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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 29 points 3 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    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.

    Because of Heller v. D.C., and McDonald v. Chicago. Those precedents are over a decade old, from well before Trump stacked the courts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Supreme court doubtfully even needs to rule on this, Heller covers this already as you said. This won't stick.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    McDonald is the one that really applies here; Heller was argued to only apply to D.C., since it lacked the power of the states. McDonald clarified that yes, Heller applied to states also.

    The state governor is going to use her failure to do anything substantive as a fundraiser: "I would have successfully ended all violent crime, if only those pesky MAGA-cultists hadn't stopped me!" Never mind that David fuckin' Hogg has explicitly opposed this on X (nee Twitter) saying, "I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.". When one of the most visible anti-gun activists in the US is against your plan, you done fucked up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago

    I live in New Mexico and this governor is well liked and has made many substantive achievements. This is her playing the republican playbook of passing laws they know will eventually get shot down. Look at abbot or desantis half the laws they pass are in court because they are unconstitutional but until the court rules the laws stay in place. New Mexico has been democrat run for at least 90 years so this won't make her look bad to anyone in the state except republicans.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 20 points 3 years ago (94 children)

    Public Safety should always come first.

  • source
  • hideshow 94 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    I don't agree, there are plenty of accepted risks, and there are many cases where public safety could be prioritized at the expense of individual liberties. COVID is a recent example, extremely stringent lockdowns, freedom of movement suspensions, etc would likely decrease deaths as in Australia.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (93 replies)
    [+] 14 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago (27 children)

    New Mexico requires you to be licensed to concealed carry doesn't it? Curious what this accomplishes, how many licensed concealed carry holders are aggressors in a crime?

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (22 children)
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    That is a very misleading link.

    Yes, sometimes CC holders commit violent crimes, and with millions of them out there the list is gonna be long.

    But the rate at which they commit gun crimes is way, way below the average person.

    If you're in a crowd with 9 carry license holders and one random person and you get shot, odds are it was the person without the license that shot you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    For a long time the push was "background checks" or licensing, "closing the loopholes". Yet this blocks people who specifically went through a more stringent license process specifically when violent crime is more of a risk. (And according to the article I read that could be misrepresenting it, only violent crime - not even specifically gun crime)

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (15 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] [B] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    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.

    The high court struck down a New York concealed carry law in the Bruen ruling, finding that firearm regulations must be based in the country’s historic tradition to be considered constitutional.

    “The State must justify the Carry Prohibition by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the complaint reads.

    The order suspends concealed and open carry laws for 30 days in areas with a specific threshold of violent crime, which has only been met by the city of Albuquerque.

    “When New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game — when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn — something is very wrong.”


    The original article contains 296 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 36%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    I'm not really understanding why she came up with this ban. It seems pretty clearly unconstitutional, I think that was obvious even to people who would support it. So what's the fight for? Just seems like a waste of resources and a waste of political capital. If anything it almost seems to serve her political opponents by giving them an easy victory. Just don't get it. Politically stupid.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (23 children)

    I think this is a big misstep, not just from the Governor but for Democrats. Once you possess a firearm it's pretty much too late for anyone to stop you using it in a crime. Handguns are easily concealed up to the point of entry (if there are metal detectors) and essentially the same with rifles as you can usually park near a building entrance. This reinforces the rights position that Democrats are ineffective at law enforcement and no nothing about guns.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago* (14 children)

    Does not being allowed to regulate things you know nothing about also extend to uteruses, the environment, etc?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago

    The vast majority of law abiding carriers are, law abiding. Shocker. If they weren't they would just carry the fun, making them unlicensed carriers, meaning the law wouldn't stop them anyways... Effectively what is happening is disarming the law abiding decent humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    Good. Fuck Grisham and this bullshit.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›