196

Gun rights group sues New Mexico over order banning guns in public in Albuquerque (thehill.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

154 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 29 points 1 year ago

Why can't they? Dodge City, back in the 1880s, had an ordinance declaring you had to check your guns when you went into town. Even then, they knew guns and idiots grouped together don't mix. Especially when drinking. But this is an illegitimate Supreme Court it will get to. With a guy who is on the take, a guy who believes a witch trial judge's ruling(when America didn't even exist) has bearing on Abortion rights today, a Christian cult member who probably gets her instructions from her husband on how to rule, a guy who stuffed drugs up his ass and raped a woman who then had debts mysterious wiped clean, and a guy who sees all this shit and says it's OK and that we have no more racism in existence today so we gutted the civil rights act.

Vote out Republicans, people. It's the only way out of this mess.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago

Why can’t they? Dodge City, back in the 1880s, had an ordinance declaring you had to check your guns when you went into town.

Because of Heller v. D.C., and McDonald v. Chicago. Those precedents are over a decade old, from well before Trump stacked the courts.

[-] holycrapwtfatheism@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

Supreme court doubtfully even needs to rule on this, Heller covers this already as you said. This won't stick.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

McDonald is the one that really applies here; Heller was argued to only apply to D.C., since it lacked the power of the states. McDonald clarified that yes, Heller applied to states also.

The state governor is going to use her failure to do anything substantive as a fundraiser: "I would have successfully ended all violent crime, if only those pesky MAGA-cultists hadn't stopped me!" Never mind that David fuckin' Hogg has explicitly opposed this on X (nee Twitter) saying, "I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.". When one of the most visible anti-gun activists in the US is against your plan, you done fucked up.

[-] halferect@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I live in New Mexico and this governor is well liked and has made many substantive achievements. This is her playing the republican playbook of passing laws they know will eventually get shot down. Look at abbot or desantis half the laws they pass are in court because they are unconstitutional but until the court rules the laws stay in place. New Mexico has been democrat run for at least 90 years so this won't make her look bad to anyone in the state except republicans.

load more comments (10 replies)

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Public Safety should always come first.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (93 replies)

[-] radau@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago

New Mexico requires you to be licensed to concealed carry doesn't it? Curious what this accomplishes, how many licensed concealed carry holders are aggressors in a crime?

[-] blazera@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Quite a few https://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/

Whats a license gonna stop?

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That is a very misleading link.

Yes, sometimes CC holders commit violent crimes, and with millions of them out there the list is gonna be long.

But the rate at which they commit gun crimes is way, way below the average person.

If you're in a crowd with 9 carry license holders and one random person and you get shot, odds are it was the person without the license that shot you.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

For a long time the push was "background checks" or licensing, "closing the loopholes". Yet this blocks people who specifically went through a more stringent license process specifically when violent crime is more of a risk. (And according to the article I read that could be misrepresenting it, only violent crime - not even specifically gun crime)

load more comments (20 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

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 high court struck down a New York concealed carry law in the Bruen ruling, finding that firearm regulations must be based in the country’s historic tradition to be considered constitutional.

“The State must justify the Carry Prohibition by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the complaint reads.

The order suspends concealed and open carry laws for 30 days in areas with a specific threshold of violent crime, which has only been met by the city of Albuquerque.

“When New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game — when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn — something is very wrong.”

The original article contains 296 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 36%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I'm not really understanding why she came up with this ban. It seems pretty clearly unconstitutional, I think that was obvious even to people who would support it. So what's the fight for? Just seems like a waste of resources and a waste of political capital. If anything it almost seems to serve her political opponents by giving them an easy victory. Just don't get it. Politically stupid.

[-] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Good. Fuck Grisham and this bullshit.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023

196 points (95.0% liked)

politics

19090 readers

3397 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News