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.
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.
100% this. It feels like sabotage.
Show me where the constitution gives you a right to open carry.
Oh that’s right, it doesn’t.
I love how effectively controversial things like this function like bug traps in drawing out the gnats - makes it easy to identify the low-effort trolls for a quick block.
A judge has already issued a temporary order to block the ban.
Thank goodness, the murders can continue
I know right, this governor should have made murder illegal instead touches forhead
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.
Criminals don’t open carry. If you see a gun holstered on someone, they are explicitly showing you they are not a threat to you unless you become a threat to them. If they wanted to harm you, why would they show their hand before making a move.
Lethal crimes of passion are far more rare than you’re making them out. Carrying a pocket knife is legal in Canada no? Do you feel you’re in constant danger of being stab by any random angry stranger? Cars are common in Canada, do you flinch at every intersection because you aren’t sure if someone had a bad day and wants to run someone over randomly? No of course not, because the overwhelming majority of people don’t want to hurt anyone
If you don’t want to hurt anyone, why carry a weapon designed for that exact purpose? There’s literally no other use for a gun.
Want and need are different. I don’t want to shoot a rabid dog that got loose, but I absolutely will before it bites me. Same with any other threats to my bodily safety that I can’t escape from.
God, do Americans live in such a state of paranoia they always think something like that might happen whenever they leave the house so need a gun? Seems sad.
Did you see that video of the lady open carrying in Houston who started shooting at the car that cut her off? Hilarious. Sorry, you were saying?
Did you see the article of the Saskatchewan mass stabbing that had something like 28 casualties? Anecdotes are not indicative of trends.
In a country of 300M you will have outliers. But there are hundreds if not thousands of carriers not hurting a fly for every article like this. Texas alone has 1.7M licensed carriers. So that ratio is actually probably in the hundreds of thousands to 1.
US has a gun problem. It isn’t really news. Unfortunately guns are ingrained into US culture and people will defend their right for guns against all common sense.
criminals don’t open carry
The Bundy family would like to have a word.
Removed by mod
Yep. Waiting until after murders occur is definitely the right approach to curbing gun violence.
Exactly, that’s why she should have made murder illegal a long time ago instead so the murders stop without the courts ruling it unconstitutional forhead touch x2
For a second there I worried my children could die without firearms!
Open or concealed carry is insane. You Americans are unhinged.
This is from a gun owner.
Believing a politician can unilaterally suspend a right protected by both the federal and state constitution is unhinged.
I wasn’t commenting on that, I was commenting on carrying a gun in public
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.
Again, I wasn’t commenting about the ban. Just the desire to carry a gun in public.
Ah gotcha. Its about wanting to be safe. Violence happens unfortunately, so I concealed carry to give me the ability to defend myself (and more importantly my partner) if I ever am faced with that.
No offense but that is extremely paranoid. I love in a not so great part of a major city and have never really felt unsafe enough to feel the need to carry. Hell, even my step dad, who was a police officer and has been shot at, does not feel the need to carry. I guess I could see if you live somewhere super dangerous like St Louis or Wichita but it seems a bit silly otherwise.
Also, shouldn’t your partner be the one carrying of they are the less safe of the two of you?
I don’t see it as paranoid. I totally agree with you its unlikely I’ll ever need it, but it costs me nothing to concealed carry where I can. Worst case my pants are slightly less comfortable, best case I save a life.
My partner is disabled and is of a very small stature which means I’m a far faster and more accurate shot so I carry when its the 2 of us. If theyre alone they carry a lower power pistol so they can handle using it.
I’m not in st louis but I’ve had a knife pulled on me for attempting to enter walmart. Luckily however the guy decided not to attack, idk if it had anything to do with me grabbing the grip of my carry pistol or not, but I’d imagine it’s pretty likely that’s the reason he started running away.
Paranoid or not, I was able to afford food for that night and avoid being stabbed, so I’ll just consider it my “good luck charm.”
sorry you feel unsafe in your country. You should move
Crime happens everywhere, some places more then others sure. But I prefer to have the right to the tools to protect myself, rather than just hope that I’ll never need them.
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.
I don’t feel like writing an essay to address all your points, I don’t have the time right now I’m sorry. Ultimately it comes down to the fact the highest law (and most state constitutions) of the land gives us the inalienable right to arms. Period. (And no “well regulated” does not mean legal regulations)
I believe we would be far better off dealing with the root of violence, like many European countries have done but gun control advocates like to only focus on gun control laws. People with financial, health, reproductive, and employment security don’t commit violent crimes. Things like labor protections, maternity/paternity leave, mandatory vacation time, physical and mental healthcare that won’t bankrupt you are some of the things that dramatically reduce all violent crime regardless of the tool used.
Look at violent crimes in the US compared to the UK for things like murder using only the human body (ie kicks, punches, strangulation, etc), its lower per 100k in the UK and many other European countries. There’s no body control laws restricting how strong or trained your body can be, yet its lower. Its because people who’s needs are actually met don’t need to turn to or are driven to crime, our social protections in the USA suck ass and need to be fixed.
I agree with you. Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we’d probably still have just as many murders. There’s something else at play here that causes us to be violent. As a general rule happy people don’t kill others. Legislation to fix our social issues would go a long way towards reducing violence, but it’s a whole lot easier to just say “guns bad”.
You’ve built a idea of how murder works entirely in your imagination.
deleted by creator
Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we’d probably still have just as many murders.
Absolutely not. Your odds of surviving a knife attack are an order of magnitude higher than of you are shot.
Yeah sounds good. How about we take your guns now and when you’ve finished building all of that, you can have them back?
After all, your post is clearly admitting that American society isn’t fit for the near indiscriminate sale of guns to citizens.
other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero
The US isn’t far removed from homicide rates of other countries when comparing the rates.
Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.
That’s a horrible selection bias though. That is basically saying “this group of people with no violent crimes in their records has a lower violent crime rate than the general public which does.” Of course they do.
Yes. You’re right, these people are vetted by the state and authorized because they passed BG checks and firearms proficiency tests. Which is why a law targeting this group is dumb (beyond just being unconstitutional).
Definitely should have been in your initial point since I have often seen that point used by gun nuts as if they are some paragon of lawfulness. Permitted concealed carry owners are definitely not the ones committing violent crime in New Mexico. Can’t really say the same for quite a few other states that allow permitless concealed carry though.
deleted by creator
Good thing open carry isn’t protected then.
“This from a gun owner” is my favorite take on the “how do you do, fellow kids” meme.
Well I own 5 guns and would never even consider carrying in public ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nifty. Neither being a firearm owner nor count of firearms in any way invalidates the decisions of those who choose to do so.
You’re right. It was only a side point to imply that not every gun owner is as loony as certain American ones.
Unfortunately, the only loony stance here is that legally carrying firearms is somehow a loony thing to do.
It’s always weird seeing how incapable some people are of considering that a different point of view is every bit as valid as their own.
Not all views are valid. That should be pretty obvious. I don’t consider carrying a firearm to be a valid view. It’s paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government.
Not all views are valid.
I don’t consider carrying a firearm to be a valid view.
It’s interesting that you seem incapable of considering yours may be the invalid view.
It’s paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government.
I’d argue being so terrified of the possibility someone might be legally carrying a firearm to, itself, be the indicator of paranoia.
I think the last time we cared about another country’s opinion of how we live our lives was in 1775.
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.
my God do you realise how cringe this statement is
Well, how the people who haven’t been shot yet live their lives at least.
Hah, a classic!
I wish I could give you a gold award.
From what I saw, even the Democrat AG of New Mexico won’t support or defend this in court.
Yeah, she’s also lost the support of many of her party members.
Goddam…we love our guns, though.
Finally, somewhere I might be able to visit there and feel at least a little bit safe in public.
There’s plenty of places you can feel safe in public.
They’re just not in America.
You do realize hundreds of millions of people live here feeling perfectly safe, right?
Life is generally not what you see sensationalized on TV.
That person doesn’t, and I was talking to that person.
“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.Well, its kill or be killed out there. If you’re the only one alive, they can only hear your side of the story
Easy there, we don’t want to make any militias feel well regulated.
Literally unconstitutional.
Yet there’s plenty of precedent at the federal and state level for places where carrying guns is not allowed. 🤔
Specific places, generally, not open public places as specified in the article.
Are national parks not considered open public places?
Thanks to Obama, no seriously, you are allowed to carry firearms in almost all national parks.
They are considered federal land so basically get treated the same as if you tried to bring a gun into the capitol.
Don’t do this btw.
This is incorrect. It is 100% legal to carry a firearm in a National Park assuming that you are legally allowed to carry in that particular state.
You cannot carry a firearm into any federal building however, which includes places like the capitol building, post offices, or buildings within National Parks such as museums, ranger stations, gift shops, etc.
deleted by creator
Well regulated
means well-supplied and ready to go on a moment’s notice
In working order which is why you had to register your firearm and have it inspected to make sure it worked. And that ready to go at a moment’s notice was because they were needed for the defense of the country. Public carry was banned in a good chunk of the states.
I’d say well-maintained and prepared for use. As in tools need be well-maintained to be useful.
Then why are morbidly obese, middle aged men with zero combat training allowed to own guns?
No it doesn’t lmao
Well supplied means well supplied
As does “well-regulated,” especially at the time when that amendment was drafted.
No it didnt
Low-effort and incorrect.
Its historically always meant basically what it means today https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate#:~:text=early%2015c.%2C%20regulaten%2C%20%22,to%20lead%2C%20rule%22).
Shall not be infringed. As someone else pointed out there’s already a TRO, this is just a political stunt.
Your right to bear arms is not infringed by specific controls.
You have a right to freedom of religion but local codes still come into okay for sacrifices/burnt offerings/etc.
Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.
“The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” Urias said during the hearing.
I also disagree with the current ruling on roe v wade
Sucks to be you then.
It’s pretty great to be me, man. My life is kickass.
A well regulated militia shall not be infringed
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.
In the above sentence, who has the right to keep and eat food, “the people,” or “a well balanced breakfast?”
It sounds like the balanced breakfast is the basis for everything that follows
So if you skip breakfast you don’t deserve the right to food? No lunch or dinner? Snacks ist verboten?
It clearly says the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. You know you’re wrong.
The hell is this weird strawman. Im not arguing against food im telling you how a sentence is written. As written, a balanced breakfast is the entire reason people have the right to food.
You wrote a dumb shit sentence because the militia is the cause of the clause that follows in this stance, and in your example a breakfast is not the cause for keeping food but rather breakfast food.
You made a bad example and declared it victory lol
Yawn, this ignorant trope again. Go learn to read 17th and 18th century prose.
Is part of the dependent clause. Its reasoning.
If you paid attention in English class youd know this
Just a flourish of words that dont matter?
deleted by creator
Yes, actually.
How convenient, the words that dont matter are the ones you dont want to matter
Let me try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it’s ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn’t written to restrict the rights of the people.
The prefatory clause is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…,” which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you’re blue in the face about how “well regulated militia” was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it’s not part of the operative clause.
“… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It’s hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don’t want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it’s intuitive.Its still not empty words, it is intent, which we supposedly have a history of using when interpreting the constitution for modern cases.
and you don’t want to get shot.
I dont think America is the place to be if you dont want to get shot. Did you write this thinking we have a good track record or something?
Yawn, it’s clear you don’t know how to read literature from the period. There’s plenty of explanation of the phrasing, indeed by the writers themselves in contemporary missives. But you don’t really care, you already have your ideology.
Go read any Jane Austen and you’ll learn. Even better, the Federalist Papers, or the Adams/Jefferson letters.
Or more specifically, Federalist #29, which argued that the US should not have a standing military. THAT was the reasoning behind 2A. Of course our forebears learned pretty quickly that was a dumb ass hill to die on, and we have a huge standing military. The reasons for the 2A have been buried in progress, yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their guns in fear that the big bad world will touch them.
Thanks for finding which paper it was… I have a copy but didn’t feel like finding it and finding the right paper. Call me lazy 🤷♂️
And in the end, they codified what they saw as a natural, inborn, individual right. That wasn’t by accident - Jefferson was very intentional in the words he chose (and they argued over, properly). Knowing the language had to be clear and concise, this is what resulted. It’s pretty clear if you’ve read anything from 1600 onward.
Some of how the writing of the time (and place, Britain) flows is, I suspect, partly an influence of French language that some also knew - “twenty and four years” is clear French construction, not English at all. Keeping in mind that before Shakespeare, the “English language” such as it was, was considered beneath “proper” Brits. Shakespeare marks the beginning of that change, so the French language influence carried on for a long time among the upper classes as a distinction.
It’s pretty interesting to see this same kind of complex construction (from our perspective) in period writings, but also in many science papers today, where complex ideas are strung together in paragraph-long sentences in an attempt to capture the detail and nuance. Medical journals are particularly guilty of this.
Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it’s just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn’t dangerous is mental illness.
Your fear is rotting your brain.
Literally constitutional. States can set the laws and regulations around firearms, as established by supreme court precedent.
deleted by creator
The Supreme Court also ruled recently that firearm owners can file off serial numbers, to give some context for their stance on the 2nd amendment.
Care to show that ruling?
deleted by creator
So what did SCOTUS do with US v Price? This just shows the lower court ruling and I don’t feel like Shepardizing the case right before bed.
deleted by creator
Price is a fuck you test case of Bruen? I’m tired so I might be missing it.
Supreme Court also reinterpreted Roe v Wade in a radical and stupid way. You sure you wanna die on the hill of “the Supreme Court always gets it right the first time?”
deleted by creator
The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.
This is patently false. Take a look at all the restrictions on the 1st amendment. I’m not allowed to walk into congressional chambers and scream at the top of my lungs in protest am I?
Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.
If you possess any right to any firearm whatsoever, your right to bear arms has not been infringed.
The type of “arms” are unspecified.
To think anything else is to simply not have a functioning grasp on sanity.
deleted by creator
Since 2008. It was well understood that regulations were fine until then
I look forward to seeing you proven incorrect by the courts. The TRO is already in place.
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.
I mean, that’s a nice wall of text, but it isn’t going to make this order any more constitutional. Law enforcement isn’t enforcing it, and the state AG isn’t even defending it apparently.
Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.
“The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” Urias said during the hearing.
Do you take every district court decision to be the last word on what is or isn’t constitutional, or do you wait for the supreme court to rule?
What is “constitutional” changes all the time. The AWB was constitutional. Mag limits were constitutional. Background checks are constitutional.
At some point, this may be found to be constitutional, or not, but it’s not like the constitution is some unchanging document, and it certainly doesn’t mean that federal or state governments cannot restrict who can buy which firearms under which conditions, or regulate how they may be legally carried. That’s been the case forever.
There’s already a temporary restraining order halting enforcement
So is forced jury duty and the draft. But many can only count to two.
I’m no expert on the US Constitution, but I was under the impression that the second amendment basically lets you have guns (well, something something well regulated militia, but that part is universally ignored by now). It doesn’t say you’re allowed to carry in public. I know states already get to set carry laws, which is why some states are open vs concealed carry. I don’t see how this is much different. It’s not like they’re even saying you can’t have guns at your home.
Just a reminder that the right to bear arms in public places was only established in 2008.
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.
Only explicitly recognized in 2008. The constitutional amendment SCOTUS used for this ruling was established nearly 250 years ago and has remained unchanged since.
How come it took so long if the premise was correct the entire time?
CC/OC has always been legal in the US and only after the civil war did laws restricting carry start to pop up (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). NY recently used a law restricting the rights of Catholics and Native Americans as a historical justification for their CC restrictions. The state laws took awhile (and the fear of some groups carrying to subside) to become infringing enough before law suits began. Someone needed to sue and be able appeal enough times in order to be heard by the SCOTUS, which is difficult and time consuming. But the ruling SCOTUS made isn’t what makes CC legal, it is a firm statement that it always was legal and laws infringing on that have always been unconstitutional.
Slavery was always legal and only after the civil war did restrictions come about (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). Ignoring hyperbole, it is a fact that the “well regulated” portion of the 2A was understood to allow for restrictions until Scalia made up a reason to ignore it, again in 2008.
Im not going to defend the way NY is going about it, but to say there is no history for gun regulation by States is ignoring history and stare decisis.
Ignoring the metaphor cause yeesh.
But “well regualted” means and always meant something to the tune of well trained and supplied. "The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. ". And more importantly " Right of the people " and “Shall not be infringed” are clear and obvious.
Also ignoring the web 1.0 webpage, why did Scalia argue that this portion of the 2A can be ignored? Cant the state pass laws to maintain the well regulation of arms?
You can ignore that source if you want, there are plenty others. But the fact remains that well regulated does not give the government the right to regulate arms.
The worst part about this dumb ass talking point is that it implies that the Supreme Court is the source of our inalienable rights
By talking point, you mean how the US constitution was written and the whole point of the supreme court?
Edit: Until congress does their job and pass legislation on these matters, this is unfortunately how the cookie crumbles.
I mean that rights are inherent to being human, not bestowed by 9 people with law degrees
They’re only declared inherent human rights on the very same sheet of paper that defines the rights and codifies them into law. Without the government backing them, they don’t mean anything and are just words written on a piece of paper.
The constitution doesn’t bestow those rights, it just defines how the government interacts with them
I agree in principle, but not in totality (largely due to bad faith arguements). Everyone should have the right to privacy and basic essentials, to carry a glock around wherever not so much.
Ah yeah… Not constitutional.
She’s just doing this for her image.
She’s about to term out anyway, so she doesn’t really care what it does to her.
Ah I didn’t know that.
Well, grasping for straws, trying to say that she did something bold etc. Anyway I read in another article that a judge is blocking this
