Democratic governor’s emergency order restricts carrying firearms for at least 30 days amid spate of gun violence

New Mexico state representatives Stefani Lord and John Block are calling for the impeachment of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham after Grisham issued an emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in public in and around Albuquerque, the state’s largest city.

The governor on Friday issued an emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least 30 days amid a spate of gun violence.

“This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populace. Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” the statement from Lord read.

Grisham said she felt compelled to act in response to gun deaths, including the fatal shooting of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium this week.

  • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2049·
    1 year ago

    What does “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” mean to you?

    Back when this was written it was considered cowardly to concealed carry. Open carry was the norm.

    • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.eeEnglish
      4110·
      1 year ago

      What does well-regulated mean to you? Seems interesting you left that off.

      Back when the second amendment was written people owned slaves and poured their piss in the street. What’s your point?

      • MountainTurkey@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        92·
        1 year ago

        The New Mexico constitution also has a right to bear arms and it’s not specified for a militia. Article 6 part 2:

        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.

        • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.eeEnglish
          64·
          1 year ago

          “No municipality or county” the state is neither.

          Like I said earlier, this doesn’t have to live forever. Just long enough (is probably the thinking)

            • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.eeEnglish
              911·
              1 year ago

              And as we know something that is well-regulated only refers to it being in physical working order, not following any sort of rules or order, right? Cause the interpretation that the second amendment protects the unfettered right of individual gun ownership is not very old.

              Also we should amend the constitution to repeal the second amendment because it’s a moral harm on our society.

              StOP GaSLigHtIng PeOpLe on THe IntERNeT bY diSAGreeInG wITh mE

                • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.eeEnglish
                  77·
                  1 year ago

                  Sounds like you also have an understanding of history that’s no more than 50 years old. That’s one of the most argued over sentences in American history, down to its inception.

                  I know guns are super cool and stuff but try not to trip on all the dead bodies on your way to getting a fuckin clue mate

          • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.worldEnglish
            44·
            1 year ago

            Please explain then. This is not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it’s the right of the people. They are two distinct sentences. Please tell me how the militia has any impact on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.

            There’s nothing inconvenient about those.

            • SeaJ@lemm.ee
              1·
              1 year ago

              The second amendment is only one sentence…

              The founders wanted the militias to provide the bulk of the country’s defense and to not have a standing army. Anyone who owned a gun had to register it so that it could be verified to be in working order in case a militia needed to be formed. That whole idea of having the militia provide for our defense failed pretty quickly when several uncoordinated militias got their asses handed to them by Natives in the Northwest Territory. The federal government moved towards having an actual standing army and the role of militias shrunk.

      • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
        1310·
        1 year ago

        The real reason for the 2nd is to legit kill tyrants like Trump if he tries to illegally stay in power and protect vulnerable minorities like LGBTQ+ communities.

        The problem is the Democrats have been successfully making guns scary to you, and now racist white Christofacists and cops maintain the monopoly on violence, so if you wanted to protest they can simply scare you away with threats (and sometimes actual) violence and because you are a toothless bitch you cant fight back without certain and pointless death.

        • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
          25·
          1 year ago

          Do they really maintain a monopoly on violence though? Almost anyone can get a gun. Moreso now than most recent points in American history if I understand the recent decisions regarding constitutional carry. Whether you’re on the right talking about “urban crime” and how Chicago’s daily forecast is supposed to be a storm of bullets, or on the left trying to do something about nutjobs with AKs in elementary schools and grocery stores, it’s pretty easy to see the government doesn’t maintain a monopoly on violence.

        • r_wraith@discuss.tchncs.de
          59·
          1 year ago

          And there I thought the young man’s testosterone fantasy of you and your buddies successfully fighting off the best equipped army in the world armed only with your private gun stash was the domain of right wing loons.

            • r_wraith@discuss.tchncs.de
              1·
              1 year ago
              1. Not my government (Not from the US).
              2. If you want to see what the reaction to an armed insurection would be, I reccomend the American Civil War. Or do you really think that today’s “tyranical government” is that much more restrained than Lincoln’s government was?
    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      4·
      1 year ago

      That is not correct. Several colonies/states had passed laws against open carry in the years before and after the founding of the US including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, and North Carolina.