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.

  • ThrowThrowThrewaway7@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    Neither are abortion rates. You’d support a governors ability to end all abortion in a state under a public health emergency?

    • poshKibosh@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Classic whatabout-ism:

      • “I think we need a solution to an issue”
      • “What about this completely different issue that has absolutely nothing to do with what you just said? Checkmate idiot”
      • Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That is basically the bog standard gun nut talking point:

        “The issue isn’t all these guns being used to shoot kids that are firing rounds specifically designed to cause horrific trauma to bodies and negate the effectiveness of the body armor cops wear. The issue is that the world is not a utopia. So fix hunger, crime, wealth inequality, gender dynamics, space travel, and energy production. Then we can talk about my sick ass assault rifle”. Right wing nutbags will add on “people not having christian values” and left wing nutbags will say that any form of gun control is inherently racist.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Instead of having all these laws, we should simply solve the problem of evil.

    • CeeBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The problem with the term “abortion” and banning it is that an “abortion” is an umbrella term for many things.

      When a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (embryo is forming in the fallopian tube, baby cannot develop and it will kill the mother) the “fix” is called an abortion. There is no scenario where the embryo can mature (they *need" to be attached to the uterine wall) and it would 100% kill the mother.

      Another one is an incomplete miscarriage. It’s when the embryo/fetus dies, but doesn’t come out. And the fix is usually a D&C, which technically (in medical terms) results in, and is considered, an abortion.

      While I personally do not agree with abortions (in the context of avoiding an otherwise healthy pregnancy). I would never shame or coerce someone from getting one. It’s not my decision, and it doesn’t involve me. I’m not part of the equation.

      And despite my disagreement, I think anti-abortion laws are not only wrong, but also harmful.

      • ThrowThrowThrewaway7@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The problem with the term ‘gun rights’ and banning them is that ‘gun rights’ is an umbrella term for many things. When a person owns a firearm for self-defense or hunting, and it is used responsibly, it is considered an exercise of ‘gun rights.’ There are also situations where the use of firearms is necessary for self-defense and protection.

        Another example is target shooting or competitive shooting, which is a legitimate and responsible use of firearms. These activities are all grouped under the term ‘gun rights.’

        While I personally may not agree with unrestricted access to firearms (in the context of avoiding unnecessary risks and violence), I would never shame or coerce someone from exercising their Second Amendment rights. It’s not my decision, and it doesn’t involve me. I’m not part of the equation.

        And despite my disagreement, I think restrictive gun control laws are not only wrong but also harmful.

        Just like with abortion, the debate over gun rights is multifaceted and involves differing perspectives on individual rights, public safety, and the balance between regulation and personal freedom.

        • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your argument is basically “people who don’t break the law are fine, so we shouldn’t let people who do break the law ruin for the rest of us”. Sounds like nuance, but it’s not.

        • CeeBee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The colloquial abortion is only the fetus-deletus one

          What? I assume you’re suggesting that elective surgery to terminate a healthy pregnancy is “the only fetus-deletus one”.

          If that is what you mean. Then no, you are wrong. Because the scenarios I outlined above are not hypotheticals. They are literal and direct examples of women who were refused treatment for those conditions in states that have banned abortions. The medical staff were legally unable to provide the medical intervention those women needed to save their lives. Some of them had to travel out of state to get treatment. I don’t know what happened to all of them.

    • Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No. But if a republican were to have data showing a public emergency related to wide spread abortions and imposed a partial ban that provides carve outs for medical and hardship purposes? I would be angry, but that would likely get widespread support throughout the country as it removes most of the horror stories of abortion bans and just leaves people having their lives ruined because of a broken condom.

      And… that is what we have here. If your job requires you to carry a firearm (cop or rent a cop), you still can. Otherwise, you can leave it in your trunk with a trigger lock or whatever else. Nobody loses the Right to own fifty assault rifles and, if King Chuck comes a knocking you can still pull your M4 out of your trunk and defend America. You just have a few extra steps before unloading on the station wagon that you feel cut you off in a parking lot.

      • ThrowThrowThrewaway7@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You somehow missed the fact that this isn’t a law. No elected member of the New Mexico Legislature voted on this. This is one person in the Executive Branch deciding they can write and impose law at their will. And you support this?