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.
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?
deleted by creator
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?
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.
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.
You are naive to assume that always resolves it, there are also various reasons that someone cannot afford to do that.
Why not?
Agreed, I’d rather people have the opportunity to get what they can to minimize that risk.
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.
Why do you assume they would know you have a gun?
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.
Kitchen knife
Baseball bat
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:
Can Governors create Laws?
Removed by mod
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
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.
Removed by mod
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.
deleted by creator
The Earp brothers were not the good guys there.
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!
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…
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.
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?
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?”