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.

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Neato@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

      • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then make it a fine punishable by 10% of your yearly income. Sure, you can carry a gun in the town, but if they catch you with it, you’re gonna pay a stiff penalty.

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

          Of any debates or criticism or discussion you could possibly make…making a penalty that has no effect of an unemployed person that’s most likely to mug or rob a person for having a gun by far has to be the stupidest most illogical thing you could have said. I can recognize or accept different viewpoints, but you’re just a moron.

          • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s literally what they did in Tombstone.

            The fine was $25 dollars in 1870. In 2023 that’s the equivalent of $583.38.

            Yep. I’m the stupid one alright.

              • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                5% of their yearly income. That is still huge. I make 100k and a 5% fine would be $5,000.

                No thanks. That would definitely make me keep my pistola home.

                Have a good day. You seem to be upset about something, what with all the insults and whatnot you keep throwing out. Go smoke a joint or rub one out. Peace out.