this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
195 points (94.9% liked)

politics

19145 readers
2130 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A gun rights group sued New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) and other state officials on Saturday over an emergency order banning firearms from being carried in public in Albuquerque.

The National Association for Gun Rights, alongside Albuquerque resident Foster Haines, filed suit just one day after Grisham announced the public health order temporarily suspending concealed and open carry laws in the city.

The group argued that the order violates their Second Amendment rights, pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why can't they? Dodge City, back in the 1880s, had an ordinance declaring you had to check your guns when you went into town. Even then, they knew guns and idiots grouped together don't mix. Especially when drinking. But this is an illegitimate Supreme Court it will get to. With a guy who is on the take, a guy who believes a witch trial judge's ruling(when America didn't even exist) has bearing on Abortion rights today, a Christian cult member who probably gets her instructions from her husband on how to rule, a guy who stuffed drugs up his ass and raped a woman who then had debts mysterious wiped clean, and a guy who sees all this shit and says it's OK and that we have no more racism in existence today so we gutted the civil rights act.

Vote out Republicans, people. It's the only way out of this mess.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why can’t they? Dodge City, back in the 1880s, had an ordinance declaring you had to check your guns when you went into town.

Because of Heller v. D.C., and McDonald v. Chicago. Those precedents are over a decade old, from well before Trump stacked the courts.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Supreme court doubtfully even needs to rule on this, Heller covers this already as you said. This won't stick.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

McDonald is the one that really applies here; Heller was argued to only apply to D.C., since it lacked the power of the states. McDonald clarified that yes, Heller applied to states also.

The state governor is going to use her failure to do anything substantive as a fundraiser: "I would have successfully ended all violent crime, if only those pesky MAGA-cultists hadn't stopped me!" Never mind that David fuckin' Hogg has explicitly opposed this on X (nee Twitter) saying, "I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.". When one of the most visible anti-gun activists in the US is against your plan, you done fucked up.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

I live in New Mexico and this governor is well liked and has made many substantive achievements. This is her playing the republican playbook of passing laws they know will eventually get shot down. Look at abbot or desantis half the laws they pass are in court because they are unconstitutional but until the court rules the laws stay in place. New Mexico has been democrat run for at least 90 years so this won't make her look bad to anyone in the state except republicans.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is it still feasible to see a person coming into town from a mile off on a horse and stopping him to take his guns? Are only like 20 people a day coming in and out of this city?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I believe the above is referencing a law that required the owner to surrender guns. Not a checkpoint. Therefore if someone was caught with firearms in the city without permission by the sheriff they were known to be breaking the law. Pretty much the same as is happening now: if you see someone with a gun in Albuquerque, they are a criminal.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then make it a fine punishable by 10% of your yearly income. Sure, you can carry a gun in the town, but if they catch you with it, you're gonna pay a stiff penalty.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of any debates or criticism or discussion you could possibly make....making a penalty that has no effect of an unemployed person that's most likely to mug or rob a person for having a gun by far has to be the stupidest most illogical thing you could have said. I can recognize or accept different viewpoints, but you're just a moron.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's literally what they did in Tombstone.

The fine was $25 dollars in 1870. In 2023 that's the equivalent of $583.38.

Yep. I'm the stupid one alright.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And what percentage of their income was a fixed fine of $25? Yes. You're the stupid one.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

5% of their yearly income. That is still huge. I make 100k and a 5% fine would be $5,000.

No thanks. That would definitely make me keep my pistola home.

Have a good day. You seem to be upset about something, what with all the insults and whatnot you keep throwing out. Go smoke a joint or rub one out. Peace out.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Only the rich deserve the right to protect themselves, fuck poor people."

-You.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How about a fine based on net worth?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Still criminalizing simply carrying a gun, a practice often done by people who don't use them criminally, which still primarily affects the poor and disenfranchised in marginalized over-policed neighborhoods, and even if the fine is $5, idk about you but I can't afford a day off of work and court fees on top of that. Luckily I do have a car to get to court but not everyone is so lucky.