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.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
3 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
13 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Yes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Stop going off topic. You aren’t disagreeing with him and presenting a valid argument. You’re just trying to change the subject matter.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

That’s a very weird contrast. The environment affects everyone, my neighbors uterus doesn’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Just the first two things that came to mind where the people who will jump up and down about magazines vs clips have no problem with laws regulating things they don’t understand.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Of course it does. You should have the right to have an abortion. You should have the right to refuse vaccination (although private businesses should have the right to refuse to allow you entry or employment if you aren’t). You should have the right to own the firearms that work best for you.

You should have the rights to make choices about yourself and your own body that do not cause direct, immediate harm to other people.

If you’re going to argue that guns should be illegal because you can kill a person (illegally) with one, then it’s just as reasonable to argue that abortion should be illegal because you’re killing a person.

The only problem here is that both Republicans and Democrats are inconsistent, but in opposite ways.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Your second paragraph pretty well contradicts your first paragraph as far as vaccinations go.

And your third doesn’t follow any kind of logical reasoning since one of the ideas behind legal abortion is bodily autonomy.

Your fourth paragraph is making conclusions based on the first three, but since they’re full of holes, there’s nothing to actually support your assertion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

This reinforces the rights position that Democrats are ineffective at law enforcement and know nothing about guns.

The way the lobbying works here (or used to work, before the NRA went bankrupt) is that any candidate who knows about guns, or represents a district with lots of gun ownership, can’t be involved at all in any gun control laws without losing the NRA’s support. Therefore, the only people left to write the gun control laws are the ones who know nothing about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

You can have lots of gun knowledge without owning guns or having NRA support.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

I agree, but is this hypothetical person electable in either party right now? Probably not, which is why the gun laws we get are generally poor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Gun toting liberals exist just as LGBTQ+ conservatives exist. Also, it’s not incumbent upon legislators to know everything about everything that could be legislated upon. This is why legislators have staff.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The problem is most(not all) people who care to actually learn about guns generally oppose gun control.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

That’s because nobody who knows anything about guns would ever support the Democrats effort to ban guns, which they label as “commonsense gun control”

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 480K

    Comments