New Mexico officials call for governor’s impeachment after firearms restriction
New Mexico state representatives Stefani Lord and John Block are calling for the impeachment of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham after Grisham issued an emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in public in and around Albuquerque, the state’s largest city.
The governor on Friday issued an emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least 30 days amid a spate of gun violence.
“This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populace. Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” the statement from Lord read.
Grisham said she felt compelled to act in response to gun deaths, including the fatal shooting of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium this week.
Yeah and as we all know the second amendment has ALWAYS protected your right to openly carry guns in public \s
Well, we can take bets on whether or not this survives the first judge who sees it, or argue on whether or not believing someone being right should allow them to unilaterally ignore the constitution.
You know there are states where open carry is not allowed, right? It also doesn’t need to survive a judge, it needs to be in effect for long enough to curb violence. Whether that happens is a different question than its constitutionality. But I doubt that this is intended to pass our insane judicial system too to bottom.
This is not just open carry, it's carry of all firearms outside of ranges.
It's both open and concealed carry banned. I personally agree with her, but that matters not, as government officials shouldn't get to ignore parts of the constitution they dislike "just for a bit" and then go "oopsie ;)" once the courts confirm they're ignoring the constitution.
This is why principled Americans want to see Trump in jail. Doesn't matter if you feel good about your actions, the constitution matters more
Far too many people feel that Supreme Court opinions, no matter how ridiculous, are unquestionable determinations of constitutionality. The sacred right to carry guns for self-defense didn't exist until 15 years ago.
What does “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” mean to you?
Back when this was written it was considered cowardly to concealed carry. Open carry was the norm.
What does well-regulated mean to you? Seems interesting you left that off.
Back when the second amendment was written people owned slaves and poured their piss in the street. What’s your point?
The New Mexico constitution also has a right to bear arms and it's not specified for a militia. Article 6 part 2:
“No municipality or county” the state is neither.
Like I said earlier, this doesn’t have to live forever. Just long enough (is probably the thinking)
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm
I know the history and modern interpretation.
then stop gaslighting people on the internet
And as we know something that is well-regulated only refers to it being in physical working order, not following any sort of rules or order, right? Cause the interpretation that the second amendment protects the unfettered right of individual gun ownership is not very old.
Also we should amend the constitution to repeal the second amendment because it’s a moral harm on our society.
StOP GaSLigHtIng PeOpLe on THe IntERNeT bY diSAGreeInG wITh mE
sounds like you also do not understand what a comma does
Sounds like you also have an understanding of history that’s no more than 50 years old. That’s one of the most argued over sentences in American history, down to its inception.
I know guns are super cool and stuff but try not to trip on all the dead bodies on your way to getting a fuckin clue mate
I left it off because it has 0 impact on "the right of the people".
Yes I too find life much easier when I ignore the inconvenient words
Please explain then. This is not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it's the right of the people. They are two distinct sentences. Please tell me how the militia has any impact on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
There's nothing inconvenient about those.
The second amendment is only one sentence...
The founders wanted the militias to provide the bulk of the country's defense and to not have a standing army. Anyone who owned a gun had to register it so that it could be verified to be in working order in case a militia needed to be formed. That whole idea of having the militia provide for our defense failed pretty quickly when several uncoordinated militias got their asses handed to them by Natives in the Northwest Territory. The federal government moved towards having an actual standing army and the role of militias shrunk.
They’re not two sentences lol. The second amendment is all one big, convoluted sentence my guy.
It means we should be cool with dead kids because some guys in powdered wigs liked to stay strapped.
The real reason for the 2nd is to legit kill tyrants like Trump if he tries to illegally stay in power and protect vulnerable minorities like LGBTQ+ communities.
The problem is the Democrats have been successfully making guns scary to you, and now racist white Christofacists and cops maintain the monopoly on violence, so if you wanted to protest they can simply scare you away with threats (and sometimes actual) violence and because you are a toothless bitch you cant fight back without certain and pointless death.
Do they really maintain a monopoly on violence though? Almost anyone can get a gun. Moreso now than most recent points in American history if I understand the recent decisions regarding constitutional carry. Whether you're on the right talking about "urban crime" and how Chicago's daily forecast is supposed to be a storm of bullets, or on the left trying to do something about nutjobs with AKs in elementary schools and grocery stores, it's pretty easy to see the government doesn't maintain a monopoly on violence.
And there I thought the young man's testosterone fantasy of you and your buddies successfully fighting off the best equipped army in the world armed only with your private gun stash was the domain of right wing loons.
With respect this is a straw man argument. You don't address @BaroqueInMind's point- that 2A is designed to protect against government overreach by people who would ignore the Constitution, and for self-defense.
Nobody wants to fight the US army with a basement gun stash.
Is that not what opposing a tyrannical government ultimately comes down to?
Hopefully it never needs to get to that point because of the threat. But that’s literally what we did in the revolutionary war.
As far as I see it, @BaroqueInMind was trying to make two points:
So his points are that the 2A guarantee his right to assassinate the President, if he decides that he is a tyrant and for armed resistance againt an executive force of the government.
I argued that fighting the US government's forces with handguns and winning is a testosterone fantasy.
So where exactly is my Straw Man?
The 2A may have been meant to protect a "free state" but in today's reality, it fails to achieve this goal. On the other hand, the laws arguing from it, have lead to the greatest number of civilian gun deaths outside an active war zone.
al-Qaeda + isis held off multiple nations military for almost 20 years.
Why would a civil war where half of your military isn’t blindly loyal going to be any better? Killing your friends and neighbors for the state is a lot different than killing someone you’ve never met before.
I know you're not the original poster, but you are just confirming the argument wasn't a straw man. The belief is that basements full of guns will effectively combat the US military
Your straw man is that it's a testosterone fantasy, and that the idea is to fight off the US Army with someone's basement guns. I'm saying the straw many is largely your representation of attitude.
Look at Al-Qaeda and ISIS. They had little more than AKs, no electronics more than cell phones, and they managed to drive us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So let's agree that it is POSSIBLE for a weaker force to defend against a stronger force, albeit with higher loss rates, especially if the weaker force blends in with a civilian population.
However Al-Qaeda is a bad example. A much better one is the Bundy standoff from 5ish years ago. And that shows a big part of the usefulness of guns- increasing the cost of using force.
Now for the record Bundy was an asshole so don't take this as me idolizing him. But the situation is a useful example.
Put simply- there was a dispute about whether Bundy was allowed to graze cattle on some public lands. Bundy claimed a legal ancestral right, government claimed ancestral rights were removed because endangered turtles lived on the lands, but the government would still allow him to graze the cattle for a steep fee. Bundy refused to pay, so the government sent in workers to seize his cattle.
Bundy and his followers then took up armed positions to defend the cattle. The message was simple- it will take a firefight to get you the cattle. Everybody (including Bundy and his followers) knew the government would probably win, a bunch of ranchers with guns isn't going to fight off the National Guard. BUT, it would also mean a lot of blood spilled on both sides. As in, 'think twice guys, is seizing a few cows worth another Ruby Ridge type fiasco?'
Fortunately cool heads prevailed, the government backed down and agreed to bring the issue back to the courts.
The lesson remains though. A bunch of armed ranchers 'defended' against the mighty US government without ever firing a shot, simply because them being armed raised the cost of using force against them. If they'd not been armed, the government would have sent in riot cops with batons to beat them all up and arrest them and that'd have been that.
And THAT is why I say that defending against tyrants is still a valid goal of 2A. Because defending against tyranny doesn't even necessarily mean killing tyrants, sometimes it just means making oneself a harder target to tyrannize.
(And once again, I should clarify I'm not necessarily siding with Bundy. I'm just pointing out that from his POV the government was being tyrannical, and his resistance against what he saw as tyranny WAS effective.)
Love how you tag on a deeply held constitutional right that didn't exist until 15 years ago. @BaroqueInMind@kbin.social's point explicitly does not reference that newly established right and the whole implication of "the real reason" is that self-defense is not actually what the 2nd is about.
The populace should have more mortars and RPGs and fewer handguns.
People just waltzed into congress largely without guns, you overestimate your government.
Verily I sayeth, if thou comest at me thou had best cometh correct!
Speech elevated to thine mater, Manorie G.
Being able to carry in town is a relatively recent development. It is the root cause of one of the few actual shootouts in the old west: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral
That is not correct. Several colonies/states had passed laws against open carry in the years before and after the founding of the US including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, and North Carolina.