Liberals turn on New Mexico governor over gun suspension

[Donal]

the mayor of Nevada is trying to steal all the guns

see, that's why I am not making any strong declarative statements.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

Seems like she has nothing to lose at this point if she appeals it. Passing it pissed of a bunch of people to begin with, backing down at the first challenge makes her look weak and unprepared, and she looks like a hero to certain folks if she wins her appeal.

But, much like you, I am not familiar with the specifics of Nevada politics. Also, much like you, I am not a lawyer. Unlike you, I realize those are 2 good reasons not to make huge sweeping declarative statements about the issue.

TLDR: I dunno

Dude, we're talking about New Mexico. Not Nevada. Try to keep up.

[Hercules56]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...e/70836476007/

"New Mexico governor's gun suspension defies 2nd Amendment. And it doesn't make us any safer."

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Dude, we're talking about New Mexico. Not Nevada. Try to keep up.

the mayor of New Mexico? Also, after 5 pages you didn't catch it. Like you have anything to say here.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

People getting shot in the USA, is not an emergency situation requiring the suspension of Constitutional rights.

If we allow such a thing, the next time a GOPer is in the White House he will use another "emergency" to suspend the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. And other legal protections that we rely on.

You may be right that it does not require the suspension of constitutional rights, but that's not what you said, is it? Your statement to which I was responding was that there is no emergency at all, and the implication that being murdered by gunfire, however normal and unsurprising as you may find it, is not a matter of public health. You stated explicitly that the governor made it up.

And, of course, the question of what those constitutional rights actually are, while you may be entirely sure of it, and while you may be right about it, is not a settled matter.

I would respectfully suggest that however routine and acceptable the tradeoff seems to you, people who are shot probably consider the event something of an emergency, and if enough people are shot, the emergency becomes a public one. And though there are numerous ways one might view the event, one is as a matter of public health, since people who are shot, especially if fatally, tend to suffer consequences that are deleterious to their health.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

the mayor of New Mexico? Also, after 5 pages you didn't catch it. Like you have anything to say here.

I never said she was the "mayor of New Mexico".

That's your imagination.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by bruto

You may be right that it does not require the suspension of constitutional rights, but that's not what you said, is it? Your statement to which I was responding was that there is no emergency at all, and the implication that being murdered by gunfire, however normal and unsurprising as you may find it, is not a matter of public health. You stated explicitly that the governor made it up.

And, of course, the question of what those constitutional rights actually are, while you may be entirely sure of it, and while you may be right about it, is not a settled matter.

I would respectfully suggest that however routine and acceptable the tradeoff seems to you, people who are shot probably consider the event something of an emergency, and if enough people are shot, the emergency becomes a public one. And though there are numerous ways one might view the event, one is as a matter of public health, since people who are shot, especially if fatally, tend to suffer consequences that are deleterious to their health.

It's pretty much settled law that you have the right to defend yourself at home and in public with a firearm. It's time for people to move on.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Donal

the mayor of New Mexico? Also, after 5 pages you didn't catch it. Like you have anything to say here.

After 5 pages I didn't catch what??

[sackett]

California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Washington DC don't permit open carry. Other states may require a permit. Cities have their own regulations, and of course it's illegal everywhere to carry within 1,000.feet of a school.

And so on. This is just to say that regulating the keeping/bearing of arms is not infringement of the 2A right to do so. Never has been. Jesus, what a lot of hot air gets wasted over this non-issue.

The governor wants to suspend a New Mexico law temporarily in a specific county because she thinks the killing is getting excessive. That sounds like reasonable prudence, and within the authority of a governor.

Nobody's guns have been seized. For the time being, they can stay home and polish them all they want. If they use AstroGlide or Überlube, that's not my business or yours.

[Lurch]

Gun deaths aren't an emergency requiring action.

I guess that's why gradeschoolers in the "land of the free and home of the brave" have to undergo active shooter drills. And why there's talk of hardening schools by reducing access to a single door (nice fire safety measure, that), installing armored glass/reducing window area, adding armed security, arming teachers. In short, effectively turning schools into day prisons.

I've heard it said that Americans will try every solution to a problem before settling on the right one. How many kiddies will have to have heads and limbs blown off before the right solution--so obvious and settled upon by the civilized world--is tried?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

You are aware that this SC struck down NY's concealed carry law, aren't you?

Quote:

Quote:
​The Supreme Court has struck down New York’s century-old law restricting the carrying of concealed firearms, its first major Second Amendment decision in more than a decade and a ruling that could lead to more guns on the streets.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday that the law’s requirement of New Yorkers who want a permit to carry a handgun in public to show “proper cause” that the weapon is ​specifically needed for self-defense “violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

Originally Posted by Hercules56

No, get your facts straight. They only struck down the provision requiring a special need for protection. But many counties in the state were allowing people to get concealed Carry permits due to the judges' discretion as to what counts as "special need". Rural counties were basically allowing anyone to get a concealed carry permit as long as they could fulfill all of the other requirements, while in the cities the "special need" requirement was strictly enforced.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Um...read for comprehension. I quoted exactly what they struck down so I got my facts 'straight'.

Originally Posted by Hercules56

But many counties in the state were allowing people to get concealed Carry permits due to the judges' discretion as to what counts as "special need". Rural counties were basically allowing anyone to get a concealed carry permit as long as they could fulfill all of the other requirements, while in the cities the "special need" requirement was strictly enforced.

Rural counties in NY are mostly RED counties so that's no surprise.

Originally Posted by Hercules56

You're incorrect. Again.

NY's CCW law was not struck down, only one part of it was. The rest of it and the majority of the law was held to be constitutional.

New York can still require "Good Guy references", training, financial info, etc in order to decide whether someone is approved for the permit. Supreme Court did not strike those rules nor did they even consider them. Supreme Court only considered whether the Sullivan Law was legal, and that law requires a "proper cause" in order to have a concealed carry permit. But as you clearly know each county was given the discretion as to how to enforce the proper cause provision, or whether to enforce it at all.

For the most part New York State was mostly "Shall Issue" rural counties with a few "May Issue" urban counties mixed between them.

Please quote exactly where I said the SC struck down any part of NY's CCW other than the "probable cause" statute.

All these reports, and more, say what I said: " SC struck down NY's concealed carry law".

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York’s concealed-carry law

Supreme Court strikes down New York concealed carry law

Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law restricting concealed carry in major Second Amendment case

Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Concealed-Gun Law in Sweeping Opinion

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Please quote exactly where I said the SC struck down any part of NY's CCW other than the "probable cause" statute.

All these reports, and more, say what I said: " SC struck down NY's concealed carry law".

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York’s concealed-carry law

Supreme Court strikes down New York concealed carry law

Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law restricting concealed carry in major Second Amendment case

Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Concealed-Gun Law in Sweeping Opinion

And all of those headlines are incorrect. Concealed Carry permits in New York state were still valid after Bruen. They were simply easier to apply for. Especially in the urban areas where the "proper cause" element was strictly enforced.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by sackett

California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Washington DC don't permit open carry. Other states may require a permit. Cities have their own regulations, and of course it's illegal everywhere to carry within 1,000.feet of a school.

And so on. This is just to say that regulating the keeping/bearing of arms is not infringement of the 2A right to do so. Never has been. Jesus, what a lot of hot air gets wasted over this non-issue.

The governor wants to suspend a New Mexico law temporarily in a specific county because she thinks the killing is getting excessive. That sounds like reasonable prudence, and within the authority of a governor.

Nobody's guns have been seized. For the time being, they can stay home and polish them all they want. If they use AstroGlide or Überlube, that's not my business or yours.

A governor has no authority to suspend constitutional rights just because they decide to declare there is an emergency. If we allow such a thing we will be on a slippery slope to dictatorship an d authoritarianism.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

It's pretty much settled law that you have the right to defend yourself at home and in public with a firearm. It's time for people to move on.

so, now that you've been proven to be be woefully inadequate for this discussion, you're going to bog it down with gaslighting that you didn't refer the governor as the mayor. Repeatedly. Even after it was pointed out to you?

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

It's pretty much settled law that you have the right to defend yourself at home and in public with a firearm. It's time for people to move on.

teehee "settled law". Where have I heard that phrase used before?

[sackett]

Herc ole pal, try to understand: Nobody has a constitutional right to endanger the public. Even the craziest, most red-eyed states don't allow brandishing your wittle gun out in public. It's too dangerous.

Governors have authority to do what stands up in court. Now we'll see what happens next.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

And all of those headlines are incorrect. Concealed Carry permits in New York state were still valid after Bruen. They were simply easier to apply for. Especially in the urban areas where the "proper cause" element was strictly enforced.

Maybe you should write a letter to them all and inform them they're wrong. I suggest you just C & P the same one as there are so many of these reports that are 'wrong'.

Once again: Please quote exactly where I said the SC struck down any part of NY's CCW other than the "probable cause" statute.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by sackett

Herc ole pal, try to understand: Nobody has a constitutional right to endanger the public. Even the craziest, most red-eyed states don't allow brandishing your wittle gun out in public. It's too dangerous.

Governors have authority to do what stands up in court. Now we'll see what happens next.

Governors should not be issuing clearly unConstitutional executive orders, knowing that they will likely and quickly be suspended by judges. There needs to be consequences to such illegal Acts.

I would love to see evidence that Albuquerque's high murder rate is primarily due to people with concealed carry permits commiting murder. That would be very interesting information.

If someone sees anything like that please post it here that would probably alter my view on this situation.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

You are aware that this SC struck down NY's concealed carry law, aren't you?

NY's concealed carry law was not struck down, only a part of it was. The rest of it was still allowed to fully function. Yes, some reporters are stupid.

On CBS radio several days ago some idiot kept on reporting that Hunter Biden was charged with violating the law regarding Federal handgun permits. There is no such thing as a federal handgun permit. He was referring to the ATF background check system. Again, some reporters are simply stupid.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

NY's concealed carry law was not struck down, only a part of it was. The rest of it was still allowed to fully function. Yes, some reporters are stupid.

On CBS radio several days ago some idiot kept on reporting that Hunter Biden was charged with violating the law regarding Federal handgun permits. There is no such thing as a federal handgun permit. He was referring to the ATF background check system. Again, some reporters are simply stupid.

You've been directly asked twice: Please quote exactly where I said the SC struck down any part of NY's CCW other than the "probable cause" statute.

I'll ask one more time. If you ignore it again, then I'll just accept that you can't so are just throwing up anything you can to deflect from that fact.

Once again: Please quote exactly where I said the SC struck down any part of NY's CCW other than the "probable cause" statute.


ETA:
Reuters is notorious for its 'stupid reporters':

U.S. Supreme Court expands gun rights, strikes down New York law


So is the NY Times:

The New York gun law struck down on Thursday is still intact


So is the Wall Street Journal:

Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Concealed-Gun Law in Sweeping Opinion

Then there are the idiots at NPR:

Supreme Court strikes down N.Y. law that restricts concealed carrying of guns

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

It's pretty much settled law that you have the right to defend yourself at home and in public with a firearm. It's time for people to move on.

Yes, and whether that means you may routinely carry a concealed handgun, while it is implied by that principle, is not explicitly stated, and obviously some people believe it is not absolute.

And whatever the constitutional situation I still suspect your language of excessive foxiness in declaring that the rationale for the law was "made up."

And sure, you did not explicitly say "the mayor of New Mexico." You just said "the mayor." It's in print. More than once, and at least once after it was pointed out. If you're really interested in moving on you could start by acknowledging a minor instance of carelessness instead of denying it unless the wording of the allegation is absolutely exact.

[Hercules56]

And I quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

You are aware that this SC struck down NY's concealed carry law, aren't you?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by bruto

Yes, and whether that means you may routinely carry a concealed handgun, while it is implied by that principle, is not explicitly stated, and obviously some people believe it is not absolute.

And whatever the constitutional situation I still suspect your language of excessive foxiness in declaring that the rationale for the law was "made up."

And sure, you did not explicitly say "the mayor of New Mexico." You just said "the mayor." It's in print. More than once, and at least once after it was pointed out. If you're really interested in moving on you could start by acknowledging a minor instance of carelessness instead of denying it unless the wording of the allegation is absolutely exact.

Yes, I said Mayor. Then I said Governor.

Meanwhile Donal said "Nevada". Multiple times.

People make mistakes.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

And I quote:

I have no idea what your point is there. But never mind, don't bother to answer.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I have no idea what your point is there. But never mind, don't bother to answer.

On the point is you claimed that the supreme Court struck down New York's concealed carry law.

Which was obviously false.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

After 5 pages I didn't catch what??

In forum vernacular, a ninja is an assassin so quick, silent, and deadly that he/she can slip in, do the deed, and slip out before the victim feels a prick.

So an anti-ninja would be someone so slow, verbose, and feckless that he insists upon being the center of attention, and never even notices the passage of multiple ninjas or the victim's acknowledgement of "touché".

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

In forum vernacular, a ninja is an assassin so quick, silent, and deadly that he/she can slip in, do the deed, and slip out before the victim feels a prick.

So an anti-ninja would be someone so slow, verbose, and feckless that he insists upon being the center of attention, and never even notices the passage of multiple ninjas or the victim's acknowledgement of "touché".

That's nice.

Meanwhile I called her "Governor" on page 1.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

On the point is you claimed that the supreme Court struck down New York's concealed carry law.

Which was obviously false.

Got that letter written to all those newspapers and reporting organizations informing them of their 'stupid reporters' being wrong yet?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Got that letter written to all those newspapers and reporting organizations informing them of their 'stupid reporters' being wrong yet?

Im only addressing the forum.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Im only addressing the forum.

Sure. But before someone thinks I'm derailing the thread, I'm stepping away from discussing this with you. It's like trying to herd cats anyway.

[Hercules56]

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-g...over-policing/

Even the ACLU is very concerned about this order.

[Hercules56]

Governor amends her order, now only bans concealed carry in parks & playgrounds.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n/70876418007/


Good for her. Her attack on the 2A simply would not survive judicial review.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Governor amends her order, now only bans concealed carry in parks & playgrounds.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n/70876418007/


Good for her. Her attack on the 2A simply would not survive judicial review.

Only in the wacky United States, where the second amendment reads in toto:

Originally Posted by The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

can the plain wording be stretched to exclude militias and subverted to give the right to individuals.

A couple of comments. First, I don't support strict originalism. I believe the people who wrote the US Constitution intended for it to keep with the times, which is why there are some 27 amendments to it. Having said that, the wording is clear: the right to keep and bear arms is linked to the idea of a militia, despite that wording being severed by the Heller decision. In my opinion, that severance can come about only by amending the constitution, along the same lines that 18th amendment enabled Prohibition while the 21st repealed it.

Second, I have some quibbles with the term "bear arms." In the context of militias, it means the right of the state to have militias carry and use arms. Of course, without militias (thanks again to the Heller decision) "bearing" arms is assumed to mean any individual has the right to "bear" arms.

But how far does "bear" go? Must it mean the arms can be kept on their person at all times, open or concealed, in peacetime and in war? Or can it be scaled back, so that bearing is enabled only during an emergency? Even then, does that mean any armament can be borne, or only, say, long barrelled rifles while handguns are excluded?

Why do I mention handguns? Well, "arms" without any further interpretation could also mean anything from swords to cannons to tanks and fighter aircraft. Yet, do Americans have a right to carry a sword or dagger? California outlaws switchblades. Are they also not an "arm?" Where's the outrage over that?

ETA: In the context of this discussion, the governor is applying what is currently a non-standard interpretation of the amendment. She's challenging the status quo, which is her right. One could argue that in certain emergencies, it's also her duty. For the first 200 years of the US, very few people considered that the right to "keep and bear arms" applied to individuals. History is on her side. Although I'll be the first to point out that's not always a good thing. History is also on the side of slavery, but we've decided to do away with it.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

To show that people with gun permits are not the real problem.

They are not. But they are going to have to acknowledge that in order to address the real problem, they'll need to give up some of their guns. You can't address the problem of illegal guns until you deal with the problem of legal guns - that being that far too may people have them.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Stolen in public from them, or from an empty home where it was left?

Does it matter?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

So you have no respect for our Supreme Court decisions? Do you think they should be ignored?

And if so, please list which of their decisions should be ignored and which should be followed.

Thanks in advance.

Do you respect the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

It's the system that our founders created and it's one of the best systems out there.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Trausti

In Denmark, a young women was fined for using bear spray to defend against a rapist. That the rest of the "first world" finds self-defense to be verboten is what is truly nuts.

[citation needed]

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

We have crime problems that many other nations do not. USA can be a scary place.

Why do you think it's so scary? It's because in the USA (and not in other countries) it can be automatically assumed that any given criminal has a gun.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I guess those rural areas are just rife with crime compared to those urban areas where crime is supposed to be so rampant.

As it turns out...

Gun Deaths More Likely in Small Towns Than Major Cities

Quote:

Contrary to popular belief, firearm deaths in the United States are statistically more likely in small towns, not major cities, according to new research. Across the country, gun suicides are more common than gun homicides, and gun suicides are largely responsible for an increase in gun deaths over the past few decades, the study also finds.

The analysis of two decades of U.S. mortality data was conducted by researchers at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and the University of California, Davis, and appears in the journal JAMA Surgery (link is external and opens in a new window).

“Our study has found that the divide in total intentional firearm deaths between urban and rural counties is increasing, with rural counties bearing more of the burden. In the 2000s, the two most rural county types had statistically more firearm deaths per capita than any other county type, and by the 2010s, the most urban counties—cities—were the safest in terms of intentional firearm death risk,” the authors write.

“Despite the pervasive nature of gun violence, high rates of gun homicide in urban centers have been the sole focus of many policymakers and used as justification to loosen gun laws, when in fact gun violence is an issue in counties of all sizes,” the authors add.