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.
I think that is going to hurt more than help, especially if gun control laws end up in SCOTUS.
dont try to implement gun control or else you wont have gun control, not really a good hostage.
We just watched the court overturn Roe v. Wade.
I don’t know what to tell you if you don’t understand that a bunch of gun control cases running through this supreme court would probably make it more difficult to pass gun control in the future.
The answer to a captured court is not to stop making laws, it’s to ignore the court.
Like this?
Does Kim Davis make laws? She was a rando refusing to do her job. This is a political response to a political problem.
I swear you people will learned helplessness and high-road the republic away. When a Justice has demonstrated and unaddressed corruption and other justices are on the court due to a complete breakdown in democratic order, the answer isn’t “oh shucks, I guess they won that round”. The court’s currency of power is the people’s trust in it, and trust can be revoked.
This isn’t a problem that’s going to resolve itself by just dutifully marching along until the problem is corrected by 30 years of unbroken Democratic wins or the fantasy of a dozen good Republicans voting to remove. You can choose to live the rest of your life under unelected and corrupt rule makers for life, or you can recognize that the constitution was very specific about the limits of the Supreme Court’s power is and remind them that there ARE checks and balances to it. They’re certainly not going to change their stripes because you say “I respectfully disagree, but you make the rules”.
Where is the political response? Banning carrying guns in public in Albuquerque for 30 days? I got to say, I don’t think that is going to have much of an impact on the justices of the Supreme Court.
If you want to go storm the capitol like those January 6 losers, be my guest. Passing a bunch of laws and having them struck down by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional is not making progress. It makes you look like child throwing a tantrum when they don’t get their way, and it makes you look stupid. It is something that Trump would do.
Like rigging the primaries to gift the Presidential nomination to Hillary? That sort of breakdown in the democratic process?
Like every fucking bureaucrat in the IRS, BATFE, EPA, FAA, NSA, CIA, FBI, NHTSA, FTC, SEC, FCC, DOD, DHS, et al.?
LOL, this is such a wild mishmash of personal political beliefs. You can’t possibly be a real person. “Respect the authority of the Court”, but also “the DNC rigged it”, and “the deep state is where the real corruption is”. Do better, pretend person.
Did I say something your script doesn’t cover?
Right, so we should stop trying to have safe access to abortion. And we should stop trying to decriminalize marijuana. And we should go ahead and get rid of gay marriage as the supreme court has already stated it’s another target.
I don’t know about abortion or marijuana or gay marriage. I do know someone put Roe v. Wade in the line of fire, and SCOTUS shot it down.
Maybe you think they have had a change of heart since then.
And we put gay marriage in the line of fire by legalizing it. Was that a mistake?
I don’t believe that the government has any business in marriage, but same-sex marriage ought to be protected by the 14th amendment.
I’m not on the SCOTUS. My opinion isn’t important. The Bruen decision is going to change a lot. Passing a bunch of gun control without any caution will add to the legal precedent of throwing out gun control laws.
You don’t. It doesn’t mean that other people don’t. You’re not wrong that it could be a problem. Doesn’t mean people shouldn’t try. If the court continues to be corrupt, it needs to be dissolved.
I can only answer for myself.
If only we had some sort of body with the authority to pass laws governing the behavior of members of the government.
Gun control ought to be allowed by the second amendment, but everyone stops reading at the “well regulated” part. You are criticizing roe v wade being “put in the line of fire” for being struck down by the supreme court. This exact logic will apply to gay marriage being struck down too. If laws shouldnt be made because the supreme court will strike them down, or hell in the case of fucking roe v wade and gay marriage even the supreme court shouldnt rule in favor of gay marriage because a future court might overturn it. Its a bunch of defeatist nonsense you could argue against any attempt at progress ever.
That is only three words.
I think I understand the point you’re trying to make though.
I didn’t get my point across. I’ll try and explain better.
There are a lot of gun control laws that have not been struck down as unconstitutional.
No. I was trying to make a point about the political temperament of the court at this point in time. I was not trying to assign the responsibility for Roe v. Wade being overturned to anyone or anything.
I was trying to make the point that throwing shit at the wall just to see what sticks is going to do more harm than good.