Full Authoritarian: New Mexico Governor Suspends Constitutional Gun Rights For Law-Abiding Citizens

Recall that i said that the issue of whether a governor or mayor can call a temporary ban on conceal and carry wasn't specifically addressed by Heller or Bruen, as I understand them. Now, though I haven't read the judges order to suspend the governor's ban, apparently, it's now being addressed.


https://www.kcra.com/article/federal-judge-blocks-new-mexico-gun-ban/45126882#
U.S. District Judge Urias agreed Wednesday with plaintiffs in several lawsuits who said the order violates constitutional rights and he granted a temporary restraining order to block the governor's suspension of gun rights. It's in place until an Oct. 3 court hearing.

Speaking of Lujan Grisham’s actions, Urias said “I don’t blame her for wanting to take action in the face of terrible acts." But he said he was faced with a much more narrow question regarding the rights afforded to citizens.


He was sympathetic to her call, and you guys are ready to hang her (figuratively speaking). I mean, children are being killed for lawd's sakes, in the Albuquerque region.

I don't recall saying that a fundament right was a privilege, and, since I don't believe it, I'd ask you to find me the link where I said it. I believe I said only that which is not mentioned in the second amendment is subject to regulation, within constraints set by court rulings. That they are 'privilege' is not a statement of law, it, like 'inherent right' is philosophy. But I say that with the following qualification:

If conceal is not given as a right, or so ruled by the courts, you can argue it's an inherent right or a privilege, as both represent philosophical points of view, one is neither better than the other, as each have no meaning in law (unless ruled on by a court). Oh, sure, if a non explicit right not mentioned in the bill of rights is ruled on by a court as a right (say certain rights held by native americans), and they call it an inherent right, then it has the force of law, but if no court has so ruled, then you can call it either term, it doesn't matter. Some inherent rights are quite obvious, the 'inalienable rights' inherited at birth, such as the right to food, clothing, shelter, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Other items not as obvious, clearly have to be ruled on as a right, or inherent right, etc., such as 'concealing a weapon'. I wouldn't call that an inherent right because it is allowed to be regulated in many states, so I would call that a privilege. As I stated, 'privilege' is not a legal term.

And there is even more nuance, so I'll delve deeper:

1. Rights vs Privileges: While it’s true that both ‘inherent rights’ and ‘privileges’ can be seen as philosophical concepts, they often carry different connotations. Inherent rights are typically understood as fundamental and inalienable, whereas privileges are often seen as granted and thus can be revoked. This distinction can have practical implications in legal and political debates.
   
   
2. Regulation of Rights: The fact that a right is subject to regulation doesn’t necessarily make it a privilege. Many rights, even those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, are subject to some form of regulation. For example, the First Amendment right to free speech is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions (like libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright infringement, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform and oppression).
   
   
3. Court Rulings and Rights: While court rulings play a crucial role in interpreting and applying rights, they don’t create rights per se. Instead, they recognize or affirm rights that are argued to exist based on the Constitution or other laws.
   
   
4. Inherent Rights and the Second Amendment: The debate over what constitutes an ‘inherent right’ under the Second Amendment is a complex and contentious one. Some argue that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry concealed weapons; others disagree. This is an area where legal interpretations and philosophical viewpoints often intersect.
   
   
5. Inalienable Rights: The rights to food, clothing, shelter are often considered basic human rights by international standards but aren’t explicitly recognized as such in the U.S. Constitution. The “unalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Remember that while these distinctions might seem semantic or philosophical in nature, they can have significant implications in legal and political contexts.

 

where is all the explanation that what that twit of a governor wants is a worthless and fraudulent response to the crimes she claims she was motivated by to act

 

Most conservative justices probably do. Most liberal justices don't. Heller was voted along party lines.

Like I said, history is replete with townships banning gun carry (open or concealed) within city borders.

The 'historical context' is not on the gun advocates' side.

 

The governor cited the killings of a 13-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy, as well as two mass shootings in the state in May, as reasons for the declaration

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/12/us/new-mexico-governor-gun-ban-albuquerque-explainer/index.html

 

Judge strikes down Emperor Michelle's suspension of the Second Amendment



'the federal judge issued an order blocking Michelle Lujan Grisham’s attempt to use a self-declared “health emergency” to block legal firearms carry in Bernalillo County.'

RIGHT not a Gov-granted privilege.

'U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said the governor’s 30-day suspension of concealed and open firearm carry rights went against recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings and violated the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

'“They just want the right to carry their guns,” Urias said of the several plaintiffs who requested restraining orders on Lujan Grisham’s Sept. 8 emergency public health order.'

 

It's been forty decades since the colonial days, and you claim all these thousands and thousands of cities who had these bans. I asked you for just 40 of them. One for each decade and you managed to come up with NONE.

So, I'll make it easier. Just 200. One for each twenty year period and you can select from any town or city within the colonies or the states.

 

yeah, emotobabbling arguments appeal to the sheeple. who killed those two kids? do you believe people who deliberately kill children or commit mass shootings will obey an unconstitutional gun law? did her ban even target the same factual scenario as the crimes she pretends to care about?

 

As I said:
You will now respond with something ineffective and self-effacing.
And you delivered.
Well done.

 

has anyone bothered to research the two named shootings that this twit of a governor claimed was the motivation for her unconstitutional order? BOTH INVOLVED JUVENILES shooting other juveniles. The first case-the alleged shooter was FOURTEEN. the other case involved several juveniles and the 19 year old girlfriend (apparently not the shooter) who stole a couple cars and then shot up a trailer-killing a five year old in the trailer. This had NOTHING TO DO with legally armed citizens carrying firearms in public.


https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/five-teens-arraigned-in-court-for-shooting-death-of-5-year-old-girl/

 

He knows.
He's fishing from a slow-moving boat.

 

Never did I imagine a day when anti-gun Democrats would publicly argue states cannot violate the 2nd Amendment right of the people to carry a firearm in public.

Well done, Governor Grisham -- well done.

 

This is yet another case of anti gun Democrats using well publicized tragedy to push for laws that would not have had any impact on the crime being used to push the gun law

example-the Grifter organization known as "Sandy Hook Promise" pushed universal background checks and magazine bans in response to Adam Lanza murdering school children. He never bought the gun-rather he killed the owner of the gun-an owner who had undergone and passed a background check. Additionally, given how much time he had to carry out his nefarious schemes-magazine size was irrelevant.

now this idiot governor pretends that her ban would have impacted JUVENILES who already are banned from possessing and carrying weapons.

 

These organizations, much like Democrats in general, sell dead kids to advance their agenda -- they know they can prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.

Their "solutions" intentionally have no effect on shootings, school or otherwise, because they need kids to die.

 

they are nothing more than operatives for leftist totalitarianism.

 

And the useful idiots follow them, mindlessly.

 

I'm sympathetic with a person who robs a store to pay for food or medical care.
That doesn't mean I won't shoot them in the face if I'm in the store and under threat, or won't desire their prosecution for armed robbery..

Your entire set of legal arguments are incorrect. You aren't paying my fees, so I'm not going to go indepth.
Suffice to say, start at NYSRPA v Bruen and google around from there, including whether or not the Declaration of Independence has legs.

 

leftist proclivities among the followers tends to be based on feelings rather than thinking so the machiavellian leaders of the collectivist movement play to that

 

Get this - from Twitter:

At the GOA and @GunFoundation oral arguments, the Attorney representing New Mexico Governor Grisham concedes that "no law" may infringe the Second Amendment, instead arguing that the order isn't a law it's an executive action, and therefore should be allowed.

 

Stevens was a RINO. every democrat justice in history has voted against gun rights. Most GOP justices for them

 

History... from the late 18th century US?
Your claim is false.
Disagree?
Prove your claim true, keeping in mid your use of e word "replete"

Don't worry - no one expects you to meaningfully meet this challenge.

 

Huh.
New Mexico's AG - a Democrat - described the 30-day ban as unconstitutional :

"I am writing to inform you that my office will not defend your administration in the above-referenced cases challenging the Public Health Emergency Order Imposing Temporary Firearm Restrictions, Drug Monitoring and Other Public Safety Measures (the Emergency Order) issued by the Secretary of Health on September 8, 2023," Torrez wrote. "Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico's chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence. Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety, but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster."

 

Suffice it to say, that's a cop out.

Moreover, 'you're wrong' is not a counter argument of any merit.

If you have a specific disagreement with any point, address it, specifically.

As for your 'fees', your not a lawyer here, you're a sea lawyer, like the rest of us.

How so? You, me, and everyone here, are anonymous and I don't have to take your word, or anyone's word, for anything, let alone claims of authority. Unless, of course, you want to remove your veil of anonymity and prove you are, indeed, an attorney (but you'd be a fool to do that, eh?).

So.....

All that matters is the argument.

So, what is your argument, or counter argument, anyway? It sure as hell isn't clear from the cryptic comment you just made.

And please don't ask me to go fishing around for something you haven't even made clear what it is I'm supposed to be searching for. The courtesy thing to do is to be specific, and link to something.

Got a counter argument?

then make it, speak up, mon.

 

Can you give us an example of banned carry you are referring to? Are you talking about say Wyatt Earp and Tombstone?

 

I am unaware of state or federal laws that sought to disarm citizens back then. again, citizens

 

A cursory search I found the following examples,. an I"m sure there are more, if I look more (I've hotlinked to their sources):

1. Tombstone, Arizona: In 1881, Tombstone had a law that made it "unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing". The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman’s office.
2. Dodge City, Kansas: Dodge City formed a municipal government in 1878. The first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town. This was likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families.
3. Deadwood, South Dakota: Deadwood had similar restrictions as Tombstone and Dodge City.
4. Abilene, Kansas: Abilene also had similar gun control laws as Tombstone and Dodge City.
5. Other Frontier Towns: As the country expanded, many “Wild West” cities adopted strong firearm regulations. Many banned firearms altogether within city limits, requiring visitors from frontier areas—where gun possession and use was widespread—to leave their firearms with law enforcement at the city limits.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

Summary:

Many towns and cities in the Old West had strict regulations on gun carry within city limits. Some of the notable places where gun carry was banned include:
1. Dodge City, Kansas
2. Tombstone, Arizona
3. Deadwood, South Dakota
4. Virginia City, Nevada
5. Abilene, Kansas
6. Waco, Texas
7. Ellsworth, Kansas
8. Caldwell, Kansas
9. Hays, Kansas
10. Newton, Kansas

These are just a few examples, but it highlights that gun control measures were not uncommon in the Old West.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cg...le.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4825&context=lcp

"GUN LAW HISTORY IN THE UNITED STATES AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS" by Robert J. Spitzer delves into the history of gun laws in the United States and their relationship with the Second Amendment. Here's a summarized overview:

1. Introduction:
   • The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller established that average citizens have a constitutional right to possess handguns for personal self-protection in the home.
   • The Court also clarified that this right is not unlimited and is subject to various legal restrictions, such as prohibitions on possession by felons and the mentally ill, restrictions on carrying firearms in certain places, and regulations on the sale of arms.
   • The Court acknowledged the existence of gun laws in American history and used them as a basis for allowing contemporary laws.
   • The study of gun laws in America is essential to understand the nation's history better. Recent research has debunked myths and presented a clearer picture of America's gun past.
   • The article argues that gun laws and gun rights coexisted harmoniously for the first 300 years of America's existence. The perceived conflict between the two has only emerged in recent decades due to increased politicization.
2. Gun Laws in Early America:
   • The first legislative body in North America, the General Assembly of Virginia, convened in 1619. Among its enactments was a gun control law prohibiting the sale or gifting of firearms and ammunition to Native Americans.
   • Other colonies adopted similar measures, highlighting the tension between settlers and the indigenous population.
3. The Arc of American Gun Laws:
   • America's early governmental focus on gun possession and regulation was primarily driven by concerns for public safety.
   • A comprehensive compilation of colonial and state gun laws from America's founding up to 1934 has been researched and compiled by Mark Anthony Frassetto.
   • The compilation includes nearly one thousand gun laws, covering various categories such as bans, brandishing, carry restrictions, dangerous weapons, dueling, regulations for felons and foreigners, firing weapons, hunting, manufacturing, militias, minors, registration, race/slavery-based restrictions, sensitive areas, sentencing enhancement, and storage.
   • The most common types of laws regulated hunting and militias. Thousands of gun laws existed from the country's founding up to 1934.
4. Court Challenges:
   • Some gun laws, especially those restricting concealed or open gun carrying, were challenged in court during the 19th century. Most of these challenges were unsuccessful, with courts generally upholding the states' rights to regulate the carrying of weapons.

This summary provides an overview of the document's content. The document delves deeper into the history, types, and implications of gun laws in the United States.