2y ago

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 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.

149 comments

- 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.
  
  Supreme court doubtfully even needs to rule on this, Heller covers this already as you said. This won't stick.
- Is it still feasible to see a person coming into town from a mile off on a horse and stopping him to take his guns? Are only like 20 people a day coming in and out of this city?
  
  I believe the above is referencing a law that required the owner to surrender guns. Not a checkpoint. Therefore if someone was caught with firearms in the city without permission by the sheriff they were known to be breaking the law. Pretty much the same as is happening now: if you see someone with a gun in Albuquerque, they are a criminal.
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?
  
  Well. That's a dumb take on it.
  
  Vehicles and candles have uses that are not "I want to kill". Guns dont.
- 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
  
  You don't understand the Constitution. Those tights come with restrictions. It's part of the text.
  
  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.
- The rest of US should follow suit
- Schools will be too. Shot down i mean
- Semi? Or, Full Auto?
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?
- Quite a few https://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/
  Whats a license gonna stop?
  
  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)
  
  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.
  
  Cops commit violent crimes at 1/2 the rate of the general public. Concealed carriers commit violent crimes at less than 1/10 the rate of the general public. You are twice as safe in the presence of a cop than a random member of the public, and more than 10 times safer in the presence of a known, licensed concealed carrier than a random member of the public.
  The license doesn't "stop" violence, but it is an indication that the individual has never before been involved in violent crime (passed a background check) and has received significantly greater training and instruction on the laws governing use of force than the average member of the public has received. Those two requirements select a cohort significantly less likely to resort to criminality.
  
  While interesting info on that link, it is diluted by some of the statistics. Holding a concealed carry permit doesn't make you more liable to commit suicide for example as you could just as easily own that weapon without the CCW.
  Overall does feel like a rather small list given the total number of license holders and a lot of the situations don't seem to pertain to concealed carry. Now if the list showed every incident where a CCW holder escalated a situation and unjustifiably shot someone that would be another story.
  The license is to protect yourself against (ideally one) armed aggressors or someone with a physical advantage (i.e. someone attempting to assault a woman in a parking lot). That could be someone with a knife, blunt object, firearm. Nobody gets one thinking they're going to stop a mass shooting, the odds would be stacked against you to stop a mass shooter.
- Less guns being carried around?
- What's the chances of a licensed car driver committing a crime?
  
  Well in California where I am, you have to be really stupid to not pass the driving test, so it would almost be more on par with open carry, which I'm not really against them banning.
  (Disclaimer, I don't know NM laws I'm basing this off of Cali if they just hand out permits for a fee and nothing else then feel free to point that out).
  Concealed carry typically requires training, getting fingerprinted, interviewing with the Sheriff, and them ultimately deciding whether or not to approve it. It also requires a renewal every 2 years which is much more than drivers as you have to retake the training to renew.
  I do think driving should require you to at least take a basic test every few years though, a lot of people seem to not know how to drive.
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.
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!
- Do people in New Mexico call themselves new mexican?
Good. Fuck Grisham and this bullshit.
I think this is a big misstep, not just from the Governor but for Democrats. Once you possess a firearm it's pretty much too late for anyone to stop you using it in a crime. Handguns are easily concealed up to the point of entry (if there are metal detectors) and essentially the same with rifles as you can usually park near a building entrance. This reinforces the rights position that Democrats are ineffective at law enforcement and no nothing about guns.
- Does not being allowed to regulate things you know nothing about also extend to uteruses, the environment, etc?
  
  Yes.
  
  Stop going off topic. You aren't disagreeing with him and presenting a valid argument. You're just trying to change the subject matter.
  
  That's a very weird contrast. The environment affects everyone, my neighbors uterus doesn't.
  
  Of course it does. You should have the right to have an abortion. You should have the right to refuse vaccination (although private businesses should have the right to refuse to allow you entry or employment if you aren't). You should have the right to own the firearms that work best for you.
  You should have the rights to make choices about yourself and your own body that do not cause direct, immediate harm to other people.
  If you're going to argue that guns should be illegal because you can kill a person (illegally) with one, then it's just as reasonable to argue that abortion should be illegal because you're killing a person.
  The only problem here is that both Republicans and Democrats are inconsistent, but in opposite ways.
- The vast majority of law abiding carriers are, law abiding. Shocker. If they weren't they would just carry the fun, making them unlicensed carriers, meaning the law wouldn't stop them anyways... Effectively what is happening is disarming the law abiding decent humans.
- This reinforces the rights position that Democrats are ineffective at law enforcement and know nothing about guns.
  The way the lobbying works here (or used to work, before the NRA went bankrupt) is that any candidate who knows about guns, or represents a district with lots of gun ownership, can't be involved at all in any gun control laws without losing the NRA's support. Therefore, the only people left to write the gun control laws are the ones who know nothing about it.
  
  You can have lots of gun knowledge without owning guns or having NRA support.
  
  Gun toting liberals exist just as LGBTQ+ conservatives exist. Also, it's not incumbent upon legislators to know everything about everything that could be legislated upon. This is why legislators have staff.
  
  That's because nobody who knows anything about guns would ever support the Democrats effort to ban guns, which they label as "commonsense gun control"
Numero America, solve 99% of world's problems. Only a country of retards would be so hellbent on having guns everywhere.
- In the country I live there is easier access to guns than many US states yet there is barely any gun crime. Gun ownership is also a constitutional right here.
  
  You mind if I ask what country? I'm liking it so far!

149 comments