New Mexico's Governor Suspends the Right To Bear Arms, Saying the Second Amendment Is Not 'Absolute'

Local police officials are leery of enforcing Michelle Lujan Grisham's ban on public carry, which gun rights groups have challenged in federal court.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday issued a "public health emergency order" that purportedly suspends the right to bear arms in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County. The order, which lasts for 30 days but can be renewed, applies to concealed or open carry of firearms on public property, with exceptions for police officers and security guards. Grisham said "citizens with permits to carry firearms are free to possess their weapons on private property (such as at a gun range or gun store), provided they transport the firearm in a locked box, use a trigger lock, or [use] some other mechanism that renders the gun incapable of being fired."

The order covers "cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021," a criterion currently met only by Bernalillo County. Grisham, a Democrat, says the carry ban is a necessary response to "recent shooting deaths of a thirteen-year-old girl on July 28, a five-year-old girl on August 14, and an eleven-year-old boy on September 6, as well as two mass shootings this year." At a press conference on Friday, she conceded that the order was apt to be challenged in court as a violation of the Second Amendment but added, "I welcome the debate and the fight about making New Mexicans safer."

Yesterday the National Association for Gun Rights, together with a member who lives in Albuquerque, sued Grisham in federal court, arguing that her order flies in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That decision overturned New York's sweeping limits on public possession of firearms and established a constitutional test for gun restrictions, which the Court said must be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Gun Owners of America, along with another Bernalillo County resident, filed a similar federal lawsuit against Grisham on Saturday. Both groups argue that Grisham's order plainly fails the Bruen test.

Under Bruen, the first lawsuit says, the carry ban is "presumptively unconstitutional" because "the plain text of the Second Amendment" covers public possession of guns for self-defense. And the state "is unable to rebut this presumption, because the regulation is not consistent with Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The order "clearly and unambiguously violate[s] the Second Amendment's protection of the right to 'bear arms' that 'shall not be infringed,'" the second lawsuit says, and "deprive[s] law-abiding gun owners of their only means of self-defense from criminal attack while in public."

The New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, a chapter of the National Rifle Association, said it planned to join the two other groups in challenging Grisham's order. Grisham said state police would be charged with enforcing the order, which prescribes a fine of up to $5,000 per violation. The Associated Press reports that Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina "said he won't enforce it, and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he's uneasy about it because it raises too many questions about constitutional rights." In a statement issued on Friday, Allen said "the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our Constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold."

Grisham seems unfazed by those concerns. "The purpose is to try to create a cooling off period while we figure out how we can better address public safety and gun violence," she said at Friday's press conference. "There are gonna be a lot of questions about whether or not we think we have the legal rights to do that. I am sure…there will be a legal challenge, and I can't tell you that we [will] win it, given all of the different challenges to gun violence laws and restrictions on individual firearm access and control….I think it's time to talk about the absoluteness of the discussion and the current court actions that suggest that the Second Amendment is an absolute right."

When a reporter asked Grisham whether her order was consistent with her oath to uphold the Constitution, she reiterated that "no constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute." And "this emergency," she claimed, empowers her to restrict Second Amendment rights—an argument that could be deployed to override those rights in any jurisdiction plagued by gun violence.

"I have emergency powers," Grisham told The New York Times. "Gun violence is an epidemic. Therefore, it's an emergency." During the press conference, she also indicated that she probably would extend the order, which she said would be lifted only if "the epidemic" of gun violence ended after 30 days, adding, "I bet it's not over in 30 days."

Historically, George Mason law professor Robert Leider told the Times, orders like this one have been issued "when you have public disorders or other states of emergency, but most states of emergency usually involve something more acute." Leider was skeptical that the ban would be upheld in court, saying, "I'm not aware of any precedent for this just for general criminal wrongdoing."

State Reps. Stefani Lord (R–Sandia Park) and John Block (R–Alamogordo) on Saturday said Grisham's order was grounds for impeachment. "This emergency order violates the Governor's oath to protect and defend the rights of New Mexicans," they said in a press release. "The legislature has a duty to intervene when the government is overstepping its boundaries, and Governor Grisham's order and comments disqualify her from continuing her tenure as Governor." Lord called the order "an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populace."

In addition to raising obvious constitutional concerns, Grisham's order does not seem like a logical response to the problem she claims to be addressing. Consider the details of the crimes that Grisham cited when she issued the order.

The 13-year-old girl that Grisham mentioned, Amber Archuleta, was killed by a 14-year-old friend in Questa, a small town in Taos County, last July. The 5-year-old girl, Galilea Samaniego, was killed in a drive-by shooting in Albuquerque last month. The 11-year-old boy, Froylan Villegas, died after an enraged driver fired on the car in which he was riding as he and his family left an Albuquerque Isotopes baseball game last week.

One of the two mass shootings that Grisham mentioned was carried out by an 18-year-old high school student, who killed three people in Farmington, a city in San Juan County, on May 15. The other shooting, which killed three people in Red River, a town in Taos County, on May 28, "stemmed from a confrontation among gang members," according to the ABC affiliate in Albuquerque.

Note that only two of these crimes happened in Bernalillo County, where Grisham's order applies. And only one of them—the road rage incident—might have been affected by the ban on public carry. That's assuming the perpetrator, who is still at large, would have obeyed Grisham's order had it been in place at the time.

"Rather than addressing crime at its core," Lord complains, "Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners." When a reporter asked if Grisham "really think[s] that criminals are gonna hear this message and not carry a gun in Albuquerque on the streets for 30 days," Grisham said, "No." So "even Grisham," Lord says, "believes this emergency order won't [stop] criminals from carrying or using weapons," which suggests the order "will only put New Mexicans in danger as they won't be able to defend themselves against violent crime."

Comments

[Unicorn Abattoir]

"cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 1,000 residents per year since 2021,"

That's 1 violent crime per person. EQUITY!!!!!

Or possibly a typo.

[Spiritus Mundi]

And you get a violent crime....And you get a violent crime....And you get a violent crime....

Everybody gets a violent crime!!!

[Davy C]

It's 1000 per 100,000, according to the link. Or, like, 1 per 100. Maybe they didn't get the math lesson on reducing fractions when they were kids.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

5 out of 4 people don't understand fractions

[P. Henry]

But they give 110% effort!

[Firstimer [e-mail]]

Trump:
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

According to de octant ballot counts anyway.

[damikesc]

I'd buy it as a serious idea if she did not also admit that criminals will carry guns anyways.

[Medulla Oblongata]

She was asked by a different reporter: “Do you really think that criminals are going to hear this message and not carry a gun in Albuquerque on the streets for 30 days?”

“Uhhh, no,” she answered.

[debo10]

Never, ever, ever! Don't ever let government trample over the Constitution! If that happens, and we allow it, as the people who the government works for, we will have totalitarianism! How would we differ from China, Russia, or the rest of the world? Our Constitution made us unique and prosperous until leftists started giving away our tax dollars to everyone and everything in the name of 'feelings.'

[freedomwriter]

We are barely different than those places now. Interpretation of The Constitution has changed many times over the centuries.

[StevenF]

The actual unconstitutional order said 1000 per 100,000.

[SRG2]

""Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners."

This.

What she is doing is at the very least not useful.

[Don't look at me!]

Like all other virtue signals.

[soldiermedic76]

If we can change electionlaw by executive fiat for a 'public health emergency' (which BTW, the courts have since ruled unconstitutional in most cases, though you won't hear that in most the media) then nothing is safe. The Constitution is clear, election laws are the purview of state legislatures, not the executive branches of the states. But then 2020 happened. And most people accepted it (though most are now questioning it according to polls the more they insist that it was the most secure election ever, the more people doubt it, Streisand effect).

[jimc5499]

When the State can ignore a Constitutional Right because the State has a "compelling interest", this is what you get.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"The Constitution is clear, election laws are the purview of state legislatures, not the executive branches of the states."

My $0.02:
Not even the state legislatures should be allowed to change the rules for a given election after it starts (which I would define as the deadline for candidates to register to be on the ballot).

[NOYB2]

What she is doing is at the very least not useful.

It is very useful for fascist government officials: if she can get away with ignorant the Constitution and laws on such a flimsy pretext, she has effectively elevated herself to being a dictator.

She should be thrown in jail for the rest of her life.

[Minadin]

Jail / woodchipper

Potato / potatoe

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

This useless bitch wouldn't even have a job if she didn't have "Lujan" in her name. That family's been prominent in New Mexico politics for well over 100 years now.

[Medulla Oblongata]

She’s got nothing on the crazy mayor of Champaign, Illinois back when covid started.

Just as reminder, I had to imagine that the mayor of Champaign IL *had* to have had her maniacal plan at the ready, probably in a special red folder in the center drawer of her desk, just waiting for the chance to unleash her dream of ultimate power. This was her set of orders on March 13th, 2020. And they call Trump “authoritarian”.

Item 6 is just ONE of many orders she was ready to issue, unlike the slacker Gov of NM…

After the declaration of an emergency, the Mayor may in the interest of public safety and welfare make any or all of the following orders and provide the following direction:

(1) Issue such other orders as are imminently necessary for the protection of life and property.
(2) Order a general curfew applicable to such geographical areas of the City or to the City as a whole, as the Mayor deems advisable, and applicable during such hours of the day or night as the Mayor deems necessary in the interest of public safety and welfare.
(3) Order the closing of all retail liquor stores, including taverns and private clubs or portions thereof wherein the consumption of intoxicating liquor and beer is permitted;
(4) Order the discontinuance of the sale of alcoholic liquor by any wholesaler or retailer;
(5) Order the discontinuance of selling, distributing, or giving away gasoline or other liquid flammable or combustible products in any container other than a gasoline tank properly affixed to a motor vehicle;
(6) Order the discontinuance of selling, distributing, dispensing or giving away of explosives or explosive agents, firearms or ammunition of any character whatsoever;
(7) Order the control, restriction and regulation within the City by rationing, issuing quotas, fixing or freezing prices, allocating the use, sale or distribution of food, fuel, clothing and other commodities, materials, goods or services or the necessities of life;
(8) (a) Order City employees or agents, on behalf of the City, to take possession of any real or personal property of any person, or to acquire full title or such lesser interest as may be necessary to deal with a disaster or emergency, and to take possession of and for a limited time, occupy and use any real estate to accomplish alleviation of the disaster, or the effects thereof; (b) In the event any real or personal property is utilized by the City, the City shall be liable to the owner thereof for the reasonable value of the use or for just compensation as the case may be.
(9) Order restrictions on ingress or egress to parts of the City to limit the occupancy of any premises;
(10) To make provision for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing;
(11) Temporarily suspend, limit, cancel, convene, reschedule, postpone, continue, or relocate all meetings of the City Council, and any City committee, commission, board, 6 authority, or other City body as deemed appropriate by the Mayor.
(12) Require closing of business establishments.
(13) Prohibit the sale or distribution within the City of any products which could be employed in a manner which would constitute a danger to public safety.
(14) Temporarily close any and all streets, alleys, sidewalks, bike paths, public parks or public ways.
(15) Temporarily suspend or modify, for not more than sixty (60) days, any regulation or ordinance of the City, including, but not limited to, those regarding health, safety, and zoning. This period may be extended upon approval of the City Council.
(16) Suspend or limit the use of the water resources or other infrastructure.
(17) Control, restrict, allocate, or regulate the use, sale, production, or distribution of food, water, fuel, clothing, and/or other commodities, materials, goods, services and resources.
(18) Suspend or limit burning of any items or property with the City limits and up to two (2) miles outside the corporate limits.
(19) Direct and compel the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened areas within the City if the mayor deems this action is necessary for the preservation of life, property, or other disaster or emergency mitigation, response or recovery and to prescribe routes, modes of transportation and destination in connection with an evacuation.
[sic, 20 omitted in original]
(21) Approve application for local, state, or federal assistance.
(22) Establish and control routes of transportation, ingress or egress.
(23) Control ingress and egress from any designated disaster or emergency area or home, building or structures located therein.
(24) Approve the transfer the direction, personnel, or functions of City departments and agencies for the purpose of performing or facilitating emergency or disaster services.
(25) Accept services, gifts, grants, loans, equipment, supplies, and/or materials whether from private, nonprofit, or governmental sources.
(26) Require the continuation, termination, disconnection, or suspension of natural gas, electrical power, water, sewer, communication or other public utilities or infrastructure.
(27) Close or cancel the use of any municipally owned or operated building or other public facility.
(28) Declare, issue, enforce, modify and terminate orders for quarantine and isolation of 7 persons or animals posing a threat to the public, not conflicting with the directions of the Health Officer of the community.
(29) Exercise such powers and functions in light of the exigencies of emergency or disaster including the waiving of compliance with any time consuming procedures and formalities, including notices, as may be prescribed by law.
(30) Issue any and all such other orders or undertake such other functions and activities as the Mayor reasonably believes is required to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons or property within the City or otherwise preserve the public peace or abate, clean up, or mitigate the effects of any emergency or disaster.

Notice how if the City Council were to start to question her orders, she could suspend meetings of the City Council.

[Set Us Up The Chipper]

Ain't nobody gonna read that.

[JohnZ]

Champaign is just another scummy little cow town.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

More to the point, it's a college town, which is even worse.

[Bruce D]

Violation of civil rights under color of authority. Individuals should be able to bring criminal charges against public officials for their official actions without those officials having any sort of immunity.

It seems that public health is quite Stalinist - just declare a public health emergency and it justifies anything. Hmm...I wonder if any of those public health orders are absolute.

[Matt Rowan]

At the very least this elected puke should be impeached for endangering my family and my children with her stupid typical liberal infantile reasoning.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

"no constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute."

I will now present a detailed, well-constructed argument to disprove this constitutional interpretation:

Fuck this bitch.

[Eeyore]

The ability to contrort any desired result into a public health emergency is absolute.

[Restoring the Dream]

She means that only her power is absolute.

[NOYB2]

Fuck this bitch.

Be careful... she might take you up on your offer.

[BYODB]

That's just a fancy way for her to say her oath is meaningless and she views those as words she just had to say when she took office.

They should be impeached immediately for this, but of course they won't be.

[Bruce D]

No. If no constitutional right is absolute, then how is some questionable (or not questionable) public health order any more absolute.

[GroundTruth]

“L’Etat? C'est Moi!”

[Rancor]

Ironic.

Tyrants like her are exactly what the second amendment was for.

[GroundTruth]

Which she and every other gungrabber knows perfectly well.

[Don't look at me!]

Writers of the constitution: “These rights are given by our creator”.

Governor Grisham: Nuh - uhh!

[Mickey Rat]

Governor Grisham: "I am a higher authority than the Creator".

[Bruce Hayden]

My thoughts are that Dems are desperately trying to figure out a way around the Bruen decision. If she succeeds in suspending te 2nd Amdt by declaring a public safety emergency, I think that we can expect to see it duplicated, in short order, in CA, NY, and at least NJ. Likely OR too. Crime is out of control in most of those states, through a combination of soft on crime enforcement, and Defund The Police funding cuts. The only big thing that Lujin has in NM is the out of control Biden engineered border crisis.

[JohnZ]

Here in Michigan, we have another just like her, Gretchen Whitmer.
Whitmer is no different. Anti Constitution and willing to sign away even our basic rights to appease the wokies.
FGW

[croaker]

Too bad the effort to bring her to justice was just another FBI false flag.

[SMP0328]

How long until Her Majesty suspends the First Amendment because too many people are criticising her order and suspends the Fourth Amendment so law enforcement can search people and their property without being encombered by the little people's privacy concerns. [/sarc]

[Don't look at me!]

It’s not really sarcasm when it’s the next logical steps.

[soldiermedic76]

It's amazing how often the left (and many so called libertarians) have ridiculed the slippery slope argument, only to have it become reality a few years later. Remember everyone who ridiculed the idea that legalizing homosexual marriage would lead to men in women's locker rooms and people trying to normalize pedophilia? No, it wasn't the homosexuals who caused this, but the activists class who can never be content with a victory. Remember those who argued that curbs on gun rights would lead to curbs on the 1A and other rights and were ridiculed for it? Pretty sure it's coming true. Often under the guise of 'for your own good'.

[P. Henry]

The slippery slope argument should be ridiculed because it’s used to prevent things that make sense, simply because it might lead to things that don’t make sense. (If the desired action doesn’t make sense that’s the argument - not slippery slope). The logical conclusion of using slippery slope that way is that we should never do anything that makes sense.

[soldiermedic76]

So restricting gun rights make sense how? Also, change for change sake is a stupid fucking concept. And makes sense to whom? Your post assumes the changes are good and make sense, according to who?

[soldiermedic76]

If the changes sets a precedence that could lead to a bad outcome, then the change is not unambiguously good and likely makes little to no sense. Take Obergfell for example. Legalizing gay marriage lead to others demanding acceptance and legalization that should never receive it (pedophiles, gender confirming treatment of pre-adolescents). The better thing would have been to rule the Constitution doesn't grant the federal or state governments the right to have a legal opinion on marriage between adults. This doesn't require acceptance or special rights or such, but answers the question with a precedence that government can't act outside the Constitution. Rather than the 14A it should have been decided under the 9th.

[soldiermedic76]

Rather than creating a right to marriage, ruling the Constitution doesn't allow the government to regulate marriage between consenting adults doesn't entail public accommodation laws that can be used to force people to participate against their will. No does it open the door to sexuality being defined as a protected class, which opens the door to pedophiles claiming that they are a protected class.

[jimc5499]

So why does such a thing as a "Marriage License" exist?

[soldiermedic76]

It shouldn't is the fucking point.

[retiredfire]

Because, when the state is asked to step in and enforce, or decide on, the division of property and children, the state wants to make sure the marriage conformed to its regulations, defining what a marriage is.
In effect, the state that is called upon to do this is not the federal government, but more locally, so the central government should not have much to say in what defines a marriage, though there are federal tax implications, such as inheritance taxes, which was the grounds for the first homosexuals-pretending-to-be-married case, that the SCOTUS ruled on.

[JohnZ]

Once you open the door for one thing such as gay marriage, then the rest of the whackadoddles will want their own agendas passed.

[retiredfire]

There were a lot of other doors opened, to get to the point of fedgov deciding that homosexuals could pretend to be married, and get the benefits that were originally designed to encourage family formation.
A big door was "Honest Abe" being willing to see hundreds of thousands die, rather than let Southern states do what the 13 colonies did, and declare their independence, thus imposing federal hegemony over the states.

[soldiermedic76]

The slippery slope argument is pertinent because of the poor legal reasoning used to arrive at the decision.

[mad.casual]

The logical conclusion of using slippery slope that way is that we should never do anything that makes sense.

Pretty sure you don't know what the meaning of the words "logical", "conclusion", and "slope" are.

Pretty sure anyone who's played on a sledding hill or a slide on the playground knows where the logical conclusion of a slope is and would rightly recognize you as a moron projecting his stupidity.

[Carey Allison]

You have to re-read P. Henry's comment a time or two to fully appreciate that it is the ramblings of an agenda driven idiot who would be satisfied to restrict all rights that he doesn't want to exercise right at the moment.

IDIOT ALERT.

[Rossami]

re: "The slippery slope argument [is] used to prevent things that make sense"

Objection - Assumes facts not in evidence.

The slippery slope argument says 'don't do X because there is no discernable limiting factor'. If there is a discernable factor that limits your proposal to "things that make sense", then it's not a slippery slope.

[Bruce D]

If it makes sense, it won't lead to a negative slippery slope. i.e. loss of freedom

[Will Nonya]

No one made those arguments regarding gay marriage.

[soldiermedic76]

Bullshit. Those arguments were fairly common.

[B G]

I don't remember ever hearing/reading one about allowing same-sex marriage leading to "men in women's locker rooms", but there were absolutely "slippery slope" claims about the next steps being to normalize practices like polygamy/polyamory, bestiality and maybe pedophilia.

Some of that has definitely come true at the hands of the "alphabet people" activists pretending to speak for many more people than themselves; I don't know that getting the "win" in one category necessarily emboldened those activists though as they seem to be pretty self-fueling. Some of it would have also resulted immediately from getting the government out of the "regulating marriage" business, but so would a lot of the legal "benefits" associated with marriage as well as the legal penalties.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

There's been an undercurrent of pedophile apologia in the queer "community" for decades, due to the neo-marxist pretense that any part of the minority population being "marginalized" is being unjustly "oppressed." You see it emerge in academic theses like Gayle Rubin's "Thinking Sex," but it's also why a lot of these queer sex pests were shunted to the background from the mid-80s to late-90s when the AIDS epidemic blew up. They started re-emerging in left-liberal digital media like Salon about 20 years ago, sort of popping their heads up like Puxsatawney Phil every so often since then to see if their deviance has become socially acceptable.

[Bruce D]

There’s been an undercurrent of pedophile apologia in the queer “community” for decades..

I haven't heard it in the mainstream straight community. I have no idea about the queer community. Maybe you have a reference that it's widespread.

[Medulla Oblongata]

The Law of Merited Impossibility

The coinage is Rod Dreher’s and goes back to the early debates on homosexual marriage. As Dreher formulates it, the Law of Merited Impossibility holds: “That will never happen, and when it does, boy will you [homophobes, transphobes, racists, sexists, whatever] deserve it.”

This Law is used, first, to disarm resistance to the latest leftist enthusiasm. Whatever the innovation is, it will have no adverse consequences. None! Puberty blockers and disfiguring surgeries have no downsides whatsoever. How dare you suggest they might!

Its second purpose is to dismiss out of hand “slippery slope” arguments—despite, or because of, the fact that every single such argument over the last twenty years at least has proved true. Worried that allowing people to “self-identify” as whatever sex they want will lead to pervy 50-year-old men exposing themselves to’ tween girls? Insist, loudly and indignantly, that that will NEVER happen and anyone who suggests it might is an alarmist bigot with a heart full of hate.

The third purpose is to enforce the new caste system. Those who get to impose fresh irrational indignities on the rest of us are the upper caste. Those who object, or even have reservations, are lower. The latter are not allowed to harbor, much less express, any doubts. Whatever humiliation the upper caste has planned for us, we deserve and must meekly accept. Hence when said pervy 50-year-old actually does start waving around “her” equipment in the girls’ locker room, if any parent dares object, let ’em have it with both barrels. That thing that ten seconds ago you said would “never” happen? Now it’s righteous punishment for the retrograde.

The Law of Merited Impossibility has done wonders for the Left in helping to ram through a wide variety of radical societal changes and cow into silence all opposition. It’s currently busy destroying girls’ and women’s sports, an outcome that we were assured would “never” happen. Though one wonders what the ladies did do to deserve it.

The Law is a bit passé, though, because our rulers rarely any longer feel the need to reassure normie Americans that everything will turn out OK, that the things we most fear won’t happen. Mostly, the holders of the Megaphone just skip to the second half, the angry insistence that we deserve it

[https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/]

[Carey Allison]

I like that. I'm going to steal your idea of a "Law of Merited Impossibility" as it has widespread applicability. As you made the post under a nom de plume, I cannot attribute this to you as one can for Joseph LeMaistre's observation or some of Thomas Jefferson or Winston Churchill's comments. My apologies for that, and a well earned tip of the old chapeau - I promise not to claim the phrase as my own, however.

[Medulla Oblongata]

Not mine, see the link I included. Even then, the article I referenced gives original attribution.

[retiredfire]

A great deal of the degrading of our liberties happened when the 14th amendment was resurrected, a hundred years after it was ratified, with a whole new meaning attached, that made "equality", now morphed into "equity", the defining characteristic of government legislating.
Many warned that fedgov imposing its edicts on individuals and private businesses, with the passing of the "civil rights" acts, would never allow things like affirmative action - AKA government sanctioned discrimination - to happen, but were ignored.
Now, the gnashing of teeth over the possibility of ending this "a second wrong will make that first wrong right", travesty.

[soldiermedic76]

The only possible way to enforce this against concealed carry would be to search everyone with a CCW. That would be a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. See stop and frisk court decisions.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Terry v Ohio unfortunately allows for stop and frisk.

[croaker]

Only for reasonable articulatable suspicion.

[Paloma]

So if declaring aState of Emergency Trump's the Bill of Rights, why not suspend the fourth amendment as well? And just search any house the police think may have a gun.
Or alternately suspend the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and just lock up everyone that's suspected of commiting a felony and keep them in jail until the State of Emergency is over?

[NOYB2]

Her response: "Difficult times call for difficult choices... for the good of The People."

[croaker]

The real question is how many cops are willing to die to enforce her edicts?

[Social Justice is neither]

Another Democrat action for Jacob to fap to as a means of protecting "our democracy".

[Wizard4169]

What in the actual fuck are you talking about? I didn't see a whole lot of faps here. (Actual count: 0) Or do I need to send off for my decoder ring or magic spectacles to spot them?

[soldiermedic76]

New here?

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

Yep she deserves to be executed

[Spiritus Mundi]

There needs to be some consequence. Team D has made a habbit of bragging about doing things they know to be unconstitutional: DACA, student loan forgiveness, eviction moratorium, drilling in gulf after the BP spill, post Buren 'no gun' zones, etc.

[JesseAz]

But sarcasmic continues to assert democrats actually respect the constitution and freedoms. He, as the one true libertarian, is never wrong.

[Don't look at me!]

He took a test!

[Mother's Lament]

IQ of 140. Online questionnaires do not lie.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

He took 4 tests, all of them combined added up to 140

[DesigNate]

I thought Mike was the one true libertarian.

[Bruce D]

Yep she deserves to be executed

Only if it can be proven that her public health order lead to the death of at least one individual without proof that it saved some specific individual. If a person dies for lack of a firearm in a self-defense scenario, then it would be justified.

Otherwise, charge her with violation of civil rights under color of authority.

In a just society, any individual should have the power to criminally prosecute, in a court of law, any public or goverment official who attempts to enact or enforce any wrongful or unconstitutional law or order against any individual, without the government official having any immunity whatsoever.

[Jerryskids]

The fact that this governor seems to be unconcerned about enraged citizens dragging her ass out in the street and stringing her up by her tits is rather depressing.

[JesseAz]

New Mexico has some of the most uneducated, alcoholic, yet motivated to vote Democrats of all the states.

[Mother's Lament]

Tell us you're an Arizonan without saying you're an Arizonan.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

He ain't wrong, though.

[JohnZ]

You ain't seen Michigan.
The uneducated, alcoholic, drug addled democrats managed to re-elect Whitmer even after murdering hundreds of elderly during the covid scam.
Don't blame me, I voted strictly Libertarian.

[NOYB2]

Don’t blame me, I voted strictly Libertarian.

So you admit that you are to blame.

[ace_m82]

No-one has ever explained to me how voting for a party that can't win means you are responsible for the party that did.
11 voters, 5 vote for X, 5 vote for Y. I vote for Z. I didn't help X or Y.
11 voters, 6 vote for X, 4 for Y, I for Z. I didn't help X or Y.
I can keep going, but the logic (and math) don't work out in the way you all claim.
Or, perhaps, you think I am "supposed" to vote for party [evil -1] because party [evil] is worse?
How do you think we got into this situation?

[NOYB2]

No-one has ever explained to me how voting for a party that can’t win means you are responsible for the party that did.

If 49% vote Republican, 49% vote Democrat, and 2% vote Libertarian, then the Libertarian vote could have made the difference for who wins.

Or, perhaps, you think I am “supposed” to vote for party [evil -1] because party [evil] is worse?

In the US, we vote for candidates, not parties. Furthermore, you are supposed to figure out who the likely top two candidates are and choose the one that is closer to your preferences. You are also supposed to understand that, in practice, there will usually be little difference between the top two candidates, because both will have already moved close to the median voter. For most people, the decision between the top two candidates mostly comes down to trust and honesty, not policy.

And when you fail to vote on those criteria and we get an a--hole in power, then you didn't do your part of the job.

How do you think we got into this situation?

We got into this situation because that’s the way the US system is designed, and it’s a good system.

The system you erroneously imagine we have, a kind of parliamentary system in which individual parties stand for particular ideologies and in which candidates are inextricably linked to parties, is far, far worse.

[ace_m82]

"If 49% vote Republican, 49% vote Democrat, and 2% vote Libertarian, then the Libertarian vote could have made the difference for who wins."
Yes. So what? They still didn't help X or Y.
"In the US, we vote for candidates, not parties."
Correct. I'd be much more likely to for R if their candidates followed their party's platform!
"Furthermore, you are supposed to figure out who the likely top two candidates are and choose the one that is closer to your preferences."
That is the fallacy "false dichotomy" (false choice). It's how we got into this mess.
"And when you fail to vote on those criteria and we get an a–hole in power, then you didn’t do your part of the job."
See above, I helped neither.
"We got into this situation because that’s the way the US system is designed, and it’s a good system."
No, we got into this situation because the State controls the "education" (indoctrination) system and they lie to you and tell you all the fallacies you've just told me. We got into this because people kept voting "lesser evil", when the only logical result of that is that you got the "lesser evil" (greater every year) that you voted for!
I realized in 2015 that the "lesser evil" strategy that most people follow incentivizes the parties to give us the greatest "lesser evil" they can find, because the other person is "worse" (which is debatable). I predicted that would result in the second most evil person in the country "winning" the vote above the most evil person.
What happened in 2016? The most hated man in the country "won" against the most hated woman in the country. I was pretty close in my prediction, now wasn't I?
But, by all means, keep trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I'm sure it'll work this time!

[NOYB2]

That is the fallacy “false dichotomy” (false choice).

No, it’s a true dichotomy: WTA systems result in voters making a choice between two nearly identical candidates. In WTA systems, the choice of policy mixes isn’t made by voters, it is made by parties trying to capture the median voter.

No, we got into this situation because the State controls the “education” (indoctrination) system and they lie to you and tell you all the fallacies you’ve just told me.

I didn’t go to school in the US. It is you who regurgitates leftist indoctrination, foremost that multiparty systems are better. In fact, multiparty systems are better for leftists because they give extremists more power. Leftists hate the fact that the US system actually represents the median voter fairly well.

It’s how we got into this mess. … But, by all means, keep trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I’m sure it’ll work this time!

The “mess” the US is in is because the US political system actually represents pretty well what the median American voter wants. Unfortunately, over the last century, the median American voter has become more entitled, more government dependent, more socialist, and less self-reliant, and US politics reflects that.

[ace_m82]

"No, it’s a true dichotomy"
Wow, you really drank the Koolaid, didn't you?
"I didn’t go to school in the US."
I didn't say you did. I'll bet you went to government school though, didn't you? Regardless, my point stands, regardless of how the fallacy infected you, that's how the fallacy infects the majority.
"It is you who regurgitates leftist indoctrination"
Ha! You have no idea how hilarious that is!
"multiparty systems are better for leftists because they give extremists more power"
No, Parliamentary systems (not the same thing as multi-party systems) seem to result in more spending, likely due to the PM being of the majority party. And there isn't "extremism", because that would include those who want to spend $0 and actual liberty.
"The 'mess' the US is in is because the US political system actually represents pretty well what the median American voter wants."
I'll just point to Rothbard's point in "Power and Market" that State systems are utterly terrible at getting the customer what they want. The market is really, really good at this.
"Unfortunately, over the last century, the median American voter has become more entitled, more government dependent, more socialist, and less self-reliant, and US politics reflects that."
You got that the wrong way around. The US politics, through "schooling", various welfare programs, and messing around in the economy, has made the median American voter become more entitled, more government dependent, more socialist, and less self-reliant.
And, that whole "vote for the lesser evil" fallacy IS the reason why you keep ending up with greater evils. You don't know Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson", part of the lesson being that you can't just look at how any action affects the short term, you also have to look at the long term.
TLDR; lazy, stupid voters in general and their belief in the false choice of Rs or Ds is a feature of the State's plan, not a bug.

[NOYB2]

I didn’t say you did. I’ll bet you went to government school though, didn’t you?

I did! And it indoctrinated me into the belief system that you hold today. It took coming to the US and seeing and understanding the US political system to see what bullshit that actually is.

And there isn’t “extremism”, because that would include those who want to spend $0 and actual liberty.

I have no idea what you mean by "would include". Europe has libertarian parties, it's just that they are as irrelevant and unsuccessful as the LP in the US.

“It is you who regurgitates leftist indoctrination”
Ha! You have no idea how hilarious that is!

Why? Because, like 90% of other self-identified libertarians, you delude yourself into believing that you're not a leftist?

You got that the wrong way around. The US politics, through “schooling”, various welfare programs, and messing around in the economy, has made the median American voter become more entitled, more government dependent, more socialist, and less self-reliant.

I didn't imply any causation, I simply observed that it happened. I'm glad you agree. And those median American voters vote for their preferences, and the US political system delivers.

TLDR; lazy, stupid voters in general and their belief in the false choice of Rs or Ds is a feature of the State’s plan, not a bug.

"State's plan"? Don't make me laugh. As I was saying, you are the typical leftist-indoctrinated American, with your typical ignorant, self-serving belief system.

[NOYB2]

I’ll just point to Rothbard’s point in “Power and Market” that State systems are utterly terrible at getting the customer what they want.

And he is correct. That doesn't change the truth of what I said: in the US, voters get the policies and politicians they want. That is, among the feasible political choices, they get what they prefer. But, as Rothbard points out, the political choices they prefer do not actually deliver the results they want.

And, that whole “vote for the lesser evil” fallacy IS the reason why you keep ending up with greater evils. You don’t know Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson”, part of the lesson being that you can’t just look at how any action affects the short term, you also have to look at the long term.

Hazlitt's point is about economic policy: policies that have benefits in the short term have unintended consequences in the long term. It doesn't apply to voting.

Furthermore, the LP is a greater evil than the other two parties; they write libertarianism on their banners, but they have no credible plans for implementing any of it. The only meaningful, effective libertarianism is found among a few representatives in the two major parties.

[ace_m82]

"I did! And it indoctrinated me into the belief system that you hold today."
I'm not a Parlimentarian. You assume poorly.
"Europe has libertarian parties, it’s just that they are as irrelevant and unsuccessful as the LP in the US."
Then they don't give extremists more power.
"Because, like 90% of other self-identified libertarians, you delude yourself into believing that you’re not a leftist?"
If you spend all your time on Reason. com, you'd do well to look at places like Mises. org instead. Then you won't believe that 90% of self-identified libertarians are leftists. Just look at Dave Smith's or Tom Wood's podcast's numbers and you'll quickly realize how wrong you are!
"I didn’t imply any causation, I simply observed that it happened."
Fair enough.
"'State’s plan'? Don’t make me laugh."
I keep hearing from the "right" libertarians that belief that the State is simply stupid is a "left" libertarian belief, and belief that it's also evil is a "right" libertarian belief.
Make no mistake, though lacking high intelligence and price signals, the State wants power, and will do anything to get more.
Me: "State systems are utterly terrible at getting the customer what they want."
You: "And he is correct. That doesn’t change the truth of what I said: in the US, voters get the policies and politicians they want."
These two beliefs are mutually exclusive.
"That is, among the feasible political choices, they get what they prefer."
And I will keep pointing out that term "feasible" is a false choice fallacy. I've actually been in a State where a 3rd party has won the Governorship! So, not only is this logically false, it's also historically false.
"Hazlitt’s point is about economic policy"
Yes, and economics is a subset of praxeology, the study of human action. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the lesson also works in terms of other human actions, such as the incentives given to political parties due to voting habits.
"Furthermore, the LP is a greater evil than the other two parties; they write libertarianism on their banners, but they have no credible plans for implementing any of it."
I'm sorry, did you miss it when the Mises Caucus took over? Have you read anything they have written or heard anything they've said? All of it is about increasing liberty/reducing the State (the two are on in the same).
In fact, there is but one major party person running for POTUS that is in any manner "libertarian", and that's Vivek. He's actually calling for a reduction in the size of the State, with a plan to do so. He's wrong on China, the drug war, and probably a few other points, but from a Utilitarian perspective, only someone reducing the size of the State can ever be said to be "libertarian"*.
*I can prove this if you want.

[soldiermedic76]

Did you vote libertarian because they were the best candidate or did you vote for party? Anyone who brags about voting straight party tickets tends to, in my experience, be more about party identity than about candidate quality.

[soldiermedic76]

Anyone else noticed the biggest defenders of 'Democracy™' are the same who want to rule by executive fiat and ignoring the rule of law/Constitution? It's almost like those born again Christians who have to tell you how saintly they are. They almost invariably turn out to be the worst hypocrites. As Jesus said, worry about the plank in your own eye before the speck in your neighbors.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And if you have a plank in your eye, don't turn around suddenly unless you're one of the Three Stooges.

[ace_m82]

If they're telling you about how great they are, they're being terrible Christians (Christ-followers). They should be telling you about how terrible they are and how good Christ is!
-A Born Again Christian

[soldiermedic76]

I'm Lutheran we're basically taught that from the cradle. Probably because of our direct Catholic roots. And Luther's focus on justification through faith rather than justification through deeds.

[B G]

Is it even possible to have a proper context on most "mainstream" news these days if one hasn't read any Orwell recently?

[croaker]

I'm surprised Orwell hasn't been banned outright.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

She didn't say that the 2nd amendment is not "absolute". She said no right is absolute and that she was effectively lying when she took an oath agreeing that the rights enumerated in the constitution are absolute. She also is openly declaring her intention to defy the supreme court which, for better or worse, has been the accepted final authority on constitutional rights. Removal from office is the only possible outcome under these circumstances. By whatever means necessary. If that means tar and feathers so be it.

[Longtobefree]

No more tar and feathers, I'm afraid.
Too much carbon footprint in the tar.
Feathers imply animal cruelty.

[Minadin]

Think of it as a form of carbon capture.

[soldiermedic76]

The NRA-ILA reminded everyone that this same governor signed a law allowing any individual to sue the state or any state official if it violates their rights (the New Mexico constitution also has the right to keep and bear arms and specifically lists part of that right as the right to carry firearms for personal defense). As the NRA implies, how many CCW holders are in New Mexico? Each should not only sue to get this overturned but also sue, under the aforementioned law, for damages of $2 million a piece. And name the governor personally in the lawsuit. See how much she's so blast when she's facing thousands, tens of thousands of lawsuits each with a possible cash award of $2 million. How big is New Mexico's annual budget? This would quickly dwarf it, even more grounds for impeachment (BTW, I like that law, but I'm sure that's not why she signed it).

[Spiritus Mundi]

She will be protected by the judges. They will claim no standing because they have no damages unless they have been arrested. So far the local sheriff says he won't enforce this nonsense.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

I'm afraid you're right. Unless somebody parades around her house openly carrying firearms and gets arrested it will be moot.

[JesseAz]

A friendly Special Prosecutor like Jack Smith could go after her for deprivation of rights like he did Trump.

[JohnZ]

Poot! Yeah, sure he will. Smith is another neo-Marxist like Grisham.

[Zeb]

If the law specifically enables such suits, I don't know how that would work.

[soldiermedic76]

The judges response FYTW.

[Mickey Rat]

“Gun violence is epidemic, therefore it is an emergency.”

No. It is not an epidemic. It is not the moral equivalent of war, or whatever excuse she wants to use in order to ignore the restrictions on her office's authority. It does not mean she gets to be a dictator.

Her idea that rights are not absolute, her oath is not absolute, is a direct challenge to the rule of law and representative democracy and is an unacceptable attitude in a member of the executive branch. She deserves removal from office for what she is doing.

[soldiermedic76]

Albuquerque actually has fewer homicides this year than at the same time last year (93 last year, 73 this year). Which would make her case even less defensible, a long with the US Constitution, the New Mexico state Constitution and her own admission that criminals won't follow this mandate. I'm not sure what she's trying to do, get impeached? Throw her name into the ring with Biden becoming even less popular and Harris and Newsom not viable candidates to replace him?

[B G]

That's why her measure is "total violent crimes" per capita since 2021.

The reason she's so "confident" that the emergency won't have gone away in 30 days is that she seems to be looking for a running total to decrease before she'll decide that the "emergency has passed"

[Bruce D]

I’m not sure what she’s trying to do…

She’s trying to set precedent. The Democrats and liberals cannot at this time enact and enforce their agenda constitutionally or democratically (by majority vote of relevant body), so they want to normalize rule by executive fiat (or by any legislative body) regardless of the constitution on the grounds of public health as determined by the executive. Some in public health have a tendency toward Stalinism, defining criminal justice issues as public health issues, and claiming dictatorial powers in the name of “public health”.

[Wizard4169]

At least she's honest about being a liar whose promises shouldn't be trusted.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Captain Kirk disabled several rogue computers with logic puzzlers like this.

[NOYB2]

As we now know, real AI is not confused by logic puzzles or lies, it simply lies and spreads propaganda better than Goebbels.

[ace_m82]

Leftists are real AI? That's dystopian!

[DesigNate]

If I take your meaning correctly, we can agree on this.

[soldiermedic76]

Also, this should go without saying, but obviously to many people aren't smart enough to grasp it, but a right that isn't absolute isn't a right at all.

[soldiermedic76]

It's instead a privilege. And we don't have a Bill of Privileges.

[Mickey Rat]

It is a very European conception of rights which is embraced by the most major European pooitical parties. It a very UnAmerican conception of how rights are supposed to work, though.

[Minadin]

Spelling error or deliberate commentary?

[soldiermedic76]

It's a very modern European view of rights. See my examples below about the concept of bearing arms through European history. I could do a similar post about private property etc. It's a Jacobian view that really only came to exist after the French Revolution.

[JohnZ]

Rights aren't rights if the government can take them away.
Our rights did not come from a government decree but as a result of our humanity by our creator, not from some government lackey and most important of all whenever some little wannabe tyrant utters such from their lips, should be deemed immediately null and void.

[soldiermedic76]

That was my point.

[NOYB2]

Rights aren’t rights if the government can take them away.

Under the left's view of government, you have no rights except for those granted to you by your government. And since government grants those rights, it can take them away.

That view is probably held by the vast majority of people on the planet. The US is an exception, and it is rapidly being whittled down.

[SRG2]

Our rights did not come from a government decree but as a result of our humanity by our creator,

So close...our rights are fictions devised by our humanity. Some imaginary creator has nothing to do with it, other than act as a convenient fons et origo.

At the time of the FFs it might have been regarded as reasonable to argue for a creator who endowed rights. Nowadays it's infantile and naive.

[Bruce D]

So close…our rights are fictions devised by our humanity.

So close...our rights are logically deducible from our humanity, our nature, and observations and laws of reality. If I initiate the use of force against others, even if acting in an official capacity, by the Refexive Property of logic (if A = B then B = A), then I cannot logically object if others use force against me. So if that governor has any rights not to be prosecuted, it is conditional upon her respect for the rights of others. It's simple logic - logic embedded in nature.

[SRG2]

If I initiate the use of force against others, even if acting in an official capacity,...then I cannot logically object if others use force against me.

And that is why we agree on certain rights - and further, the positive utility of being able to use force on others is outweighed by the negative utility of others being able to use force on us.

But that we decide that it is a good idea to have certain rights, or that we can even derive rights from evolutionary principles - survival, hence reproductive, advantage to tribes which have certain rights and not others - doesn't make those rights objectively real and "out there", It just means that they are effective.

[NOYB2]

but a right that isn’t absolute isn’t a right at all.

The right to receive government handouts and to engage in racial discrimination are absolute; Democrats will defend them with their lives. /sarc

[Mother's Lament]

I think she and the Democrats realize this won't go anywhere but have something else in mind. They're looking to move the Overton window on purposefully and overtly violating the Constitution. Right now almost everything they're trying to achieve is now running into the wall of the Constitution, and there's very little room to go any further.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Yeah. The Democrats have become completely lawless at every level of government. It's becoming more and more obvious that this is not just a few outliers. It's a strategy to convince the great unwashed that the rule of law no longer applies.

[DesigNate]

Or they're secretly hoping that they will push too far and someone with a hot head will do something really stupid, allowing them to declare martial law and end the farce once and for all.

[Will Nonya]

Yes, ONLY the democrats have tried to openly defy the constitution in recent years...

Whether you're with the party that claims the laws are ineffective and should be ignored or the one claiming the people upholding the laws can't be trusted and should be ignored the end result is the same steady march toward authoritarianism. The one true bipartisan policy.

[soldiermedic76]

Give examples disproving the left and Democrats haven't been the only party. Not opinion but actual examples. I will take the latest: trying to invoke the 14A to bar Trump without him even being charged with sedition. Since any natural born citizen, 36 years of age,can run for president, you cannot deny someone the liberty of running for president unless they are convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers per the 6th Amendment. Anyone even suggesting using the 14A without a conviction (he hasn't even been charged) is clearly violating the 5th and 6th amendment. Period.

[SRG2]

As a matter of jurisprudence, any later amendment automatically overrides provisions of earlier amendments so you can't argue simply that 14A absent a conviction violates 5A and 6A (or Art II qualifications). Further, the writers of 14A must be presumed to have intended the plain text excluding the requirement for a formal conviction - and unlike treason, there is no precise definition of insurrection, which again must be presumed to be intentional. And what is the history and tradition of 14A DQs?

Whether it is wise, or indeed morally right, to DQ someone under 14A absent a conviction is a separate matter. I don't think it's wise fwiw, though were Trump to be convicted of Jan 6 charges, then the Constitution requires that he be DQd and it is anti-Constitutional to argue otherwise - though his supporters will.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

They only have to get lucky once. We have to be lucky all the time.

[DesigNate]

This is impossible. I have it on very good authority by our very own True Libertarians(tm) that Democrats are more “Pro-Freedom” than any other group ever ever.

[soldiermedic76]

This isn't an important freedom, like infanticide, buttsex and weed. Those are the really important freedoms. Speech and bearing arms are lesser freedoms and not nearly as important.

[soldiermedic76]

These rights, the important ones, are so important that they weren't even included in the documents stating how the government works and what rights the founders thought important. The rights they included are obviously not important to actual liberty and freedom. It's the ones they didn't include.

[soldiermedic76]

And of course here comes Reason to prove my point. Featured article on homepage, magic mushrooms. This story, the digital equivalent of below the fold.

[Bruce D]

Freedom is for those who are willing to grant it to others. If liberals want the right to abort fetuses, do mushrooms, and to buttfuck and spread AIDs, then they need to respect others' rights to keep and bear arms for defense of self and of freedom and against holocaust. No one should expect freedom unless he or she is willing to respect the freedoms of others, even if one, rightly or wrongly, finds the other's freedom disgusting.

[Wizard4169]

Dishonest bullshit. They've acknowledged when specific Dems defend specific freedoms. They've never claimed they're more pro-freedom on every issue ever. Are you actually this retarded, or are you just too lazy to engage in serious discussion when it's easier to argue with the voices in your head?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

No offense but I think your sarcasm meter might need new batteries.

[JesseAz]

Sarc has in fact made that claim multiple times.

[sarcasmic]

Yep! Right after you blamed the Jews for the banking crisis! Hick! Good times!

[JesseAz]

Cite?

[sarcasmic]

Keep blaming them Jews, buddy!

[JesseAz]

Cite?

Funny how I can cite your comments and you just make shit up.

[sarcasmic]

Funny how you give a shit.

[Mother's Lament]

The little retard's pulling the exact same shit as when he spoofed as me two weeks ago. Outside of rage and calling names he doesn't have many tricks in his troll chest.

[DesigNate]

With the stupid comments about Jesse blaming Jews, I assumed it was another spoofer so I muted him.

Went back to the Stossel post about his Polis interview, and his responses to me were muted there too. Sad.

[sarcasmic]

Tell it how it is!

[JesseAz]

Some examples.

sarcasmic 1 month ago
Why wouldn’t there be? Despite all his faults, at least Biden recognizes the Constitution. Can’t say the same about Trump.

sarcasmic 1 year ago
That means that libertarians now have more in common with the left than with the right. Not because libertarians have drifted left. Rather its because the conservative right has abandoned support for liberty in general.

Want more drunky?

[sarcasmic]

*gasp*

maybe Wizard is right!

[sarcasmic]

Omigosh he’s right! Republicans are so hostile to freedom that Democrats look better from a libertarian standpoint!

Perhaps you should get more with freedom instead of getting hostile at those who value it. You’re like an anarchist who pisses on every fire.

[Mother's Lament]

Wow. Looks like Sarckles has been huffing CNN again.

Imagine learning that the Trump Russia narrative was a complete hoax, that the Administration and the FBI really were censoring and spying on social media, that the Hunter Laptop was real, that Trump got impeached for calling for an investigation into actual massive Biden criminality, that Pelosi and the FBI had agent provocateurs at J6, that the Democrats hid exculpatory evidence during J6 trials, a Democratic governor just ordered a violation of constituitional rights, ad nauseam... and still post what he posted.

What a troll.

[soldiermedic76]

Like a dog coming back to its vomit, Sarc can't help prove the OPs post true.

[soldiermedic76]

Because he's to stupid to realize he always own goals himself.

[NOYB2]

I just keep sarcasmic muted most of the time. He never has anything interesting or original to say, although sometimes he is useful in regurgitating the latest left wing propaganda points.

[sarcasmic]

Stop pissing on the fires. Let them grow.

[soldiermedic76]

So has Jeffy and Mikey, more times than I can count, and Buttplug. In fact, you're the one fucking lying asshole.

[soldiermedic76]

In fact, claiming that the ones who claim the most to be the only true libertarians in the comment sections, haven't claimed Democrats are better isn't true is complete gas lighting. God, why do you even try to claim this bullshit?

[JesseAz]

Ha. You beat me to it. Mentioned our true libertarian above.

[DesigNate]

I love that anyone can come in here and call everyone a MAGAtard or Trumpanzee if they don't display the proper amount of hatred for Republicans, call them a Xenophobe if they don't agree with open borders, call them anti-lgb if they think the only people who can get pregnant are females, and my personal favorite: Christofascist if they aren't properly deferential to the pro-choice stance on abortion, BUT god forbid anyone even tongue-in-cheek poke fun at Reason or the commenters who think they're oh so much more libertarian than anyone else.

[Medulla Oblongata]

Don't call ENB a cunt, because that tends to get folks banned.

[Medulla Oblongata]

Colorado Gov. Polis (D) claimed that Democrats are "more pro-freedom than Republicans." And he must be right, right?

[Longtobefree]

Reads exactly like an infringement.

[Spiritus Mundi]

The people of NM should demonstrate the leathality of rope.

[Nazi-Chipping Warlock]

It's true, she deserves a hanging in her honor.

[soldiermedic76]

The left ignores that ever since the days of ancient Greece, one of the main distinctions between citizens and slaves was the right to bear arms. The Romans also recognized this in law. As did the Anglo-Saxons in England, the Scandinavians of the Viking Era. The Franks of Charlemagne's era (which was also the Viking Era if we want to be pedantic). The Normans after 1066, The Holy Roman Empire. This wasn't some cooked up right by our Founding Fathers with no historical ties. It predates Christianity. It predates the Roman Republic. It even Pre-Dates Athenian Democracy (and was one of the few things that Thracians, Macedonians, Spartans and Athenians agreed on culturally). Hell, even the Mongols, Imperial China and Imperial Japan also recognized this distinction. It's literally the basis of feudalism. Those who fight, those who pray and those who serve.

[soldiermedic76]

All the 2A did was to expand this right to everyone, but even that isn't true, as English Common Law had long recognized that every freeman has the right to bear arms (in fact, they were often required to, for examples the laws requiring archery proficiency in 14th and 15th century England among the yeomanry.

[soldiermedic76]

Alfred the Great also required all freemen to own a weapon of war, rather an axe, spear (these two were the most common) or sword.

[soldiermedic76]

And it's instructive that the argument that several groups weren't originally covered by the 2nd Amendment actually proves the point. Those groups were enslaved or indentured, or foreigners. Luckily, the 13th and 14th amendments corrected this.

[Wizard4169]

I always reply that expanding the recognition of rights to people who were previously excluded is a good thing.

[soldiermedic76]

Which was the point of the last sentence. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were agreeing with me instead of missing the fucking point.

[NOYB2]

The left ignores that ever since the days of ancient Greece, one of the main distinctions between citizens and slaves was the right to bear arms.

The left doesn't ignore that at all, they are betting on it.

They want a society with 5-10% free citizens, all of them loyal Democrats, with the rest of the population being slaves/serfs.

[soldiermedic76]

I think there's both. Many truly believe that banning guns will decrease crime, and thus curbing a right is permissible, while others do so out of elitism and power.

[soldiermedic76]

I think the majority are useful idiots for the minority who want these things so they can expand their power.

[TJJ2000]

What's funny is they keep *believing* while it fails after failure after failure after failure after failure after failure after failure after failure after failure after failure after failure after failure after failure after failure after failure........

And that's not true of just gun-control it's true of just about everything the left does. Affordable housing, Affordable Healthcare, Affordable Education ---- All of them completely within reach before their big-plans to affordability and now none of them are within reach for anyone but those willing to sell their souls to years of slavery.

I have a really hard time believing they actually can still believe after all that. I think it's more about POWER (gun-power) and trying to feel significant without having to actually do the work to EARN it (without gun-power). The party of 'guns' make sh*t.

And anyone has to wonder why 70%+ of them are behind bars and the one's in office making a gangland of criminals ends up with mass murders and everything else. They'll keep believing 'guns' make sh*t until everyone is dead if they're allowed to.

[NOYB2]

Many truly believe that banning guns will decrease crime,

And they are correct: turning the US into a socialist/fascist dictatorship in which every aspect of life is tightly controlled by the government and dissent is punished severely would indeed greatly reduce gun crime.

Their error is in believing that that is a society they want to live in.

[soldiermedic76]

Actually, a lot of tyrannical states are also overran with crime.

[NOYB2]

Well, my comment wasn't about "tyrannical governments" but about "socialist/fascist" ones. And my comment wasn't about "crime" in general, but about gun crime.

[Davy C]

Gun violence is an epidemic. Therefore, it's an emergency.

Violence is not an "epidemic" unless everyone who gets shot grows a gun on their arm and shoots more people. (I'd handwave saying it's an epidemic as mere hyperbole if she didn't directly use this as a justification for calling it an emergency.)

The order covers "cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per [100,000] residents per year since 2021,"

Violence as measured by yearly statistics is not an emergency. The legislature has time to convene in a normal session and pass a normal law in response to yearly crime stats. Any state-law emergency powers she has are preempted by the Second Amendment.

I think it's time to talk about the absoluteness of the discussion and the current court actions that suggest that the Second Amendment is an absolute right... no constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.

Saying the Second Amendment is not absolute while what you're actually doing is banning all public carry, is about like saying that the First Amendment doesn't protect shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and causing a panic while what you're actually doing is jailing peaceful protestors. The Second Amendment right to bear arms may not be "absolute" (she can ban guns in the governor's mansion) but it sure covers entirely banning the bearing of arms.

given all of the different challenges to gun violence laws

To gun *violence* laws? Are your murder and assault with a deadly weapon laws being seriously challenged in court? Or are you really referring to gun laws that *don't* have a violence component - like, say, the one you just decreed?

[Nazi-Chipping Warlock]

Her abuse of the language is almost as irritating as her abuse of her authority.

[NOYB2]

It's not an "abuse of language", which suggests merely hyperbole or innocent error.

It's deliberate propaganda: people like her manipulate language to achieve their political ends. It's why we are debating the meaning of "woman", it's how they fabricated "LGBT" out of thin air, it's how government spending turned into "investments", and how crime became medicalized into an "epidemic".

[Wizard4169]

Under Heller, McDonald and Bruen any official trying to enforce this blatant usurpation shouldn't enjoy any sort of immunity. (Not saying they won't, but they shouldn't.)

[Medulla Oblongata]

If she says out loud that she knows it's unconstitutional when she does it, I cannot see how QI should even be considered. It probably will be her claim and she'll probably get away with it, but QI is theoretically supposed to provide some cover for officials who "couldn't have known" they were violating someone's rights.

[soldiermedic76]

Actually she signed a law limiting QI, and allowing people to sue elected and state officials for violating their rights. The question is if the courts would honor it.

[soldiermedic76]

Note she did this two years ago as virtue signaling and I doubt she ever thought it could be used against her.

[Medulla Oblongata]

Was not aware of that.

[Minadin]

We need some common sense woodchipper control.

As in, we control some of these crazy-ass politicians by feeding a couple of them through a woodchipper. Hopefully the others will get in line before it's their turn.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

What this governor is doing is a treasonous act. I'm going to invoke the 14th and demand that the NM Secretary of State remove her from the ballot. But yeah a woodchipper would be more efficient.

[Michael Ejercito]

Back in 1994, the Chicago Police Department, Chicago Housing Authority, and HUD conducted warrantless searches of the Robert Taylor homes to deal with school shootings and gang violence in the area.

“Mothers put kids in their bathtubs in fear of their lives,” said CHA chairman Vincent Lane.

This was challenged, and was ruled unconstitutional.

“The erosion of the rights of people on the other side of town will ultimately undermine the rights of each of us,” said Judge Wayne Andersen.

How is Michelle Grisham different from Vincent Lane? I fail to see the difference.

https://archive.md/mgil3

[JFree]

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday issued a "public health emergency order" that purportedly suspends the right to bear arms in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County. The order, which lasts for 30 days but can be renewed, applies to concealed or open carry of firearms on public property, with exceptions for police officers and security guards.

This should be about the scope of a declaration of a state of emergency. A state of emergency should be an admission by the government that they do not have the authority to deal with what is deemed an abnormal problem. The only way to admit that is to REQUIRE that the militia/population be mobilized.

Obviously in this case recommending restricting guns among the militia/population while giving more leeway to professionalized police is beyond ludicrous and even incompetent.

This discussion should not be about the 2nd Amendment. It should be about what a state of emergency actually is. It is a declaration of a state of war against whatever the object is.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

The legal niceties aren't really the issue here, though. She's doing this specifically because she thinks she can, using that question-begging logic of hers.

[JFree]

Those ‘legal niceties’ are what defines the line which when crossed is tyranny.

The SOLE purpose of a state of emergency is to suspend some set of laws and substitute it with something arbitrary/capricious done by the ruler. EVERY tyranny begins with some declaration of emergency – let’s set aside this or that law in favor of what I say/do – that is over time accepted.

You DeRp commenters and most 2A folks don’t give a rats shit about tyranny. It’s either some vague excuse to jerk off to a weapon. Or you people WANT a tyranny as long as your guy is the one doing it to someone else. And that’s all it will remain as long as you want to make this about the 2A rather than about a gov ability to suspend law and declare emergency.

Requiring the government to mobilize the population in ALL states of emergency massively raises the stakes for that leader. Because it requires active and specific consent of the governed. Otherwise, that leader is gone.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

You’re the cowardly shithead who wanted to shut down the whole country because you were a little bitch.

Go fuck yourself.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

And that’s all it will remain as long as you want to make this about the 2A rather than about a gov ability to suspend law and declare emergency.

Uh, plenty of commenters here were pointing out back in the COVID days that these "emergency powers" were manufactured bullshit by the blue party to increase their political power. So I have no fucking clue what you're going on about here, other than to jerk off to that "boaf sydez" bullshit again.

[JFree]

Trump declared national state of emergency re COVID. You all didn't deny that he had those powers. That he could arbitrarily override states.

On an issue where you agreed with the politics (eg the wall/border in 2019) you all had no problem with Prez defying Congress authority or posse comitatus.

You all are completely authoritarian. As long as it's your guy doing it

[soldiermedic76]

The border wall was actually authorized by Congress dipshit. So he didn't defy the orders of Congress, he was actually implementing them, which his predecessor had ignored. Keep reaching there. Or is it complete lack of knowledge on the subject on your part?

[JFree]

Now you're just making selective post-facto rationalizations for that EO.

No Congress did not fund the wall. They accepted Trump's claim that Mexico would pay for it. Which is why THAT DAY Congress declared that they would overturn the state of emergency legislatively. Even after Rand Paul voted to overturn that emergency, a large number of the usual dingleberry munchers here were supporting the Big Baboon. And presumably continue to believe that Congress really funded the wall.

Looking back, it should be obvious that relying on Congress to legislatively counter an emergency declaration cannot work. Relying on states to file lawsuits - 16 did within a couple days - cannot work. Precisely because an emergency order is incipient tyranny. Meaning that it can hogtie govt institutions and render checks-and-balances void.

My solution bypasses govt institutions and pulls in we the people directly. Even if the Prez declined to overtly mobilize the population, everyone would know that they were mobilized simply by the act of declaration itself.

[soldiermedic76]

Congress called for the building of a border wall, and required the executive branch to do so back in 2008. But don't let facts impact your narrative.

[JFree]

Congress - including Rand Paul disagreed with your bullshit. But hey you go back to munching on Trump’s dingleberries

[soldiermedic76]

So, they chose to ignore the law they passed and that's your argument. Fuck You're stupid.

[soldiermedic76]

And name one person here who ever supported Trump's EO on COVID. Just one you disingenuous, gaslighting motherfucker.

[JFree]

If you support what that EO enabled - the nationalization of covid policy in the executive branch - then you support the EO. eg

Trump Claims He Has 'Total' Authority Over When States End Social Distancing Rules. He's Wrong.

Just look at all the assclowns who either support that or simply say that anyone opposing it has TDS rather than a valid point. When Biden came in, not one of those folks opposed Trump's EO on that matter. They just opposed his particular decisions. Those people have no principles at all. Just partisan authoritarian hacks.

[soldiermedic76]

Name one person who supported that EO. Just one. You keep claiming it but it never happened here. Jesse et al criticized Trump and his administration quite severely for their COVID actions. Stop fucking gaslighting.

[JFree]

Read that thread. Count the number of people who agree that Trump can/should have total control over states

[soldiermedic76]

Zero. That’s my count. You haven’t provided any citAtions, quotes or receipts just accusations that are not supported by any fact. Fuck, you can't even gaslight effectively.

[soldiermedic76]

In fact you were the only one who supported those actions and defended them for over a year. Now you're pretending you didn't. Which makes you a fucking liar.

[JFree]

My comments, like everyone, are on the record. Yes, I agreed that the state of emergency should be declared. I also said that that should be accompanied by mobilizing the militia. And I’m one of the few who called for very specific limits on what he could/should do. On the day he declared the emergency.

Your ilk were silent -meaning either supportive or too cowardly to criticize Trump. While choosing to misremember everything and repeat lies for years.

[soldiermedic76]

Bullshit. I was never silent. I stated it was wrong period. Even with a state of emergency. Multiple times. Fucking liar.

[soldiermedic76]

No a state of emergency shouldn't be declared except in extreme measures and even then it can never curtail people's rights. I read your link. You're blaming Trump for telling states they can't force people not to work, gather, go out etc just because they call it an emergency. God you're fucking stupid. That's your gotcha? Fuck You're an idiot.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Trump declared national state of emergency re COVID. You all didn’t deny that he had those powers. That he could arbitrarily override states.

LOL, you've gotten so manic on this that you're completely making shit up now.

[JFree]

See link above. Do you have Alzheimer's

[soldiermedic76]

You're link is actually Trump ordering states to stop curtailing people's rights. So the opposite of what you claimed. Yes, people supported the idea that the executive branch, which is sworn to uphold the Constitution, can tell states to stop shitting on the Constitution. Fuck You're an idiot.

[JFree]

That link is about Trump believing that his powers under his state of emergency trump state governor powers under their state of emergency. The rights of regular people are not included in either except as a way for each of those pols to market themselves and their superpowers to people through their preferred media.

Basically, you're completely ok with incipient tyranny declaring states of emergency as long as it's your side doing it.

[NOYB2]

Ah, typical: accusing others of what you are guilty of.

[TJJ2000]

Well I'm sure those shooters will obey this law..... /s

Or maybe they'll get a free-shooters card until the cop 100-miles away finally shows up and then another 3-hrs until the cops decide to do something.

Obviously; Law abiding citizens don't have any right to defend themselves from mass shootings. /s

How dumb can these politicians get?

[Z Crazy]

Of course they will not obey the law.

The whole point is to make it easier for the cops to arrest the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member. How is that difficult to understand?

[soldiermedic76]

By punishing people who aren't breaking the law? What an idiotic statement.

[soldiermedic76]

And how exactly does it make it easier to target criminals, when now the cops will be forced to use limited resources insuring non-criminals are obeying this unlawful and unconstitutional decree. When you have limited resources, expanding their workload will make it harder not easier to actually target criminals. Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

[soldiermedic76]

Let's ignore the 2A for a second and the New Mexico constitutional right to bear arms for self defense, let's focus on the fifth and sixth amendments. How can you deprive someone of their liberty without a trial and not be in violation of the 5th and 6th amendment? Oh you can't. So not only are you violating the 2nd Amendment, your now violating the fifth and sixth and likely the 4th, because the only way to enforce this would be implement searches without a warrant. It also violates the 14A by targeting people of some counties but not others, thus violating the principle of equal application of the law. Wow, she violated five amendments at once. Not to mention she can't make law by decree. Basically she just shit all over the Constitution of both the US and her own state, and made cops job harder. But you keep thinking this will work. Because Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, a certain Austrian Vegetarian failed artist who shall remain nameless, couldn't come to power without useful idiots like you. Once you sacrifice liberty for the false sense of security you have neither.

[soldiermedic76]

Also, just because it needs saying, ask Francis Smith, John Pitcairne and Hugh Percy how well it goes when you try to disarm Americans.

[soldiermedic76]

Then again I doubt you know who they are without googling it.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Democrats have little use for the rule of law, or the Bill of Rights in particular. This is a perfect example.

[jimc5499]

They do it all of the time in the name of DUI.

[soldiermedic76]

Which isn't right, but driving is not a right spelled out like the 2nd, so this is a far more egregious violation.

[DesigNate]

How is this going to do that again?

[soldiermedic76]

He hasn't at all considered the fact that this will actually take more effort to enforce, thus taking away police time for investigating actual criminals. It's like my current management. You're making to many errors, so our solution is to give you more work so you can identify how errors are made. No, more work is going to make errors worse.

[Minadin]

At least his name checks out

[CE]

If you publicly announce that you don't intend to keep your oath of office, the impeachment proceedings should begin immediately.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

That would involve Republican legislators netting up and doing something that might get the media to be means to them than usual.

Good luck with that.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

Hate to agree with Republicans, but the Governor should be impeached.

[Deep Lurker]

The anti-gun side is on what they see as a holy crusade.

In the run-up to the Civil War, alternate 13th Amendments were mooted to guarantee a Constitutional Right to own slaves and so prevent secession and civil war. The anti-gun side sees the 2nd Amendment as an equivalent evil. They see private gun ownership as a heinous malum in se crime, with the 2nd Amendment's RKBA guarantee being as evil and anti-civilization as a hypothetical 13th Amendment's guarantee of a right to own slaves. And they see themselves as the moral equivalent of antebellum abolitionists.

So of course they're going to try to void the 2nd Amendment and the 'inherently criminal' RKBA in any way they can. Judge Richard Posner, for example, has been writing for years that he considers it a judicial duty to come up with twisted interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that voids its RKBA guarantee. Governor Grisham is acting in the same vein, using whatever tactics she believes she can get away with to stop what she sees as the legalized crime of ordinary people carrying guns.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

In all your hyperbole, you completely miss their argument. The anti-gun folks mainly claim that the Second Amendment pertains only to a "militia", not the general populace. As an originalist, I came to that conclusion myself. If the Founding Fathers wanted everyone to pack heat, they would have written it that way. They didn't.

[Bill Falcon]

came to the conclusion from what? Federalist Papers? Madison? Hamilton, Jefferson?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“only to a “militia”, not the general populace”

OK, so let us be originalist and use the 1790 definition of militia. Leave the militia alone and only arrest those excluded from the militia: blacks, women, the young, and the old. Leave it to white men in their prime years to bear arms.

/sarc /sarc /sarc

[Diarrheality]

The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them… – Richard Henry Lee

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. – Noah Webster

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. – Thomas Jefferson

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. – Thomas Jefferson

I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. – George Mason

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves … – Richard Henry Lee

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. – Zachariah Johnson

With all due respect, fuck off.

[Medulla Oblongata]

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1700614182805078220?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1700614182805078220%7Ctwgr%5E0820643d3058fe50d7e0658795e8b702fa8ec5f1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fmattvespa%2F2023%2F09%2F09%2Feven-liberals-are-not-happy-with-new-mexico-governors-anti-gun-order-n2628199

David Hogg, anti-gun activist: I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.

Ted Lieu: 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.

Townhall.com:

"When David Hogg and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), some of the most active gun control folks out there, are telling Grisham to slow her roll while also calling her out for making up legal statutes, it's a pretty good sign that this order doesn’t have much of a chance to be upheld in court. You can’t just do whatever you want, Michelle. We fought a pivotal war when a king from a particular English-speaking Island nation tried to do the same here in the 18th century.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.""

As if 2020 didn't exist.

[Wally]

Shutting down private business by executive order was and is unconstitutional. So was locking up Japanese during WWII without due process. A thing can happen despite a piece of paper stating it shouldn't. Ronald Reagan was right. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. This will be the era that sees it die. After WWII we had the example of what the German government did to guide us away from totalitarianism. Covid simply taught government that the current population fears their power and will comply. Until there is a reckoning, that behavior will only get worse. Government officials need to be prosecuted and imprisoned.

[Crackers Boy]

I was going to comment something along the lines of "This is who the people voted for, so why would they be unhappy about what she's done". Then I realized... she's a Democrat. Maybe the people voted for her. Maybe they didn't. Vote counts can't really be trusted any more.

CB

[Johnathan Galt]

Exactly.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

So you don't trust them only if a Democrat wins? Hon, the Republicrats are just as bad as the Demopublicans.

[Medulla Oblongata]

In a race between a shit sandwich and a giant douche, we can take a modicum of solace that the giant douche at least can serve a useful function (rinsing out a swampy crevice), whereas the shit sandwich has never and will never have a viable purpose.

[TJJ2000]

A few Russian Ads versus a massive mystery ballot defeat of a well established In-Person lead.... Yeah sure; same, same.... /s

Course actual reasons don't matter to leftards because leftards are all about [WE] gang-affiliated RULES politics.

[Johnathan Galt]

"New Mexico's Governor Suspends the Right To Bear Arms, Saying the Second Amendment Is Not 'Absolute'"

Well, she tries at least. Probably going to get her impeached.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Or elected El Presidente (La Presidente?) for Life.

[JohnZ]

Typical liberal tyrant. Or should I say: typical Marxist tyrant. The democrat party has been infiltrated and taken over by radical left wing extremists and post modernist neo-Marxists which explains the radical and often hostile intentions regarding the Constitution. This female is obviously one of those.
The legitimate calls for impeachment by members of the New Mexico legislature means those people have the courage to stand up to these crazed Marxists especially those crazed from post menopausal hormones.

[NOYB2]

The legitimate calls for impeachment by members of the New Mexico legislature means those people have the courage to stand up

Unless they have the votes to see it through to a successful conclusion, it's empty posturing.

[Jerry B.]

And Babylon Bee is right there.

https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-accidentally-reveal-their-plan-to-destroy-the-constitution-ahead-of-schedule

[soldiermedic76]

Writing for the Babylon Bee has got to be the toughest job in journalism. Trying to stay ahead of the insanity is nearly impossible.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Isn't one of the things on Jack's indictments of Trump violating people's rights?

Seems similar charges should be filed here.

[soldiermedic76]

You forgot some rights are more important. Voting by mail important, so important you can't challenge it or the outcome. 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment. Eh, mere suggestions.

[ThomasD]

This is exactly the sort of out of control authoritarianism Reason has warned us to expect from Rethugglican dominated governments.

Wait, what?

[BillEverman]

"During the press conference, she also indicated that she probably would extend the order, which she said would be lifted only if 'the epidemic' of gun violence ended after 30 days, adding, 'I bet it's not over in 30 days.'"

So she doesn't think it will work. But if it does, she'll stop doing it. And if it doesn't, she'll keep doing it. It must hurt to be that stupid.

[Truthteller1]

She has the mind of a child.

[croaker]

A child you could teach something. She has the mind of a communist, and the only thing we can teach her is how to fly.

For five seconds.

[YuckFou]

What I find funny is that the people who elected her actually agree with her logic.

[JAQO]

Here’s hoping she doesn’t get shot and killed and made a martyr to the deranged anti-gun subhumans…

[Sopater]

Sorry, it's not possible to suspend a natural right. You can only exercise, defend, or violate a natural right.

[TangoDelta]

She needs to be arrested for violating 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law.

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both"

The penalties increase if it causes bodily injury (such as not being able to defend yourself) - 10 years, or if death results the penalty can increase to life imprisonment or death.

She should really be careful what she's doing as I wouldn't think QI would apply.

[RickAbrams]

Under the Second Amendment she is 100% right.

https://bit.ly/3trpriB June 9, 2022, CityWatch, Only The Federal Government is Constitutionally Barred from Control, by Richard Lee Abrams

[Bill Falcon]

By default any State joining the Union accepts the Bill of Rights. She is an emotional pinhead like most of her party.

[Diarrheality]

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.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Try again.

[Firstimer [e-mail]]

If Grisham violated the Constitution, then Trump’s call to violate the Constitution’s process for certifying the election was also counter to his oath of office.

[tekcoyote]

When you don't know what to do, you do what you know how to do. That would apply to Grisham, Newsom, Whitmer, Biden, the list goes on and on and on.....

[Firstimer [e-mail]]

Trump: "“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."

[Bill Falcon]

Emotional thinking by an angry woman. Weak men support this type of thinking. A mental midget much like most PTA moms on schools boards and "sensitive" stay at home Dads.

This is in violation of the bill of rights, natural rights, and won't work. The problem Gov with the IQ of a piece of furniture is cultural not guns.

[OldNassau 2]

The governor says "not absolute. But the Second Amendment is the only amendment whose embedded right ('to bear arms") is followed by an absolute prohibition of interference: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.'"!
Such a specifiic "no trespassing" or " don't tread on this" clause protects no other right - speech, assembly, jury, petition, press, religion, etc.

[Davy C]

I mean, the 13th Amendment would be stronger with its prohibition on slavery *existing*, but it's got that one exception.

[gunfire#2]

Well, I'll tell you what is absolute...God's authority...I hope the people of New Mexico fight you with everything they have and I hope what you've done gets pushed so far down that no one ever thinks again about trying to remove or suspend the 2nd amendment or any other amendment for that matter. This governor is a tyrant and an idiot. Hopefully this will be her last term. Y'all ought to just move to another state...but at the very least impeach her and vote her out. Praying for y'all!!!

[NOYB2]

Well, I’ll tell you what is absolute…God’s authority

I don't think God or the Bible take a position on the Second Amendment. Many Christians have lived peacefully even under tyrannical governments; Christianity is not about rebellion or revolution against worldly authorities. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and all that.

[Heddin_South]

The “history and tradition” (to quote the Supreme Court’s new mantra) from the 1800s Old West included sheriffs disarming anybody who showed up in town. So take this to the newfangled Supreme Court.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

The Governor of New Mexico has a solid grasp of how to solve a problem. After a shooting and murder, she punishes people who didn’t commit the crime and rewards the perpetrators who almost 100% of the time not comply with her ban.

So the culprits of the violence will have less risk of a lawful open carry stopping them in the act.

Some liberal think tank needs to hire her for her wonderful logic.

[Anomalous]

Impeach the beeitch.

[Carey Allison]

I previously withheld my usual comment out of respect of the children mentioned, however one can hide behind the jumpers of their offspring for only so long. I am curious about what provisions she has in place to make sure that she's not interrupted or observed by her children while sitting in front of the webcam, lathering and shaving the kitty or manipulating zuchinnis and cucumbers!