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.

  • BeakersBunsen@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Slippery slope, this shows other states they can do the same thing towards other rights that you might not like. Next thing you know it’s the wild west with each state doing what they want.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Funny enough, the wild West regularly banned the carrying of handguns within city limits.

      It’s why there was a shootout at the O.K. Corral.

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Next thing you know it’s the wild west with each state doing what they want.

      The entire idea behind state’s rights.

      • chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, not like that! It should only be about things that don’t affect me! Like enslaving minorities!

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Slippery slope,

      That’s a logical fallacy. We are already seeing states impose their will illegally against minority groups.

    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There have been other states that don’t allow carrying guns in public for a long long time.

      • BeakersBunsen@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And they passed laws for that, which is following the process if thats the will of the people. Downvote me all you want, but a single person declaring an unconstitutional emergency will lead to crazier shit like too many fraud ballots so we shutting down all voting in this area.

        As of now guns rights like all other rights should be defended whether you like them or not unless you don’t mid your other rights being curtailed too one day.

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

          Except the 2nd amendment wasn’t always interpreted to mean that people can carry guns with no to very little restrictions. At the time guns had a one shot action. You couldn’t shoot up a crowd and kill fifty people within a few seconds. The current interpretation of civilians owning and carrying guns during every day life is very recent.

    • ThrowThrowThrewaway7@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      The people cheering this on would be LIVID if a Republican Governor unilaterally suspended all abortions in a state by declaring abortion a “public health” emergency.

      These people have no idea what they’re cheering on.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t need an AR-15 to defend your home, just go on the porch with a double barreled fetus and fire a shot into the air!

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the same people who want to stack the courts or end the filibuster. They’re short sighted idiots.

        • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except the court size has changed at least a few times in our nation’s history. Guess those people were short sighted, too. You’re right about the filibuster. We just need to all band together to vote out Republicans, fix our government, and ban all gerrymandering.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They were and it’s why they finally settled on 9…

            Yes because it’s only republicans that are the issue…