Buckshot Bob Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/new-mexico-governor-issues-order-suspend-open-concealed-103043424 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Well, she says that her "oath to the Constitution is not absolute" so it must be OK. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dantankerous Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 (edited) The governor (D)... That pretty much explains it. This shouldn't stand any scrutiny in court. This only affects law abiding citizens. Duh... but when do certain politicians care about stopping criminals? They only want to make more criminals. Tyranny... Edited September 9 by Dantankerous 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypress Sun Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Yeah, that'll stop those gangbangers from shooting kid's outside of baseball stadiums, stop home invading car thieves from shooting into their intended target and prevent kids from getting improperly stored firearms from shooting themselves. Anyone that CAN'T see the real purpose in this is blinder than Ray Charles. How on Earth do these Soros supported socialists get voted in? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozark Huckleberry Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Well, OF COURSE it's legal! It's AN EMERGENCY! The Founders NEVER considered that there might be AN EMERGENCY when they wrote the Constitution, did they? To the question -- I doubt it will stand up to a challenge, and do NOT doubt there will be someone stepping up to push the state into dumping taxpayer funds into defending the unconstitutional decree. I also do not doubt that at the next election cycle, it won't even come up, other than campaign fodder for a 'get tough on guns' theme. It's another, 'We've got to do SOMETHING!' response unsupported by rational thought. The idea that people who are willing to pump 17 shots into another car in a drive-by shooting are going to be deterred by the threat of prosecution for just having a gun they were likely unlawfully possessing to begin with is ludicrous. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckshot Bob Posted September 9 Author Share Posted September 9 https://dailycaller.com/2023/09/09/legal-experts-conservatives-react-democrat-grisham-gun-ban/?pnespid=pql.UHpIJKEc1uSbvCjvQ8qTvUyyBZZlKbenxOtj9BlmitPsbOl3dJGNzTuoVkx6F3sdoeeb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Lizard Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 I wonder what other states might try the same thing...... Texas Lizard Stuck here in California..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Joker Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Pass a law and it's legal...Doesn't make it right or just Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Change "This is California" to "We're Democrats" and you see that the problem is one of ideology, not location: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-BAR #18287 Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 (edited) An emergency is when we need the Constitution the most. Edited September 9 by J-BAR #18287 5 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypress Sun Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Wouldn't it be easier to outlaw criminal possession/use of a firearm and murder? Oh, wait...that's already outlawed. Hmmm. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish ike, SASS #43615 Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 SCOTUS just ruled you have the right to bare arms to stop New York's ban on that. I guess she thinks she's above all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozark Huckleberry Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Just another version of the New Orleans Katrina gun grab. It's an emergency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choctaw Jack Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 2 hours ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said: SCOTUS just ruled you have the right to bare arms to stop New York's ban on that. I guess she thinks she's above all that. Being a citizen of the State of New Mexico,I feel I'm qualified to say that she acts as if she thinks she is the sole interpreter of the law in New Mexico. I hope the Supreme Court shows her the error in her thinking, the sooner the better. Choctaw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 The claimed legal path is a declaration of a health emergency according to state statute. Violation of the decree, were it upheld (doubtful) would invoke civil, not criminal, penalties. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Was there anything about any of the cited incidents that suggested that the guns involved were legally purchased and carried? If not, how does the Governor make an argument that such an "emergency" act will afford any protection against similar harm in the future? I know, I know...looking for logical thought is pointless; but it seems like a Constitutional challenge will be akin to shooting fish in a barrel. LL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381 Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Multiple lawsuits to follow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 It's an example of the misuse of health emergency powers, designed for the containment of infectious diseases, in areas where they were never intended to apply. We'll see more of this. And it's why Congress (hitherto) would not fund CDC and like 'studies' about the supposed public health effects of firearms. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowderRiverCowboy Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 Sooner Americans wakeup and realize its Control they are after . And Part two How many of the LEO's will enforce it ?? Just doing their job as they are told are just as guilty and those making such orders 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dantankerous Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 5 minutes ago, PowderRiverCowboy said: Sooner Americans wakeup and realize its Control they are after . And Part two How many of the LEO's will enforce it ?? Just doing their job as they are told are just as guilty and those making such orders Agree. Have to wonder how many say, "Well, my pension depends on how many people's rights I violate..." 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tell Sackett SASS 18436 Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 13 hours ago, Cypress Sun said: Yeah, that'll stop those gangbangers from shooting kid's outside of baseball stadiums, stop home invading car thieves from shooting into their intended target and prevent kids from getting improperly stored firearms from shooting themselves. Anyone that CAN'T see the real purpose in this is blinder than Ray Charles. How on Earth do these Soros supported socialists get voted in? Sheeple!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 1 hour ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said: And it's why Congress (hitherto) would not fund CDC and like 'studies' about the supposed public health effects of firearms. Wasn't it the biased "study" by Kellerman that led to that prohibition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckshot Bob Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 8 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said: Wasn't it the biased "study" by Kellerman that led to that prohibition? It’s pretty coincidental that the “study” always seems to come to the conclusion that the government wants. Doesn’t seem to matter what the time frame in our history has been 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 2 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said: It’s pretty coincidental that the “study” always seems to come to the conclusion that the government wants. Doesn’t seem to matter what the time frame in our history has been The "study" always comes to the conclusion that whoever's paying for it wants. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kloehr Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 10 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said: An emergency is when we need the Constitution the most. This road has been travelled. New Orleans during Katrina. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 3 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said: It’s pretty coincidental that the “study” always seems to come to the conclusion that the government wants. Doesn’t seem to matter what the time frame in our history has been And if it doesn't the CDC buries it. Remember a few years ago Kleck used FOIA to unearth a CDC study from 1999 that supported the 2,000,000 annual Defensive Gun Uses? Then the anti-civil rights lobby screamed that it was flawed because it didn't cook the data in their favor. So he took the data, applied all the tweaks they wanted and it still came up with over 1,000,000 DGUs every year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 1 hour ago, PowderRiverCowboy said: Sooner Americans wakeup and realize its Control they are after . And Part two How many of the LEO's will enforce it ?? Just doing their job as they are told are just as guilty and those making such orders New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) issued an order Friday suspending, for 30 days, state residents’ rights to carry guns for self-defense in Albuquerque. The ban applies to concealed and open carry. The Associated Press reported that the governor made the move in response to gun violence in the city of Albuquerque. KOB4 noted the ban on carrying guns begins September 8 and runs for 30 days, after which the governor will make a decision about extending it. When questioned about her order’s impact on the Second Amendment, the governor stressed her belief that “no constitutional right … is intended to be absolute.” The order came days after an 11-year-old boy was murdered in Albuquerque. Albuquerque police chief Harold Medina responded to the governor’s order by making clear he will not enforce it. Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen indicated he is concerned the order violates New Mexicans’ constitutional rights. Full article below: https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/09/09/new-mexico-gov-michelle-lujan-grishami-ssues-order-suspending-concealed-carry-self-defense/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watab kid Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 11 hours ago, Texas Lizard said: I wonder what other states might try the same thing...... Texas Lizard Stuck here in California..... mine will , i hate saying it , but then , it is part of why we are preparing to move soon , Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 2 hours ago, PowderRiverCowboy said: And Part two How many of the LEO's will enforce it ?? Just doing their job as they are told are just as guilty and those making such orders My guess is, probably none...because it's civil penalty only. They have enough to do to respond to crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozark Huckleberry Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 And when 30 days doesn't even begin to dent the problem (because the people who will obey the edict aren't the problem)? What's next? In a logical world, it would be reverse the edict, look at where the problem began getting worse, identify probable causes and workable solutions that address those causes, implement, assess, adjust. In a lib politician's world, it's, 'Since a little infringement didn't work -- we must not have infringed enough.' 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 3 hours ago, Ozark Huckleberry said: In a logical world, it would be reverse the edict, look at where the problem began getting worse, identify probable causes and workable solutions that address those causes, implement, assess, adjust. Now you need to just stop making sense there. We're talking politics. It's not about solving problems. It's about political power. 3 hours ago, Ozark Huckleberry said: In a lib politician's world, it's, 'Since a little infringement didn't work -- we must not have infringed enough.' Or taxed it enough. Always raise taxes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Mark Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 So glad to have gotten rid of all my firearms very long ago. Those tools have become way too political. Nowadays, I only own LEAD PARTICLE ACCELERATION DEVICES. Actually, getting to think that the only people who should never own a gun are the class of people known as professional politicians. They seem to need psychological help because of psychosis's driving them to commit political suicide. Laughed at this NM story yesterday when reading it knowing it will go probably go nowhere but down the toilet. Seemed to piss off my dog though. I did learn something from reading that story with the dog sitting on the sofa next to me... He knows how to read! How fun... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowderRiverCowboy Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 12 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said: My guess is, probably none...because it's civil penalty only. They have enough to do to respond to crime. I would say False because Albuquerque Cops arrested kids for face diaper violations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Moses Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 On 9/9/2023 at 5:49 AM, Buckshot Bob said: New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/new-mexico-governor-issues-order-suspend-open-concealed-103043424 To answer your question without commentary; no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckshot Bob Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.