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.

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

    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.

    • ThrowThrowThrewaway7@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

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

        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?

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?”