New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque

[armoredman]

https://news.yahoo.com/mexico-govern...234135580.html

The Governor of New Mexico "suspends" the right to carry a firearm open or concealed for 30 days. This woman needs to be immediately impeached for violation of civil rights under color of law. "Suspending" the RIGHT to carry lawfully owned firearms with or without a permit for 30 days simply because? If she gets away with this, the "temporary" ban will be extended until it is permanent.

[Aguila Blanca]

Pooh. It's all okay, because she's willing to have a dialogue.

"I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer," she said at a news conference, flanked by law enforcement officials, including the district attorney for the Albuquerque area.

[Tom Servo]

The Democratic governor said she expects legal challenges

Well, yes. Because this is right there in the state constitution:

Article II - Bill of Rights § 6 Right to bear arms. NM Const art II § 6

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

[Aguila Blanca]

And a governor's executive order isn't even a law.

Yes, I expect that there will be legal challenges.

[Wag]

She is completely out of control.

It's notable that she first declared guns a "health emergency," then banned guns for 30 days. She's using that health emergency power to just be a dictator. It's going to piss off the legislature and they may finally strip that power from her like they should have done last year when it first came up.

The edict is only for the city of Albuquerque, which is rather weird. Oddly, the edict does nothing to stop criminals. Well, not so odd, really. To be expected.

Regardless of the limitation on just Albuquerque, she's a real chicken$$$$ putting this out there on a Friday afternoon before any real dialogue or response can actually happen in a meaningful way.

She's still hungry for the same power she had during Covid.

--Wag--

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Wag

She's still hungry for the same power she had during Covid.

That is the template for people who want to exceed their limits and populations who let them. What it taught people was more damaging than a virus.

[44 AMP]

IT might even be worse than you think...

The Daily Caller reported this...

The decree states that “no person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm … either openly or concealed, within cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021.” The decree is titled “public health emergency decree imposing temporary firearm restrictions, drug monitoring and other public safety measures.”

An "emergency public health order",,,,, prohibiting POSSESSION ?????

Note the report does not say "carry" it says "possession." AND, its not limited to one city, but covers everywhere there have been more than 1,000 violent crimes (note it does not say "shootings", it says "violent crimes") per 100,000 residents SINCE 2021.

IF the report is accurate (and I, personally, have no way to determine that) this is a lot more than "no carry in Albuquerque for 30 days. A LOT MORE....

I never thought I'd see a "Reichstag Fire" in New Mexico, but it looks like some people are trying hard to turn gun ownership into one...IMHO...

[rclark]

Wow. I bet there will be plenty of pushback on this one. She is nuts to disarm the law abiding and let the criminal carry who don't abide by any edict or law. Just a screwy mentality going on all over the country. BTW, I believe Dems throw out things like this to see what 'sticks' to the wall just to see how far they can go. See, the whole country is now watching to see what happens.... They did it to Trump, they did it with environmentalism, they did it with woke, they did it with covid, etc..... As much as they can get away with they will do. I'd say the emergency is 'what to do with the Socialist Party of America'!

[Mike38]

And yet.....she will be re-elected.

[tangolima]

Just curious. If a citizen is caught carrying, what charge do they bring to him? He didn't break any law. Executive order isn't law.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[zoomie]

Just curious. If a citizen is caught carrying, what charge do they bring to him? He didn't break any law. Executive order isn't law.

They will try to use Public Health Act laws.

Source: Section 12-10A-19 NMSA 1978, <https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/item/4374/index.do#!b/12-10A-19>, retrieved on 09/09/2023.

12-10A-19. Enforcement; civil penalties.
A. The secretary of health, the secretary of public safety or the director may enforce the provisions of the Public Health Emergency Response Act by imposing a civil administrative penalty of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each violation of that act. A civil administrative penalty may be imposed pursuant to a written order issued by the secretary of health, the secretary of public safety or the director after a hearing is held in accordance with the rules promulgated pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-10A-17 NMSA 1978.

B. The provisions of the Public Health Emergency Response Act shall not be construed to limit specific enforcement powers enumerated in that act.

C. The enforcement authority provided pursuant to the provisions of the Public Health Emergency Response Act is in addition to other remedies available against the same conduct under the common law or other statutes of this state.

[Tom Servo]

This is indicative of a larger problem we have with declaring "emergencies." If an official can break the law by declaring an emergency, they will come up with all sorts of things to call emergencies.

Just for fun, here's a list of current declared emergencies in New Mexico.

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

This is indicative of a larger problem we have with declaring "emergencies." If an official can break the law by declaring an emergency, they will come up with all sorts of things to call emergencies.

Just for fun, here's a list of current declared emergencies in New Mexico.

Yep. Those who lust for control over the people will continue to do this until they are stopped. The question becomes, how can they be stopped. They lose in court, and just push through something else that is not allowed under the Constitution.

[44 AMP]

Apparently, some LEO officials have stated they will not enforce this, and several others have stated they are hesitant to enforce it.

IIRC wasn't it someone in the Obama administration who was quoted as saying "never let a crisis go to waste" or something very similar, meaning the benefit of crisis is the opportunity to increase govt regulation and rules.

Personally, I am past sick and tired of hearing gun control pushed as the solution to violence. Particularly when phrased as the "need to do something" due to the most recent shootings.

Many have said it, but few officials actually listen, the way to deal with the violence is to find and catch those doing it, and remove them from society. Personally, I don't object to removing them permanently.

When criminals don't fear being caught, and don't fear the punishment IF they get convicted, they will not change their behavior.

We can discuss at length how, and why we got where we are today (but not here in this thread) but what matters is that the system, as currently configured and operated is failing to do the job, and the only thing we seem to get offered as the "solution" is further restricting the law abiding, not the ones who are committing the crimes.

When something isn't working, doing more of what doesn't work rarely makes it work, and generally makes things worse.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

This is indicative of a larger problem we have with declaring "emergencies." If an official can break the law by declaring an emergency, they will come up with all sorts of things to call emergencies.

It's also a result of the movement to classify firearms crimes as an "epidemiological" problem rather than a criminal problem. The AMA has been pushing that for years -- especially pediatricians.

[44 AMP]

Right, because if it is a "disease" they get authority over it, and get to make MONEY from it.

Free will, including the will to do evil is NOT a disease, and never has been.
(unless you are the government, or stand to make money off it, then you might have a different opinion)

It MIGHT BE demonic possession, but that call is between you and your religion.

[armoredman]

I believe this is called conspiracy to violate civil rights under color of law. I also think that is a felony darn near everywhere, but I could be wrong. The Sheriff started off by saying he was "hesitant", but the last report I read said he is on board with it. The police chief of Albuquerque said he will not enforce it. Even such flaming leftists as Ted Lieu and David The Hogg have come out against it. Amazing. I know my governor is watching this with bated breath, hoping it survives a challenge, so she can do the same thing here.

[44 AMP]

Considering what we put up with during the panic-demic, it seems that some officials think about anything is possible if it is declared a public health emergency.

What do you think will happen after 30 days with no significant change?? endless extensions, until/unless a court orders otherwise???

the 20th Century had the "Roaring 20s". The 21st Century seems to be shaping up to have the "Stupid 20s". Time will tell, IF we survive long enough...

[Tom Servo]

A year or so back, Governor Grisham signed the New Mexico Civil-Rights Act, which makes it easy for individuals to sue the government for violations of rights enshrined in the state constitution.

She has to be aware of this. We probably won't see any enforcement of it, and she'll let it quietly die out.

[Wag]

Apparently, there is a group attempting to get together in Old Town, open carrying, to demonstrate. Part of me thinks this is a good idea. Another part of me thinks it could end badly.

--Wag--

[MTT TL]

Apparently, some LEO officials have stated they will not enforce this, and several others have stated they are hesitant to enforce it.

The Mayor, DA, Police Chief and County Sheriff have all said they won't enforce it. The DA stated it was blatantly unconstitutional and the Chief of Police stated that he didn't want to expose his officers to what was sure to be civil rights lawsuits. The mayor said it was straight up illegal and had no force of law.

[s3779m]

Since when does a State emergency override the U.S. constitution? I'm guessing she did not pass high school civics.

[mehavey]

US Constitution is the least of her problems.....

New Mexico Constitution
Article II - Bill of Rights
§ 6 Right to bear arms.
Universal Citation: NM Const art II § 6
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

[Doc Intrepid]

There were many lessons-learned from the COVID panic, and the various decrees enacted by Governors via "emergency edict" powers:

Citizens could lose their jobs for not (wearing masks or getting vaccines) complying with emergency health directives;

Citizens could be prevented from earning a living (barbershops, beauty salons) or running a business with threats of expensive legal compulsion if they failed to adhere to emergency health directives;

Citizens could be unwillingly separated from military service if they objected to emergency health directives;

And all these conditions could be extended indefinitely as there were (and still are) very few limits on the capacity of any state governor to declare an emergency health condition until they see fit to ease their directives. The average citizen does not have the resources to fight state government-declared directives when the consequences are so dire.

One of the key requirements for sensible Americans going forward is to completely eradicate the notion of gun violence as a disease or public health problem - to be addressed as one would a virus or a bacteria.

It is a weaponized and pernicious effort by anti-gun politicians and organized groups to enable anti-gun efforts to be treated as a public health threat rather than a criminal threat.

Otherwise, look for the lessons taken away from the COVID panic to become far more common and wide-spread as anti-gun strategies.

[Tom Servo]

Part of me thinks this is a good idea. Another part of me thinks it could end badly.

Under different circumstances, I'd agree. However, just about every official and agency charged with enforcing this has said they won't. It's rare to see that kind of unity, that quickly, on something like this.