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 Na…

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.

    • blazera@kbin.social
      45·
      1 year ago

      dont try to implement gun control or else you wont have gun control, not really a good hostage.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          22·
          1 year ago

          The answer to a captured court is not to stop making laws, it’s to ignore the court.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              11·
              1 year ago

              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”.

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                  11·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

        • blazera@kbin.social
          34·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • blazera@kbin.social
              32·
              1 year ago

              And we put gay marriage in the line of fire by legalizing it. Was that a mistake?

                • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
                  22·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                • blazera@kbin.social
                  23·
                  1 year ago

                  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.