Gun rights group sues New Mexico over order banning guns in public in Albuquerque

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.

TransplantedSconie,

Why can’t they? Dodge City, back in the 1880s, had an ordinance declaring you had to check your guns when you went into town. Even then, they knew guns and idiots grouped together don’t mix. Especially when drinking. But this is an illegitimate Supreme Court it will get to. With a guy who is on the take, a guy who believes a witch trial judge’s ruling(when America didn’t even exist) has bearing on Abortion rights today, a Christian cult member who probably gets her instructions from her husband on how to rule, a guy who stuffed drugs up his ass and raped a woman who then had debts mysterious wiped clean, and a guy who sees all this shit and says it’s OK and that we have no more racism in existence today so we gutted the civil rights act.

Vote out Republicans, people. It’s the only way out of this mess.

ColeSloth,

Is it still feasible to see a person coming into town from a mile off on a horse and stopping him to take his guns? Are only like 20 people a day coming in and out of this city?

TransplantedSconie,

Then make it a fine punishable by 10% of your yearly income. Sure, you can carry a gun in the town, but if they catch you with it, you’re gonna pay a stiff penalty.

ColeSloth,

Of any debates or criticism or discussion you could possibly make…making a penalty that has no effect of an unemployed person that’s most likely to mug or rob a person for having a gun by far has to be the stupidest most illogical thing you could have said. I can recognize or accept different viewpoints, but you’re just a moron.

TransplantedSconie,

That’s literally what they did in Tombstone.

The fine was $25 dollars in 1870. In 2023 that’s the equivalent of $583.38.

Yep. I’m the stupid one alright.

ColeSloth,

And what percentage of their income was a fixed fine of $25? Yes. You’re the stupid one.

YoBuckStopsHere,
@YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world avatar

Public Safety should always come first.

ColeSloth,

Fine. No vehicles, no candles, no walking around without a helmet on. Public safety is number one!

Draedron,

Vehicles and candles have uses that are not “I want to kill”. Guns dont.

ArcaneSlime,

Guns do in fact have other uses. Namely self defense, which while yes some killing may be involved in defending oneself with a firearm, “want” is a liiiiitle far since most would rather just not be in a life or death situation that would necessitate armed self defense, though assuredly they are glad to be able to use it to “not die” as opposed to “dying by the attacker’s hands.”

Also hunting, USPSA, IDPA, etc.

dragonflyteaparty,

No, actually. A gun’s purpose is to maim or kill. “Self defense” is simply a phrase for “I will hurt you back more than you hurt me”. It doesn’t change the purpose of a gun. It would likely take decades, but we could absolutely lower the amount of guns the US has. People just think that’s too hard and refuse to care that a household with a gun is more likely to get shot and die than a household without one.

ArcaneSlime,

Question, why do the rights of a murderer superceede the rights of their murder victim?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • politics@lemmy.world
  • fightinggames
  • All magazines
    •