New Mexico Governor's unConstitutional power grab

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Mexico Constitution
Article II - Bill of Rights
§ 6 Right to bear arms.
Universal Citation: NM Const art II § 6
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

Except the problem is that the guns she is concerned about are being used for crime, which is not covered under security, defense, lawful hunting and recreational purposes et cetera.

And, you think that the criminals are just going to forget about carrying around their firearms because of her order?

If criminals are going to carry guns then they are going to carry guns - and that will make the criminals a hell of a lot easier to spot. Except now we have idiots like the Bernalillo Sheriff who wants criminals to be allowed to carry guns.

You think that you will be able to spot a criminal because he is carrying a gun in a holster on his hip? LOL.
Nope. That is not how they roll, honey.
And, the Bernalillo Sheriff wants law abiding citizens to have an opportunity to defend themselves since now, criminals have been alerted by the governor that nobody is allowed to conceal carry which gives criminals who won't follow this order free rein.

What in heck are paying sky high taxes for all these big law enforcement budgets? If law enforcement does not want to go after the criminals, why are they collecting the pay check?

Who the hell said they don't go after criminals? WTH are you even talking about?

If they did their fcking jobs, citizens wouldn't be going out buying guns to protect themselves!!!

DEFUND THE POLICE leftists screamed from the rooftops. Brown people are being killed. Did you forget the near past already?

[Anonymous]

In Bruen, the court said there is a right to carry. This EO isn’t going to survive a court challenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans: What is your proposal to end gun violence in America, and to get all of the illegal guns off of the streets and out of the hands of criminals?

If you say "more guns" then that's what's already been done for decades, and it hasn't worked.

How about an ACTUAL proposal?

And if you don't have an actual proposal, then maybe you should STFU and sit down.

So let's hear it.... give me a serious proposal, or STFU and sit down.

Crickets... nothing but support for lazy idiot Sheriffs who don't want to solve the gun problem plaguing their citizens because said Sheriffs say the right "freedumb" words.

Find out who’s using guns to commit crimes. Put the boots on the neck of those communities that are producing the most violence. Deport any non-citizen found with a gun or commits a crime without a gun (they don’t belong here). Serious sentences for those that use a firearm in the commission of a crime, REGARDLESS of race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The US Constitution does not provide a right to open carry weapons. So, I have no idea what Hogg and Lieu think they are talking about. It will be up to New Mexico's Supreme Court to determine whether this move is allowed under the state's constitution or not.

Did she say open carry, concealed carry, or not distinguish?

She abolished both for 30 days.

So why only mention open carry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Mexico Constitution
Article II - Bill of Rights
§ 6 Right to bear arms.
Universal Citation: NM Const art II § 6
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

Except the problem is that the guns she is concerned about are being used for crime, which is not covered under security, defense, lawful hunting and recreational purposes et cetera.

And, you think that the criminals are just going to forget about carrying around their firearms because of her order?

If criminals are going to carry guns then they are going to carry guns - and that will make the criminals a hell of a lot easier to spot. Except now we have idiots like the Bernalillo Sheriff who wants criminals to be allowed to carry guns.

You think that you will be able to spot a criminal because he is carrying a gun in a holster on his hip? LOL.
Nope. That is not how they roll, honey.
And, the Bernalillo Sheriff wants law abiding citizens to have an opportunity to defend themselves since now, criminals have been alerted by the governor that nobody is allowed to conceal carry which gives criminals who won't follow this order free rein.

What in heck are paying sky high taxes for all these big law enforcement budgets? If law enforcement does not want to go after the criminals, why are they collecting the pay check?

Who the hell said they don't go after criminals? WTH are you even talking about?

If they did their fcking jobs, citizens wouldn't be going out buying guns to protect themselves!!!

DEFUND THE POLICE leftists screamed from the rooftops. Brown people are being killed. Did you forget the near past already?

Maybe you forgot that it was a.) calls for reforms and training, b.) about the NUMEROUS instances of excessive use of force by police, the unwarranted and unjustifiable killings of numerous unarmed as well as numerous innocent people, to the point where you might get shot by police at a routine traffic stop for no reason at all, like Philandro Castile, and that c.) the police by and large WERE NOT "defunded" and certainly not in any way commensurate with the drop in arrests of violent criminals nationwide. You are dishonest and are grotesquely distorting the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In Bruen, the court said there is a right to carry. This EO isn’t going to survive a court challenge.

It's a temporary 30 day order. It will expire before it even gets through the courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans: What is your proposal to end gun violence in America, and to get all of the illegal guns off of the streets and out of the hands of criminals?

If you say "more guns" then that's what's already been done for decades, and it hasn't worked.

How about an ACTUAL proposal?

And if you don't have an actual proposal, then maybe you should STFU and sit down.

So let's hear it.... give me a serious proposal, or STFU and sit down.

Crickets... nothing but support for lazy idiot Sheriffs who don't want to solve the gun problem plaguing their citizens because said Sheriffs say the right "freedumb" words.

Find out who’s using guns to commit crimes. Put the boots on the neck of those communities that are producing the most violence. Deport any non-citizen found with a gun or commits a crime without a gun (they don’t belong here). Serious sentences for those that use a firearm in the commission of a crime, REGARDLESS of race.

A boot on the neck of the communities producing the most violence? Sounds like a dog whistle for "we need to put a boot on the neck of the blacks and the latinos."

But... Do you not know that just a single digit percentage WITHIN "the communities" are the ones producing the crime? So you propose putting a boot on the neck of ALL of them because of the single digit even though the majority are law abiding?

And at any rate, by your logic, it's THE COMMUNITY OF GUN OWNERS that is producing the most GUN VIOLENCE. So by your own logic, what the governor is doing is exactly right.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]In Bruen, the court said there is a right to carry. This EO isn’t going to survive a court challenge. [/quote]

It's a temporary 30 day order. It will expire before it even gets through the courts.[/quote]

I’m not a gun proponent, but the government doesn’t get to temporarily take away what the courts have deemed a right. This seems like the perfect case for an expedited decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Mexico Constitution
Article II - Bill of Rights
§ 6 Right to bear arms.
Universal Citation: NM Const art II § 6
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

Except the problem is that the guns she is concerned about are being used for crime, which is not covered under security, defense, lawful hunting and recreational purposes et cetera.

And, you think that the criminals are just going to forget about carrying around their firearms because of her order?

If criminals are going to carry guns then they are going to carry guns - and that will make the criminals a hell of a lot easier to spot. Except now we have idiots like the Bernalillo Sheriff who wants criminals to be allowed to carry guns.

Because criminals wear their guns on their hips. Please tell me you are really not this dumb?

The order was for ALL carry, including CONCEALED CARRY which is not always that concealable. Are YOU really that dumb?
Look, the bottom line is that law enforcement has no way of telling who is a "good guy with a gun" versus a bad guy with a gun. The order lets them pick up anyone with a gun because under the order there is no such thing as a good guy with a gun... not that there ever really was in the first place. More civilian carry did exactly jack shit to curb crime. In fact all it did is put more guns in the hands of criminals.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]In Bruen, the court said there is a right to carry. This EO isn’t going to survive a court challenge. [/quote]

It's a temporary 30 day order. It will expire before it even gets through the courts.[/quote]

I’m not a gun proponent, but the government doesn’t get to temporarily take away what the courts have deemed a right. This seems like the perfect case for an expedited decision. [/quote]

Heller deemed it to be a [b]limited[/b] right. As did many other laws (such as NFA) and other court precedents.

And meanwhile NOTHING the right and gun proponents have ever done has ever helped to curb gun violence. Everything they have done has only made the problem of gun violence worse.

[Anonymous]

Are you hitting the quote button?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you hitting the quote button?

Broken post somewhere upthread

[Anonymous]

Elections are coming up, time to test the emergency orders again. Make everyone mask up, take away law abiding citizens rights.

Is it going to work again this time?

[Anonymous]

Democrats aren't even circumspect about it.

They'll steal by any and every means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elections are coming up, time to test the emergency orders again. Make everyone mask up, take away law abiding citizens rights.

Is it going to work again this time?

Trump is a weak and repulsive candidate and he could not get enough votes. even against a flawed candidate like Biden. Work on that problem if you want to win elections.