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.

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Does not being allowed to regulate things you know nothing about also extend to uteruses, the environment, etc?

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Stop going off topic. You aren’t disagreeing with him and presenting a valid argument. You’re just trying to change the subject matter.

          • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m liberal, and I’m saying banning firearms in public is more of a “feel good” measure than it is actually useful. Unless you give pat downs as people leave their house then tons of people will violate this ordinance.

            • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              And the moment they do, they won’t be the “law abiding gun owner” they’re always crowing about.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ah yes the good old, make law abiding citizens I don’t like… criminals lol what a load of shit.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just the first two things that came to mind where the people who will jump up and down about magazines vs clips have no problem with laws regulating things they don’t understand.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Your second paragraph pretty well contradicts your first paragraph as far as vaccinations go.

          And your third doesn’t follow any kind of logical reasoning since one of the ideas behind legal abortion is bodily autonomy.

          Your fourth paragraph is making conclusions based on the first three, but since they’re full of holes, there’s nothing to actually support your assertion.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your second paragraph pretty well contradicts your first paragraph as far as vaccinations go

            Failing to be vaccinated does not cause direct, immediate harm to other people. It’s a potential harm that isn’t necessarily realized in any given instance.

            And your third doesn’t follow any kind of logical reasoning since one of the ideas behind legal abortion is bodily autonomy.

            Conservatives argue that a blastocyst is a human, since life starts at conception. Therefore, the conservative argument is that any abortion (aside from spontaneous abortions, AKA miscarriages) is intentionally causing the death of a human. Don’t pretend like you didn’t know this, since that’s been their entire claim while working the legal angles to overturn Planned Parenthood v Casey (which is what actually overturned Roe v. Wade, not the latest Dobbs decision).

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Conservatives argue that windmills cause cancer, who gives a fuck what they think

              • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                People that want to win elections and actually try to unite people instead of creating more division? People that want to persuade?

                • blazera@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah i completely oppose uniting with them whatsoever same as I oppose uniting sex offenders with school boards. Any compromise with them is detrimental.

    • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Neato@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can have lots of gun knowledge without owning guns or having NRA support.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree, but is this hypothetical person electable in either party right now? Probably not, which is why the gun laws we get are generally poor.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • aidan@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is most(not all) people who care to actually learn about guns generally oppose gun control.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            And most (not all) people who care to actually learn about gambling, or street racing, or cooking meth oppose regulating their interest. This is a meaningless universal truth about most hobbies, made even less relevant because a politician isn’t picking a person at random from their supporters to help them figure out a subject, they’re going to the “not all” people who care to learn and are willing to help.

            This is the same argument cryptobros trot out whenever crypto legislation is brought up. These aren’t complex subjects only a long term user could possibly understand. A gun is a relatively simple tool and a legislative aid could garner more than enough expertise in a couple weeks to understand anything necessary for regulation. The real reason this argument is made isn’t because they want better and smarter regulation, it’s because they want to argue that all regulation is illegitimate so they can keep playing with their toys unimpeded.

      • freeindv@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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”