 
     |
| 1st and 2nd doesnt exist because I said so (Page 1/7) |
|
MidEngineManiac
|
SEP 10, 10:47 AM
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
SEP 10, 12:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
fredtoast
|
SEP 10, 12:36 PM
|
|
I don't know enough about the law in New Mexico to comment on what the Governor has done.
"Emergency powers" are usually granted to the executive branch by legislation. For example, the president's emergency powers are regulated by the National Emergency Act of 1976.
Ever since the Whisky Rebellion we have recognized the need for "emergency powers" in the hands of the executive. the legislative branch just moves to slowly to address emergencies. The question is usually "Is this an emergency that justifies implementing executive emergency powers"
In this case I don't think it will fly. Unless the New Mexico law on emergency powers grants the governor very broad discretion I don't think high crime will justify gun control like this.
|
|
|
|
Wichita
|
SEP 10, 08:03 PM
|
|
When the leftist are in charge.
 [This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 09-10-2023).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
SEP 10, 09:43 PM
|
|
| quote | | [New Mexico Governor] Lujan Grisham said she was was compelled to act following recent shootings including the death this week of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium and gunfire last month that killed a 5-year-old girl who was asleep in a motor home. The governor also cited the shooting death in August of a 13-year-old girl in Taos County. |
|
The three gunshot victims, aged 11, 5 and 13 respectively, were "Leftists." Or they very possibly were "Leftists." And it's not unlikely that "Leftists" can be found among the victims' parents and extended families, and their neighbors, classmates and friends. So really, no harm done. Or it's very possible that not much, if any harm was actually done, in connection with these gunfire incidents.
It's truly puzzling that any state governor would even think about ordering a suspension of concealed and open carry privileges in such a circumstance, regardless of whether an executive order of this kind, which includes some other provisions, could be defended entirely or at least in part against Second Amendment-based lawsuits.
 [This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-10-2023).]
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
SEP 11, 03:39 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
It's truly puzzling that any state governor would even think about ordering a suspension of concealed and open carry privileges in such a circumstance, regardless of whether an executive order of this kind, which includes some other provisions, could be defended entirely or at least in part against Second Amendment-based lawsuits.
|
|
Ummmmmmmmmmmm......
Just exactly when did rights become privileges ?
Because I think I missed that memo.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
SEP 11, 05:35 AM
|
|
| quote | Open carry is legal in New Mexico without a license for anyone at least 19 years of age who can legally possess a firearm. Some areas are off-limits, including tribal land and places that sell hard liquor.
A New Mexico Concealed Handgun License (CHL) is required for residents and a permit from a state that New Mexico honors is required for non-residents to carry a concealed loaded firearm on foot. State law limits concealed carry license holders to carrying one concealed firearm at any given time. In addition, CHLs identify the category and caliber of concealed handgun that may be carried. The minimum age is 21 years old and a 15-hour handgun safety course that includes live-fire instruction is required. New Mexico doesn’t issue non-resident licenses with the exception of members of the military permanently stationed in New Mexico and their dependents. No license is required for open or concealed carry of an unloaded firearm or of a loaded firearm in a vehicle. In terms of reciprocity, New Mexico recognizes permits from states with reciprocity agreements. |
|
This is how New Mexico shaped up, legally, on open and concealed carry, before this new initiative by Governor Lujan Grisham.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-11-2023).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
SEP 11, 08:33 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
The three gunshot victims, aged 11, 5 and 13 respectively, were "Leftists." Or they very possibly were "Leftists." And it's not unlikely that "Leftists" can be found among the victims' parents and extended families, and their neighbors, classmates and friends. So really, no harm done. Or it's very possible that not much, if any harm was actually done, in connection with these gunfire incidents. |
|
Haha, Rinse... what do you mean by "So really, no harm done." Am I misunderstanding? The deaths of people is obviously a horrible thing. I'm probably not understanding what you're saying here... or you were making a joke.
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
It's truly puzzling that any state governor would even think about ordering a suspension of concealed and open carry privileges in such a circumstance, regardless of whether an executive order of this kind, which includes some other provisions, could be defended entirely or at least in part against Second Amendment-based lawsuits.
|
|
Ok, my honest opinion... laying it out here... you tell me what you think.
I think a lot of Democrats... and, when I say this, I'm not trying to be a jerk. But I think a lot of Democrats have an "idea" in their head about how things are, and then they try to justify things after the fact to placate these beliefs. I think this Democrat Governor truly believes that gun ownership in America has led to gun crimes. NOW... for the sake of obviousness... if guns are allowed to be bought and sold, some of the guns are going to get into the wrong hands. That's just obviousness. But like it or hate it... our Federal Constitution enshrines this right for the people to have guns. Not mincing words, it's for the sole purpose of ensuring that the government is on notice that if it gets out of line, the people can and will right the wrong. That's WHY we have freedom of speech FIRST, and the right to gun ownership second... to protect the right of free speech.
All of that aside, I think that this governor believes that if she is able to BAN guns across the board, that it will somehow lead to reduced gun crime... I mean, that's obvious otherwise why would she be doing it? But the real intent I believe is that if she can show that she significantly reduced "gun violence" during that period of a month, then she can take that and say... "See... look what I did, this is why guns shouldn't be allowed." ... and if she can do that, then the Democrat-argument against gun ownership would have a huge boost and could sway the public.
A more concerning view in my opinion though... and this is just a thought... but Democrats have been expressing on a few different situations that left-leaning leaders should be ignoring the Supreme Court decisions, and that they should instead be doing what "they know is right." Now, this is a very dangerous point... because for the Judicial branch of the government, there is absolutely no enforcement mechanism. The U.S. Military belongs to the Executive Branch... not the legislative branch, and not the judicial branch. That means that technically... a President could simply choose to ignore a supreme court order, and there is absolutely nothing the Judicial branch could do to stop it. The Judicial Branch exists through honor, tradition, and trust... and that's literally all it has. The only mechanism then would be for the Legislative Branch to impeach the President and eventually do whatever it is that they decide to do if they choose to oust the President.
Anyway, we're talking about a governor, and not a President, but the same rules apply. Right now, the majority of us believe that she is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. She's even more or less said that the U.S. Constitution is not "absolute," which... she's wrong, because it actually is absolute, that's the point of it.
The positive that comes out of this though, is that this is a NEW situation in which a radical leftist is looking to violate Constitutional law, and it only further narrows precedent. The Supreme Court will (in my guesstimation) undoubtedly rule that gun ownership cannot be taken away per an "emergency" order. This will now ensure that for all future situations, gun ownership cannot be suspended in the future.
I'm sure some long-game Democrats are not happy about this, because it's like pulling out your UNO Wild Card as your first play. I'm sure they would have much rather used this card in a much different situation, when the Supreme Court had a less-Constitutional slant to it.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
SEP 11, 08:43 AM
|
|
There's a lunatic reductionism that characterizes the Politics (& Religion) forum commentaries of Wichita, and one other forum member that I could name—but would rather not.
It's a reductionism in which the word "Leftist" or one of its analogues is offered in a careless and unthinking way as a kind of political and cultural Theory of Everything.
It's easy to imagine Wichita being subjected to the famous Rorschach style of psychological testing, in which the subject is asked to react in a freely-associative way to randomly differentiated patterns of ink on paper.
My money (so to speak) is that his first word would be "Leftist" in every such instance.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-11-2023).]
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
SEP 11, 10:03 AM
|
|
That about answers who is in charge when it comes to rights. (Hint, it aint the Gorvernator just like it wasn't Turdeau)
https://twitter.com/Citizen.../1701001521780109404
**** your mandates
**** your laws
**** your orders
**** your opinion and vote
**** your emergency excuses
And **** you.[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 09-11-2023).]
|
|
|
|
