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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
And what percentage of their income was a fixed fine of $25? Yes. You’re the stupid one.
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.
“Only the rich deserve the right to protect themselves, fuck poor people.”
-You.
How about a fine based on net worth?
Still criminalizing simply carrying a gun, a practice often done by people who don’t use them criminally, which still primarily affects the poor and disenfranchised in marginalized over-policed neighborhoods, and even if the fine is $5, idk about you but I can’t afford a day off of work and court fees on top of that. Luckily I do have a car to get to court but not everyone is so lucky.
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?
And you aren’t regulated on where you can shoot? What accessories you can have (state dependant)? How long your barrel can be wothout paying a $200 tax for no reason that effectively just limits the poor and disenfranchised?
…And you think that there isn’t an entire federal agency devoted largely to regulating firearms…? Spoiler: the BATF exists, but there are limits on what they can do. This is beyond the scope of their power, because they can’t violate the constitution and court precedent.
Except we have people arguing against registration. In my state all you have to do is be 21, not have a felony, and maybe pay child support and you’re good. Have a gun.
Yes? Registration is not a good thing, so I’m not seeing a problem?
Well. That’s a dumb take on it.
So is talking in absolutes.
deleted by creator
Vehicles and candles have uses that are not “I want to kill”. Guns dont.
Guns do in fact have other uses. Namely self defense, which while yes some killing may be involved in defending oneself with a firearm, “want” is a liiiiitle far since most would rather just not be in a life or death situation that would necessitate armed self defense, though assuredly they are glad to be able to use it to “not die” as opposed to “dying by the attacker’s hands.”
Also hunting, USPSA, IDPA, etc.
No, actually. A gun’s purpose is to maim or kill. “Self defense” is simply a phrase for “I will hurt you back more than you hurt me”. It doesn’t change the purpose of a gun. It would likely take decades, but we could absolutely lower the amount of guns the US has. People just think that’s too hard and refuse to care that a household with a gun is more likely to get shot and die than a household without one.
Question, why do the rights of a murderer superceede the rights of their murder victim?
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
Is it gun homicide rates or violent crime rate that is used for determining where carrying is restricted?
Guns only have a role of homicide, they lead to more homicides, so they should always be restricted.
Guns are a force equalizer, they make victimizing anyone- weak or strong, a risk
Then why is it more likely to die from a gunshot if you own a gun? Aren’t guns supposed to make sure you don’t die?
deleted by creator
A lot of reasons, people who feel the need to buy a gun are likely at higher risk of gun crime. For any significantly high enough group of people who own guns, some will be reckless and hurt themselves or provoke others. People are unempathetic and don’t realize pointing a gun at others constitutes a deadly threat- to name a few reasons. Why do* you think?
Aren’t guns supposed to make sure you don’t die?
Guns are designed so that their owner can immobilize a threat to their life as effectively as possible, that doesn’t mean all people use them for their intended use case. Cars aren’t designed to crash, but the more people that drive cars increases the risk of crashes. I personally am in a lot of cities at night- and would feel safer with a gun. I’m not exactly of a threatening stature, I’d rather be able to defend myself in those situations than just be at the mercy of basically the person attacking me who’s bigger than me. There are tons of examples of people be paralyzed, getting concussions, or killed by people attacking them with fists, blunt objects, or knives when they’re getting mugged. There is only one way I could (if carrying a gun were possible) credibly deter that.
They make a lot of things a fatal risk. Bad relationship? Road rage? Wanna be famous? Guns have let all these things be motivation for murder.
Bad relationship?
Kitchen knife
Road rage?
Baseball bat
Wanna be famous?
Car
Neither are abortion rates. You’d support a governors ability to end all abortion in a state under a public health emergency?
Abortions are beneficial
To be fair, so are some homicides
Never
Hitler says what
Classic whatabout-ism:
- “I think we need a solution to an issue”
- “What about this completely different issue that has absolutely nothing to do with what you just said? Checkmate idiot”
Can Governors create Laws?
Removed by mod
Instead of having all these laws, we should simply solve the problem of evil.
The problem with the term “abortion” and banning it is that an “abortion” is an umbrella term for many things.
When a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (embryo is forming in the fallopian tube, baby cannot develop and it will kill the mother) the “fix” is called an abortion. There is no scenario where the embryo can mature (they *need" to be attached to the uterine wall) and it would 100% kill the mother.
Another one is an incomplete miscarriage. It’s when the embryo/fetus dies, but doesn’t come out. And the fix is usually a D&C, which technically (in medical terms) results in, and is considered, an abortion.
While I personally do not agree with abortions (in the context of avoiding an otherwise healthy pregnancy). I would never shame or coerce someone from getting one. It’s not my decision, and it doesn’t involve me. I’m not part of the equation.
And despite my disagreement, I think anti-abortion laws are not only wrong, but also harmful.
The problem with the term ‘gun rights’ and banning them is that ‘gun rights’ is an umbrella term for many things. When a person owns a firearm for self-defense or hunting, and it is used responsibly, it is considered an exercise of ‘gun rights.’ There are also situations where the use of firearms is necessary for self-defense and protection.
Another example is target shooting or competitive shooting, which is a legitimate and responsible use of firearms. These activities are all grouped under the term ‘gun rights.’
While I personally may not agree with unrestricted access to firearms (in the context of avoiding unnecessary risks and violence), I would never shame or coerce someone from exercising their Second Amendment rights. It’s not my decision, and it doesn’t involve me. I’m not part of the equation.
And despite my disagreement, I think restrictive gun control laws are not only wrong but also harmful.
Just like with abortion, the debate over gun rights is multifaceted and involves differing perspectives on individual rights, public safety, and the balance between regulation and personal freedom.
Your argument is basically “people who don’t break the law are fine, so we shouldn’t let people who do break the law ruin for the rest of us”. Sounds like nuance, but it’s not.
The colloquial abortion is only the fetus-deletus one
The colloquial abortion is only the fetus-deletus one
What? I assume you’re suggesting that elective surgery to terminate a healthy pregnancy is “the only fetus-deletus one”.
If that is what you mean. Then no, you are wrong. Because the scenarios I outlined above are not hypotheticals. They are literal and direct examples of women who were refused treatment for those conditions in states that have banned abortions. The medical staff were legally unable to provide the medical intervention those women needed to save their lives. Some of them had to travel out of state to get treatment. I don’t know what happened to all of them.
Removed by mod
You somehow missed the fact that this isn’t a law. No elected member of the New Mexico Legislature voted on this. This is one person in the Executive Branch deciding they can write and impose law at their will. And you support this?
And you ignored their comment completely.
You don’t understand the Constitution. Those tights come with restrictions. It’s part of the text.
This is going to court. Let’s see who understands the constitution more.
To be clear- you’re saying this will 100% hold up in court?
You mean the thing that’s up for interpretation and said interpretation has changed several times over the last two hundred and fifty years? Are you trying to say that there’s only one correct way to read the Constitution?
Slippery slope, this shows other states they can do the same thing towards other rights that you might not like. Next thing you know it’s the wild west with each state doing what they want.
Funny enough, the wild West regularly banned the carrying of handguns within city limits.
It’s why there was a shootout at the O.K. Corral.
deleted by creator
The Earp brothers were not the good guys there.
Next thing you know it’s the wild west with each state doing what they want.
The entire idea behind state’s rights.
No, not like that! It should only be about things that don’t affect me! Like enslaving minorities!
Slippery slope,
That’s a logical fallacy. We are already seeing states impose their will illegally against minority groups.
There have been other states that don’t allow carrying guns in public for a long long time.
And they passed laws for that, which is following the process if thats the will of the people. Downvote me all you want, but a single person declaring an unconstitutional emergency will lead to crazier shit like too many fraud ballots so we shutting down all voting in this area.
As of now guns rights like all other rights should be defended whether you like them or not unless you don’t mid your other rights being curtailed too one day.
Except the 2nd amendment wasn’t always interpreted to mean that people can carry guns with no to very little restrictions. At the time guns had a one shot action. You couldn’t shoot up a crowd and kill fifty people within a few seconds. The current interpretation of civilians owning and carrying guns during every day life is very recent.
The people cheering this on would be LIVID if a Republican Governor unilaterally suspended all abortions in a state by declaring abortion a “public health” emergency.
These people have no idea what they’re cheering on.
Abortions and guns are basically the same thing in america
You don’t need an AR-15 to defend your home, just go on the porch with a double barreled fetus and fire a shot into the air!
This is the same people who want to stack the courts or end the filibuster. They’re short sighted idiots.
Except the court size has changed at least a few times in our nation’s history. Guess those people were short sighted, too. You’re right about the filibuster. We just need to all band together to vote out Republicans, fix our government, and ban all gerrymandering.
They were and it’s why they finally settled on 9…
Yes because it’s only republicans that are the issue…
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.
Ahh one of you “well regulated” types, eh? You do understand how the english language works, correct?
“A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”
Now, who has the right to keep and eat food in this above scenario, “the people” or “a well balanced breakfast?”
You are arguing the point but missing the context.
The Governor decided to do this unilaterally using a “Public Health Emergency”. This is not in regards to a bill passed by both chambers of New Mexicos Legislative Branch. This was the sole decision of a single person. The Executive Branch is detailed with carrying out the orders of the Legislature. They do not create Laws. That is what she is trying to do.
I do agree that, generally speaking, the Executive Branch isn’t designed to create laws, but it literally has these powers. PHEs, Martial Law, Executive Orders; the Executive Branch has tools in statute to meet the needs of crises.
I was arguing the context though tbf, I have my personal opinion on the ownership of weapons, however I’m not an any and all means person. That said, I leave an exemption in my thinking for emergencies, and the state of play in Albuquerque is pretty dire. Do I think it’s right to call an indefinite PHE? Probably not. Do I think it is an appropriate short term measure while longer term measures are considered? Probably yes.
The reason I bring up the curtailments in individual rights, regarding the second amendment, is to show there are many restrictions that are in place. The second amendment isn’t an absolute right at all times and in all ways; and it’s silly to think its power should outstrip other statutory tools being deployed in moderation.
Maybe I led the discussion in the wrong direction though, and for that I apologise, because I think the real question we both ponder is this, is a Public Health Emergency a moderate/proportional response to the situation at hand?
deleted by creator
The rest of US should follow suit
deleted by creator
dont try to implement gun control or else you wont have gun control, not really a good hostage.
deleted by creator
The answer to a captured court is not to stop making laws, it’s to ignore the court.
deleted by creator
Right, so we should stop trying to have safe access to abortion. And we should stop trying to decriminalize marijuana. And we should go ahead and get rid of gay marriage as the supreme court has already stated it’s another target.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Semi? Or, Full Auto?
Schools will be too. Shot down i mean
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.
deleted by creator
Youre showing me a story of a dead two year old as a result of negligent gun ownership. Yes im on the side of the gun control advocates on this one.
deleted by creator
An individual licensed to carry a gun being responsible for someone else’s death.
I want sales of guns banned.
deleted by creator
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.
I would ask your source instead, but you haven’t posted anything at all, so I’ll just ask you.
Do cops commit violent crimes at 1/2 the normal rate because cops are less likely to be arrested or convicted?
Am I twice as safe in the presence of a cop if I’m the cop’s wife?
Am I safer near a concealed carry person vs. someone who just isn’t carrying a gun?
Do cops commit violent crimes at 1/2 the normal rate because cops are less likely to be arrested or convicted?
Cops are less likely to be arrested and convicted for using force because they are trained on the specific laws governing the use of force. The travesty isn’t that the cops get away with using force. The travesty is that the government provides this training only to police, and not to the general public. The public is woefully and dangerously misinformed as to when the law says they can use force. The only training most of us receive is from employers, and they don’t teach the law: they teach a corporate policy designed not to protect people, but to shield themselves from liability.
For example, the corporate policy during an armed robbery is almost always “appease the robber”. Give them everything they demand. Do nothing to protect yourself, the business, the money, etc. Robbers have taken this to mean that carrying a gun will ensure employee compliance. The lesson they learn is that the more they escalate, the less resistance they will face.
The law does not have this same “appeasement” strategy. The law considers an armed robbery to be a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm to every customer and employee present. Anyone receiving or observing such a threat is fully justified in using lethal force to stop the threat. The person who decided on a “career” in armed robbery after learning corporate policies doesn’t even realize that they have placed themselves in grave danger from anyone who understands the law.
We should be learning the law governing use of force in school, so every last one of us realizes that armed robbery is suicidal behavior.
Am I twice as safe in the presence of a cop if I’m the cop’s wife?
Easily.
I don’t think you understand how high the rate of domestic violence is among the general populace. Cops are less likely to commit DV, but much more likely to be reported by their victims. The stereotype arises from this selection bias.
Am I safer near a concealed carry person vs. someone who just isn’t carrying a gun?
Assuming you are not committing a violent crime, you are far safer next to the carrier than the random persons. It’s not even close. The violent crime rate among the general population is an order of magnitude higher than among concealed carriers, and most of that violent crime is committed by individuals who are not carrying firearms.
However, If you are committing a violent crime, you are in extraordinary danger from that concealed carrier.
You need to remember that “general population” doesn’t include just you and your neighbors. It includes all the people living in those boarded up, abandoned homes located in that nearby urban area that you don’t dare stop in after dark. The “concealed carrier” cohort excludes all the criminals in those areas that make the place unsafe.
It also includes the various degens that happened upon a badge and a gun because we hardly vet our police forces and legally avoid cops that are smart enough to disregard unjust laws.
Just out of curiosity, what “unjust” law should cops disregard?
I mean, the idea is rather problematic. You’re arguing that cops should deliberately not follow certain laws; that they should specifically break some. I’d need to know which ones you’re talking about.
One question I do have: why don’t you simply repeal these “unjust” laws, or at least challenge them in court? Then we don’t need officers deciding which laws to follow and which ones to break.
Again, the largest problem is that the government only provides legal training on use of force laws to police. Everyone else is learning it from corporations, Hollywood, or (in the case of concealed carriers) from private instructors. It should be taught in high school.
You aren’t wrong (necessarily).
Drug laws are the biggest one to me. People should have the right to destroy themselves if they are witting and prepared.
Cops already disregard the law depending on their own opinion. Going 5 mph over the speed limit is either a deduction on your license or a fine , depending on the cop.
What would be considered a lawful use of capital punishment is dependent on the cop, defending their evaluation of self-defence.
Cops have the legality and opportunity to alter their decisions, which means cops choose to enforce laws that disregard social normality or morality.
Also: This is America.
Half the country considers abortion murder and police violence as retribution. I wish we could simply change the way we do things to fit my or the average person’s opinion, but we’re a big country with a lot of people.
You are twice as safe in the presence of a cop than a random member of the public
Uh no…
Concealed carriers commit violent crimes at less than 1/10 the rate of the general public.
I dont buy it
That’s not at all controversial. That is an incredibly conservative claim.
The “general public” includes 19 million convicted felons and far more people convicted of violent misdemeanors. Background checks exclude all of these individuals from licensure.
Throw a dart at the general population, and you have an 8% to 12% chance of hitting a previously convicted violent criminal.
Throw a dart at the licensed carrier population, and your probability is virtually 0%.
Keep in mind that recidivism rates are typically above 80%. One group has about 16 million ticking time bombs, and the other group has none. Your risk of violent attack is vastly lower from concealed carriers than from the general public.
All of those felons were previously not convicted felons. Any of them could have been convicted of felony gun crimes while being licensed carriers.
That sounds reasonable on first inspection, but it doesn’t actually hold up to scrutiny.
The problem with that theory is that you have to be 21 (in almost all states) before you are eligible for a license. There are a few states where you can be as young as 18, but not many.
The overwhelming majority of convicted felons had disqualifying criminal records as juveniles. They were ineligible due to their juvenile convictions while still ineligible due to age. They are members of the general population, but they never became eligible to become licensed carriers.
Alright i think the lack of citation’s gone on pretty long now.
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.
oh boi guns are to protect people, we must have the least homicides in the world from all that protection we have.
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.
The point is a license does not stop crime. I’m not disagreeing licensing should be required for firearms (probably in general, not just CC), but the argument licensing will stop it can be proven false by pointing out other things that require licenses yet are still used for crimes. They may prevent some, but it won’t be zero, so is not an argument against the city preventing it.
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?
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.
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.
I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing.
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.
And the moment they do, they won’t be the “law abiding gun owner” they’re always crowing about.
Ah yes the good old, make law abiding citizens I don’t like… criminals lol what a load of shit.
That’s a very weird contrast. The environment affects everyone, my neighbors uterus doesn’t.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Conservatives argue that windmills cause cancer, who gives a fuck what they think
People that want to win elections and actually try to unite people instead of creating more division? People that want to persuade?
Yeah i completely oppose uniting with them whatsoever same as I oppose uniting sex offenders with school boards. Any compromise with them is detrimental.
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.
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.
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.
The problem is most(not all) people who care to actually learn about guns generally oppose gun control.
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.
Removed by mod
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!
Czech Republic
Hey alright! I was figuring it had to be, I think we’re the only two that have it (US here). And thanks for the p10c lmao.
