New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque : news

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 65 points 2 years ago

What a silly hill to die on. This is blatantly unconstitutional. That's obvious to everyone, even those of us who might agree in spirit. So it's just a waste. A waste of time and tax payer money. New Mexico is gonna spend time and resources on this that could be better spent elsewhere.

What's more it wastes political capital. Capital that is gonna be needed soon for the Democratic party. So I can't fathom why she's doing this. She just gave conservatives the high ground and a huge rallying call.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 23 points 2 years ago

With the current court, it is unconstitutional. Several states banned public carry when the country was founded including Virginia so it's not like that was unheard of at the time.

[-] Kaliax@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 2 years ago

100% this. It feels like sabotage.

[-] Poob@lemmy.ca 43 points 2 years ago

Open or concealed carry is insane. You Americans are unhinged.

This is from a gun owner.

[-] sudo22@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago

Believing a politician can unilaterally suspend a right protected by both the federal and state constitution is unhinged.

[-] Poob@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 years ago

I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on carrying a gun in public

[-] sudo22@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public. So its unhinged to ban these individuals from carrying thinking it'll stop criminals.

[-] Poob@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 years ago

Again, I wasn't commenting about the ban. Just the desire to carry a gun in public.

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public.

Than the general public in America maybe, but legal gun owners in other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero, since they're properly vetted through laws that aren't dogshit.

But even giving you that point, what about all the violent crime those permissive laws enable?

Over 70% of mass shooters use legal firearms. Of the remaining, most are teenagers who took the poorly secured firearm of a family member.

There is no magic gun fairy distributing illegal firearms. Every firearm in the hands of a criminal was either bought legally, stolen from a "responsible gun owner" who didn't secure it, straw purchased or purchased through a loophole.

Nevertheless, the pro-gun community opposes more robust background checks, mandatory safe storage laws or the closing of loopholes.

And what does the public get in return? Mostly just shot because none of the pro-gun promises have come true.

Good guys with guns intervene in 3% of shootings. The crime rate remains the same as comparable countries. The country is no more free when measured by any metric except guns. The government spies on and kills its own citizens.

The gun laws are a failure.

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] sith_lord_zitro@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

I think the last time we cared about another country's opinion of how we live our lives was in 1775.

[-] Soulg@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago

We'd definitely be better off if we actually care about how countries that are objectively better in multiple metrics do things differently.

Like oh I don't know, Healthcare. Plus the overwhelming amount of gun violence that doesn't exist in any other country than our own, the other ones are probably on to something.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] deconstruct@lemm.ee 38 points 2 years ago

A judge has already issued a temporary order to block the ban.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 55 points 2 years ago

Thank goodness, the murders can continue

[-] sudo22@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago

I know right, this governor should have made murder illegal instead touches forhead

[-] CoderKat@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

I don't think it's quite an equivalence. When carrying firearms is illegal (as it effectively is in my country of Canada), you know whenever you see someone with a gun that you should run and call the police. You know they're up to no good. In many US states, if you see someone with a gun... you kinda just have to deal with it. Maybe they'll shoot you. Maybe they just need to overcompensate for something. You can't really run from it because it can be so common.

A decent amount of gun crime is also spur of the moment acts. They won't go home, get their gun, and come back. The gun violence only happens because the perpetrator happened to have a gun when they were angry. Banning carrying doesn't guarantee people won't be armed in public, but it sure will heavily reduce it.

load more comments (20 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago

Yet there’s plenty of precedent at the federal and state level for places where carrying guns is not allowed. 🤔

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago

Specific places, generally, not open public places as specified in the article.

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Are national parks not considered open public places?

[-] tas783@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

Thanks to Obama, no seriously, you are allowed to carry firearms in almost all national parks.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/firearms-in-national-parks.htm

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna35484383

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] blazera@kbin.social 27 points 2 years ago

Well regulated

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

Literally constitutional. States can set the laws and regulations around firearms, as established by supreme court precedent.

[-] JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

All that would mean is that there is a current disagreement. The assault weapons ban was constitutional. California’s regulations on firearms is constitutional. Those are all court rulings with a lot more gravitas than a NM TRO.

There is no right via the second amendment for the unregulated possession or carry of firearms, just like there is no right in the first amendment to unlimited free speech. Those are interpretations that are entirely grounded in an optimistic layperson’s interpretation of what a multi century old complex body of laws actually should mean, rather than the actual legal interpretations.

The government tightly regulates speech. It’s allowed to, over-generous interpretations of the First be damned. It is the same thing with firearms.

It’s culture war bullshit that will go back and forth for another century if we last that long. The pendulum is currently in a pro-gun direction. At some point it will swing back and we will have a federal ban on weapons and mag caps again.

The problem of course is the American gun fetish, not the guns themselves. As long as people culturally fetishize guns as symbols of freedom and masculinity, we’re going to have this. It’s got an intersection with Southern and African American honor culture that escalated violence, and an increasing intersection with right wing domestic terrorism, which in turn informs mass shootings. But it’s easier to do an ineffective gun ban than address that.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] iterable@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 years ago

So is forced jury duty and the draft. But many can only count to two.

[-] nothing@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

There's already a temporary restraining order halting enforcement

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Turbo@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 years ago

Ah yeah... Not constitutional.

She's just doing this for her image.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] obinice@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

Finally, somewhere I might be able to visit there and feel at least a little bit safe in public.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago

There's plenty of places you can feel safe in public.

They're just not in America.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] rayyyy@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago

“I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer,” she said at a news conference, flanked by law enforcement officers."
It's only temporary and there's bound to be exceptions.
Seems like she is desperately making a wake-up call to gun owners to come up with a solution to killings.

[-] Rodsterlings_cig@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago

Just a reminder that the right to bear arms in public places was only established in 2008.

[-] sith_lord_zitro@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Art. II, § 6: Right to Bear Arms No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

New Mexico has it in it's constitution that carrying a firearm has been legal since 1911. Concealed was allowed in 2003.

load more comments (13 replies)

News