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.

  • bobman@unilem.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Rather than addressing crime at its core

    You mean the disparity in wealth? Something tells me none of them want to address crime at its core.

  • Godric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    63
    ·
    1 year ago

    I fucking agree with her, but that doesn’t mean someone in power should ever make blatantly unconstitutional moves. Nobody should get to unilaterally make declarations like that, regardless of sentiment.

    • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah and as we all know the second amendment has ALWAYS protected your right to openly carry guns in public \s

      • Godric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        43
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Godric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            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

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

      • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        49
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          41
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • MountainTurkey@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The New Mexico constitution also has a right to bear arms and it’s not specified for a militia. Article 6 part 2:

            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. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

            • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              “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)

                • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  12
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

              • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

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

                  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.

          • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

            • r_wraith@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.fmhy.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • r_wraith@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  As far as I see it, @BaroqueInMind was trying to make two points:

                  1. “The real reason for the 2nd is to legit kill tyrants”
                  2. “(Without guns) you are a toothless bitch you cant fight back without certain and pointless death.”

                  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.

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  and for self-defense

                  Love how you tag on a deeply held constitutional right that didn’t exist until 15 years ago. @[email protected]’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.

                • r_wraith@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago
                  1. Not my government (Not from the US).
                  2. If you want to see what the reaction to an armed insurection would be, I reccomend the American Civil War. Or do you really think that today’s “tyranical government” is that much more restrained than Lincoln’s government was?
        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • mvirts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think this is what we have governors and presidents for, to act quickly, less carefully than a legislature. Whether or not it’s struck down in court, it at least bring attention to the problem.

    • Rob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      The ban was issued as part of a declaration of a public health emergency involving gun violence. There is a ton of precedent for public health and safety taking priority over all. The classic example is that it is constitutional for the government to prevent you from trying to exercise your First Amendment right to free speech by yelling “Fire” in a crowded movie theater.

      This is no different from that: there is a public health and safety issue preventing people from trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights as embodied¹ by New Mexico law.

      ¹ accurately or not