Liberals turn on New Mexico governor over gun suspension

[Hercules56]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lib...s-constitution

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is coming under fire from members of her own party after temporarily suspending open and concealed carry across Albuquerque under an emergency health order.

"I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution," California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu tweeted.



Well this is interesting. Democrat mayor temporarily suspends the right to carry handguns in public and liberal politicians and others are condemning the move. On the grounds that it clearly violates the Constitution and you can't use a so-called public health emergency to suspend the Constitution. At least not unless you are a dictator.

Fascinating.

[Trausti]

Every political party / group needs to rein in its crazies. Good on them.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Every political party / group needs to rein in its crazies. Good on them.

Agreed. Only a tiny percentage of gun crimes are committed by folks with a permit.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Agreed. Only a tiny percentage of gun crimes are committed by folks with a permit.

An appreciable portion of them are committed by people who stole a gun from someone with a permit.

[bruto]

It doesn't sound like a very wise move, and though I'm not entirely sure it's as unconstitutional as some would have it, I expect it will turn out to be, and that one need not be a right winger to find it so.

My main point actually here is just to give Hercules 56 a light spanking on language. If he does not want to be perceived here as a closet conservative, he might better remember that the habit of dropping the "IC" from Democratic is a noxious right wing rhetorical habit of long standing. And whatever you might think of her actions, Grisham is a Democratic governor, not a "Democrat mayor."

[arthwollipot]

And let's not even comment on the use of Fox News as a source.

ETA: Oh wait, I just did.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

An appreciable portion of them are committed by people who stole a gun from someone with a permit.

Or bought a gun from someone with a permit.

[Norman Alexander]

I expect the liberals to now storm the state capitol and wreck it, in order to enforce their constitutional rights. In 3...2...1...

[The Great Zaganza]

without the market for legal guns there wouldn't be so many that could be used in crimes.

or suicides

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by bruto

If he does not want to be perceived here as a closet conservative

I think that cat's well out of the bag.

She claims that she's not suspending the constitution but state laws which are within her jurisdiction to enforce. I'll let the lawyers figure that one out.

Quote:

Hey Ted, conceal and open carry are state laws that I have jurisdiction over.

I'll let the courts decide whether this passes constitutional muster. Open carry doesn't seem to be a constitutional right, and rules regarding concealed carry seem to vary from state to state.
Whether she has the authority under the New Mexico state law or constitution is a separate question.

Quote:

Lujan Grisham temporarily suspended open and concealed carry laws in Bernalillo County for at least 30 days, starting Sept. 8. The announcement was spurred by the fatal shootings of young children, including a 13-year-old girl in July, a 5-year-old girl in August and an 11-year-old boy this month.

Here's what the state laws are in New Mexico:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Mexico

[sarge]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lib...s-constitution

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is coming under fire from members of her own party after temporarily suspending open and concealed carry across Albuquerque under an emergency health order.

"I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution," California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu tweeted.



Well this is interesting. Democrat mayor temporarily suspends the right to carry handguns in public and liberal politicians and others are condemning the move. On the grounds that it clearly violates the Constitution and you can't use a so-called public health emergency to suspend the Constitution. At least not unless you are a dictator.

Fascinating.

In what way is this either interesting or surprising? Liberals are defined by their insistence on the protections afforded by the constitution applying to everyone, equally. It is the predominant defining characteristic of the US brand of liberalism.

Those identifying as ‘liberal’ might wish to change the 2nd amendment and they may disagree with the current crop of justices incredibly poor interpretation of what the 2nd actually says, but they do not propose allowing jurisdictions to ignore the 2nd.

This story actually highlights one of the significant differences between R’s and D’s. D’s will oppose those from their own party that act contrary to the constitution. R’s will (generally) support and celebrate those that do.

[Hercules56]

Governors cannot unilaterally change state laws if it violates the Constitution. I support good rules for concealed carry but this act clearly is a USC violation. Its good to see Democrats oppose it. And yes the Governor is a Democrat.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Agreed. Only a tiny percentage of gun crimes are committed by folks with a permit.

There's a lot of caveats in there.

First off, not everything you or I would call a crime is reported as such (ex George Zimmerman murdering Trayvon Martin or Jeronimo Yanez killing Philando Castile).

Second, not every state requires a permit to keep a gun in your home, which is where it will most likely kill someone. Texas, Tennessee, and Alaska don't require any sort of registration or permit to purchase a handgun and also have the three highest rates of abusive husbands/boyfriends shooting their wives/girlfriends.

Third, this doesn't account for people who may access the gun of the licensed owner. (ex Adam Lanza murdering 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School)

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Every political party / group needs to rein in its crazies. Good on them.

There's a significant difference between a governor possibly overstepping her bounds to address a uniquely American scourge that is killing children vs a governor pushing anti-vaxx conspiracies and getting more people killed simply because he wants to pander to idiots in his *chuckles* presidential campaign.

[Hercules56]

I think we can all agree that this Governor has overstepped her legal authority and her actions are unconstitutional. No doubt a court will very soon put a hold on them and allow people to carry firearms in public especially if they have a permit to do so.

If you want to stop gun crimes going after people with handgun permits is clearly not the first thing you should do. It's probably the last.

Crime stats are clear that in states where a permit is required to carry a handgun in public, pretty much all gun crimes are not committed by people with such permits.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Governors cannot unilaterally change state laws if it violates the Constitution.

She says the state laws give her the right to do that. Also, prior to Heller vs DC, states were generally allowed to set their own laws around guns provided they were equally applied (ostensibly anyway).

Quote:

I support good rules for concealed carry but this act clearly is a USC violation. Its good to see Democrats oppose it. And yes the Governor is a Democrat.

And this is another reason why both sides are not the same. Democrats can have reasonable disagreements with each other and not declare each other "enemies of the state".

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I think we can all agree that this Governor has overstepped her legal authority and her actions are unconstitutional.

Are you familiar with the laws in Nevada? I'm not. Surely not enough to make such a definitive statement.

Quote:

No doubt a court will very soon put a hold on them and allow people to carry firearms in public especially if they have a permit to do so.

I'm sure it will go through the courts getting an injunction at some point while it gets settled.

Quote:

If you want to stop gun crimes going after people with handgun permits is clearly not the first thing you should do. It's probably the last.

As opposed to thoughts and prayers, which is the only thing this nation of cowards does.

Quote:

Crime stats are clear that in states where a permit is required to carry a handgun in public, pretty much all gun crimes are not committed by people with such permits.

And again, that statement is not as air tight as you believe it is. And you haven't even been asked to verify it.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

She says the state laws give her the right to do that. Also, prior to Heller vs DC, states were generally allowed to set their own laws around guns provided they were equally applied (ostensibly anyway).



And this is another reason why both sides are not the same. Democrats can have reasonable disagreements with each other and not declare each other "enemies of the state".

State laws cannot override the US Supreme Court.

She has no authority to unilaterally suspend the 2nd Amendment. She definitely needs better legal guidance.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

State laws cannot override the US Supreme Court.

No, but she may not actually be violating the Constitution based on SCOTUS precedent.

Quote:

She has no authority to unilaterally suspend the 2nd Amendment.

She isn't, though. and states do have the right to limit fire arm possession and carry.

Quote:

She definitely needs better legal guidance.

Maybe, but you certainly aren't it.

[Parsman]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I think we can all agree that this Governor has overstepped her legal authority and her actions are unconstitutional. No doubt a court will very soon put a hold on them and allow people to carry firearms in public especially if they have a permit to do so.

If you want to stop gun crimes going after people with handgun permits is clearly not the first thing you should do. It's probably the last.

Crime stats are clear that in states where a permit is required to carry a handgun in public, pretty much all gun crimes are not committed by people with such permits.

As per the old joke "What do you mean 'we', paleface?" Where in the constitution of the United States does it say you have the right to conceal carry a firearm. Own one yes, arguably. But how it is owned, stored and used is not a constitutional but a legal matter. And it is obvious from the mass shootings and hundreds of deaths occurring yearly in the USA that those laws need addressing. I

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Parsman

As per the old joke "What do you mean 'we', paleface?" Where in the constitution of the United States does it say you have the right to conceal carry a firearm. Own one yes, arguably. But how it is owned, stored and used is not a constitutional but a legal matter. And it is obvious from the mass shootings and hundreds of deaths occurring yearly in the USA that those laws need addressing. I

None of these mass-shootings have been committed by someone with a concealed carry permit. Barely ANY of our thousands of murders every year are committed by someone with a concealed carry permit. You're targeting the wrong people.

And yes, the Bruen case finally made it clear that we do have a Constitutional right to protect ourselves in public with a firearm. No special status or situation is required to enjoy that right.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

No, but she may not actually be violating the Constitution based on SCOTUS precedent.



She isn't, though. and states do have the right to limit fire arm possession and carry.



Maybe, but you certainly aren't it.

I clearly know more about the 2nd Amendment than her lawyers. Especially if they are telling the governor that she has the authority to unilaterally suspend the right to keep and bear arms in public. Even Liberal judges are going to laugh at this poor legal advice.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I clearly know more about the 2nd Amendment than her lawyers. Especially if they are telling the governor that she has the authority to unilaterally suspend the right to keep and bear arms in public.

That's not what the 2A says, Atticus. It also isn't what she is doing.

[TurkeysGhost]

Reminds me a lot of how Republicans, prior to seizing control of SCOTUS (thanks Ruth), would virtue signal about abortion by passing blatantly unconstitutional abortion bans that everyone knew would not survive court review. It didn't accomplish anything practical, but it signaled to the base that someone was Doing Something.

Liberals are in a tough spot with guns because there's no viable path towards actually accomplishing any meaningful anti-gun policies. Politically and culturally there's just not enough popular support that America's easy access to guns should be curtailed, though there is a loud minority of liberals who are quite understandably upset about the serious and ongoing harm this does to our country.

So yeah, Gov. Grisham is proving her bonafides by Doing Something, even though everyone knows it won't stick.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

That's not what the 2A says, Atticus. It also isn't what she is doing.

Heller and Bruen have made it crystal clear: the second amendment gives Americans the right to protect themselves at home and in public with firearms. States can impose reasonable restrictions on possession and ownership of firearms, but these restrictions have a limit and they certainly cannot ban possession.

This action by the governor will be struck down.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Heller and Bruen have made it crystal clear: the second amendment gives Americans the right to protect themselves at home and in public with firearms. States can impose reasonable restrictions on possession and ownership of firearms, but these restrictions have a limit and they certainly cannot ban possession.

This action by the governor will be struck down.

An therein lies the rub. That word sure does a lot of heavy lifting in our legal system. Especially in hot button issues. It makes big sweeping declarations kinda dumb.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

An therein lies the rub. That word sure does a lot of heavy lifting in our legal system. Especially in hot button issues. It makes big sweeping declarations kinda dumb.

The Heller Supreme Court, even the Bruen Supreme Court, has stated that reasonable restrictions on firearm possession and purchases are legal.

Requiring permits, are legal. Background checks, required safety/training courses, are legal. Thank goodness for this.

Outright sweeping bans on purchases, ownership, possession in public? Not legal.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

The Heller Supreme Court, even the Bruen Supreme Court, has stated that reasonable restrictions on firearm possession and purchases are legal.

Repeating it doesn't change it.

Quote:

Requiring permits, are legal. Background checks, required safety/training courses, are legal. Thank goodness for this.

There are folks who call this unreasonable.

Quote:

Outright sweeping bans on purchases, ownership, possession in public? Not legal.

If that were the case here, it isn't, some folks would consider that reasonable.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

Repeating it doesn't change it.



There are folks who call this unreasonable.



If that were the case here, it isn't, some folks would consider that reasonable.

I don't worry about the idiots who condemn any and all gun regulations.

[dirtywick]

well, those idiots are in charge of a lot of ****

anyway, there are states out there that don't allow, in various combinations, conceal carry or open carry perfectly constitutionally. while i don't know whether or not a governor has the authority to suspend either of them, that's not based on constitutionality.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

well, those idiots are in charge of a lot of ****

anyway, there are states out there that don't allow, in various combinations, conceal carry or open carry perfectly constitutionally. while i don't know whether or not a governor has the authority to suspend either of them, that's not based on constitutionality.

I believe the current SCOTUS would rule that as long as concealed carry is allowed, open carry can be banned.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I believe the current SCOTUS would rule that as long as concealed carry is allowed, open carry can be banned.

whether or not the governor has the authority to suspend open and concealed carry is a matter for that's state's legislature, court, and constitution to resolve.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Parsman

As per the old joke "What do you mean 'we', paleface?" Where in the constitution of the United States does it say you have the right to conceal carry a firearm. Own one yes, arguably. But how it is owned, stored and used is not a constitutional but a legal matter. And it is obvious from the mass shootings and hundreds of deaths occurring yearly in the USA that those laws need addressing. I

If you mean making gun ownership as hard as it is in the UK, that is never going to happen.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

whether or not the governor has the authority to suspend open and concealed carry is a matter for that's state's legislature, court, and constitution to resolve.

I know this may come as a shock, but state laws cannot violate the Federal Constitution.

Crazy huh???

[Hercules56]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new...cond-amendment

Albuquerque Sheriff says he will not enforce Governor's order.

Looks like this thing has died a quick death.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I know this may come as a shock, but state laws cannot violate the Federal Constitution.

Crazy huh???

it seems you frequently don't pay attention to what other people say

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I know this may come as a shock, but state laws cannot violate the Federal Constitution.

Crazy huh???

Of course state laws can violate the constitution. There's been several Supreme Court rulings against state laws that do exactly that. Whatever do you imagine those laws were doing, before the Supreme Court got to them?

And if anyone has the standing to challenge what the constitution says a state may or may not do, it's a state governor. Or a state legislature, collectively.

And we know that the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that the rules laid out in the Constitution may be overridden in certain circumstances. If the state governor says this is one of those circumstances, who are you to disagree? He's right, and you're wrong, all the way up until the Supreme Court rules in your favor, or the governor runs out of appeals.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Liberals are in a tough spot with guns because there's no viable path towards actually accomplishing any meaningful anti-gun policies. Politically and culturally there's just not enough popular support that America's easy access to guns should be curtailed, though there is a loud minority of liberals who are quite understandably upset about the serious and ongoing harm this does to our country.

Which is why I have always said that any meaningful gun control in America has to start with education. The cultural approach to guns needs to change. I have estimated in the past that it would take three generations - when nobody's grandfather still thinks they need a gun for self-protection, then the 2nd amendment can be repealed.

Of course, during this period you also need to deal with the fact that America is awash with way too many guns, which makes it easy for people to acquire one for nefarious purposes. That means confiscation and destruction of guns used in crimes, and a massive reduction in both the number of people who own guns, and the number of guns that some people own (some people own just waaay too many guns).

But culture first. Guns have to be made culturally undesirable before anything else.

[dirtywick]

i think the courts ruling that enacting gun control and disguising it as a public health emergency is a pretty lazy abuse of power to be a more likely, and better, outcome anyway. i know the executive decree as an end around the legislature is probably the only way this country functions anymore, but still they shouldn't be doing it

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

i think the courts ruling that enacting gun control and disguising it as a public health emergency is a pretty lazy abuse of power to be a more likely, and better, outcome anyway. i know the executive decree as an end around the legislature is probably the only way this country functions anymore, but still they shouldn't be doing it

I'm not quite sure what the Governor intended with her suspension of permits, but I'm sure that whatever it was it was not achieved.