albuquerque is pretty dire. Do I think it’s right to call an indefinite PHE? Probably not. Do I think it is an appropriate short term measure while longer term measures are considered? Probably yes.
The reason I bring up the curtailments in individual rights, regarding the second amendment, is to show there are many restrictions that are in place. The second amendment isn’t an absolute right at all times and in all ways; and it’s silly to think its power should outstrip other statutory tools being deployed in moderation.
Maybe I led the discussion in the wrong direction though, and for that I apologise, because I think the real question we both ponder is this, is a Public Health Emergency a moderate/proportional response to the situation at hand?
Permanently Deleted
The rest of US should follow suit
Permanently Deleted
dont try to implement gun control or else you wont have gun control, not really a good hostage.
Permanently Deleted
The answer to a captured court is not to stop making laws, it's to ignore the court.
Permanently Deleted
Does Kim Davis make laws? She was a rando refusing to do her job. This is a political response to a political problem.
I swear you people will learned helplessness and high-road the republic away. When a Justice has demonstrated and unaddressed corruption and other justices are on the court due to a complete breakdown in democratic order, the answer isn't "oh shucks, I guess they won that round". The court's currency of power is the people's trust in it, and trust can be revoked.
This isn't a problem that's going to resolve itself by just dutifully marching along until the problem is corrected by 30 years of unbroken Democratic wins or the fantasy of a dozen good Republicans voting to remove. You can choose to live the rest of your life under unelected and corrupt rule makers for life, or you can recognize that the constitution was very specific about the limits of the Supreme Court's power is and remind them that there ARE checks and balances to it. They're certainly not going to change their stripes because you say "I respectfully disagree, but you make the rules".
Right, so we should stop trying to have safe access to abortion. And we should stop trying to decriminalize marijuana. And we should go ahead and get rid of gay marriage as the supreme court has already stated it's another target.
Permanently Deleted
And we put gay marriage in the line of fire by legalizing it. Was that a mistake?
Permanently Deleted
Gun control ought to be allowed by the second amendment, but everyone stops reading at the "well regulated" part. You are criticizing roe v wade being "put in the line of fire" for being struck down by the supreme court. This exact logic will apply to gay marriage being struck down too. If laws shouldnt be made because the supreme court will strike them down, or hell in the case of fucking roe v wade and gay marriage even the supreme court shouldnt rule in favor of gay marriage because a future court might overturn it. Its a bunch of defeatist nonsense you could argue against any attempt at progress ever.