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.

  • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    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

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      47
      ·
      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
        39
        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

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

                    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

            • 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
          13
          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
            9
            ·
            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.

                • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Hopefully it never needs to get to that point because of the threat. But that’s literally what we did in the revolutionary war.

              • r_wraith@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                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.

                • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • uberkalden@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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

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

                  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.)

              • Zaktor
                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. @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.

              • 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.

    • Godric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      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
          16
          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
            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.