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

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by LeverGunFan

In the wake of the temporary restraining order, the NM governor has amended her executive order to only apply to public parks and playgrounds. Link to AP article here.

Which answers the question many have posed: Where will NM's next multiple homicide most likely occur?

Answer: The public parks and playgrounds at which an attacker knows he will meet no armed response.

[vito]

Maybe at some future point the gun control advocates will begin to understand that "Gun free zones" do nothing to stop those intent on mayhem and only ensure that the location becomes a target rich environment for the criminal.

[Metal god]

Vito , no I don’t think so and not because they are evil, al though …..

I’ve been putting some thought into thinking lately, err wait whaaaat ? Seriously I believe the issue is what you “think” is the problem . Based on what you believe the problem is , will be how one will try to fix the problem .

I have several examples but I heard a comedian say something once about the southern CA drought and water crisis once . He said southern CA does not have A water problem they have a salt problem and there in lies the problem . Everyone in power for decades have been trying to figure out how to get fresh water from the north to the south which is one way of “thinking” about it . Another way would be to take the salt out of the pacific coast waters . I mean there’s plenty of it so why aren’t we ? Back in the early 90’s there was a big push to build a desalinization plant in Southern California . The argument against was it would take 10 to 15 years for it to make any real difference in the local area . At the time there was a drought or a big water crisis blah blah blah The argument against was , what Good will a desalinization plant do in 10 or 15 years when we need the water now.

Well 30 years later and had we built the damn thing in the 90’s we wouldn’t have all the water issues now . Not only because that “one” plant would be helping now . It’s likely once one was up and running they/we would have built more reducing the need from the North to supply the water needed in the south .

But here we are 30 years later with the exact same problem we’ve always had . Demand to high in the south taxing the reservoirs in the north Lake Lake Mead .

Anyways, that was a long drawn out example of my overall point . Sometimes it’s not evil, although… sometimes it’s just a ridge way of thinking that is causing the problem. keeping us in the rut we are in.
The question is, is that simply just another way of thinking or is it special interest manipulating the thought process .

[44 AMP]

ABC news is now reporting that Friday, the NM Gov amended her order, and not it will allow open and concealed carry "except in public parks and playgrounds".

Note that the wording used is "amended", and not rescinded, or cancelled. In other words the order is still in place (and I believe still suspended by court order at this time), but the Gov still confidently believes she has the legal authority to do what she did.

This is essentially a tactical retreat. IT is not an armistice, it is not a surrender, and it is not an admission that she was wrong in any way.

And, it is NOT a victory for Constitutional law and our civil rights.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by vito

Maybe at some future point the gun control advocates will begin to understand that "Gun free zones" do nothing to stop those intent on mayhem and only ensure that the location becomes a target rich environment for the criminal.

Dream on.

[DaleA]

Maybe at some future point the gun control advocates will begin to understand that "Gun free zones" do nothing to stop those intent on mayhem and only ensure that the location becomes a target rich environment for the criminal.

I suspect these folk just plain old don't like guns. They don't want there to BE guns anywhere, at all.

They are proud of their gun ignorance and intolerant of anyone speaking intelligently about guns and their capabilities.

I think Colonel Jeff Cooper hit on something when he coined the word 'hoplophobe'.

hoplophobe-Someone who has an irrational fear of guns. Etymology. Firearms authority and writer Colonel Jeff Cooper claims to have coined the word in 1962: hoplo- (“weapon, arms”) +‎ -phobia (“fear”).

[44 AMP]

I always felt that, while accurate, Hoplophobia was a cumbersome term.

To add a bit to your Etymology, Hoplos is from the Greek, as is phobia. Greek warriors were Hoplites (one who is armed) and in modern English "phobia" is translated as an "unreasonable" or "irrational" fear.

SO, a hoplophobe is, literally, someone who is afraid of weapons, for no rational reason.

You find the saying often in sci-fi, as well as many other places and it is essentially true,

Ignorance breeds fear, fear breeds hate, and hate leads to violence (or,the Dark Side in star wars, )

Here's my suggestion to those who see guns as the problem, go pitch your tent inside a prison. There are no guns there, except in the hands of some guards. IF you are right, you should be perfectly safe and comfortable...

[ballardw]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

To add a bit to your Etymology, Hoplos is from the Greek, as is phobia. Greek warriors were Hoplites (one who is armed) and in modern English "phobia" is translated as an "unreasonable" or "irrational" fear.

SO, a hoplophobe is, literally, someone who is afraid of weapons, for no rational reason.

Which is to an extent a bit ironic as Hoplite is derived in turn from Hoplon, the shield the soldier carried. Not that said shield wouldn't bust your chops if hit with one but not the more "offensive" weapons of spear or sword.

[Spats McGee]

One question I've seen asked, here and on other boards boils down to, "Why hasn't she been arrested?" The simple answer is this, "Because the NM legislature has not declared it a crime to use executive orders this way." The follow-up question is naturally "Why haven't they declared it a crime to use executive orders this way?" Again, the answer is simple, "Because it's a form of lawmaking, and the legislature (whose entire job involves lawmaking) is not about to declare something a crime when it's so close to home."

And that's without getting into the legal issues, like whether it's really the legislature's job to decide whether a law is constitutional, or the fact that our courts don't issue advisory opinions.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

One question I've seen asked, here and on other boards boils down to, "Why hasn't she been arrested?" The simple answer is this, "Because the NM legislature has not declared it a crime to use executive orders this way." The follow-up question is naturally "Why haven't they declared it a crime to use executive orders this way?" Again, the answer is simple, "Because it's a form of lawmaking, and the legislature (whose entire job involves lawmaking) is not about to declare something a crime when it's so close to home."

And that's without getting into the legal issues, like whether it's really the legislature's job to decide whether a law is constitutional, or the fact that our courts don't issue advisory opinions.

The New Mexico constitution defines the reasons for impeachment:
All state officers and judges of the district court shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misdemeanors and malfeasance in office
NM constitution, article 4, section 36 [emphasis added]

And there is established New Mexico case law defining "malfeasance in office":

The term "malfeasance" has been variously defined as a comprehensive term which includes any wrongful conduct affecting performance of official duties... or as a wrongful act which the actor had no legal right to do, or any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts, or interferes with performance of official duties, or an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law or which a person ought not to do at all, or the unjust performance of some act, which party performing it has no right,.... or doing an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful, and which an officer has no authority to do, and if the act is discretionary it must have been done with an improper or corrupt motive;..... also, as evildoing, the doing of an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful,.....
Arellano v Lopez, New Mexico Supreme Court, 1970 [emphasis added]

And by grossly exceeding her authority by suspending the Constitution based on her whim, Governor Grisham has checked most, if not all, of those boxes.

New Mexico legislators have already started impeachment proceedings:
https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/new-m...lujan-grisham/

“You see, Democrats, you see Republicans, you see independents saying ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa, this is a total power grab. And it’s an infringement on our constitutional rights,'” said Representative John Block.

In a tweet Monday, Democrat state Sen. Joe Cervantes of Doña Ana County called on the governor to rescind her order, calling it unconstitutional.

Sen. Joe Cervantes

@SenJoeCervantes

Having passed key gun safety laws working with her administration, I call on the Governor to rescind her order outlawing arms. An unconstitutional approach undermines the important collaboration gun issues deserve, and the important role of a Governor to lead genuine reforms.

Now whether they'll actually do it is another question.

[Spats McGee]

Oh, I know that impeachment proceedings are surely a hot topic in NM gov't right now. While the two may not be wildly different, they're not exactly the same, either.

[44 AMP]

... like whether it's really the legislature's job to decide whether a law is constitutional, or the fact that our courts don't issue advisory opinions.

MY old, and probably out of date understanding of the system is that it is not the legislature's job to decide what is, and isn't constitutional in a law, but to understand and recognize what isn't or might not be constitutional in a proposed law (a bill) and NOT put it in there to begin with. Failing that, it is the courts job to rule on the LAW when it comes before them.

Also, as I understand it, the courts do not issue advisory opinions because A) its not their job to do so, and B) an opinion is just that, and not an actual ruling, and C) if they did issue advisory opinions they would spend all their time reviewing BILLS and issuing opinions, and not be able to do much if anything else....

The Courts don't advise the Legislature (in any official way) and they don't review laws passed, UNTIL a case concerning the speicific law comes before them.

Now, here's a question, about the executive order in NM. I, personally, fully agree it is malfeasance of office, my question is, right now, there is a court ordered hold on enforcement, so nothing is actually happening. IF the Gov recinds /cancells the order (even 5 minutes) before it is actually ruled on, then no one was harmed, nothing actually happened, its "over with" CAN the Gov still be charged with malfeasance, and impeached??

OR does that just go away because the order was never actually enforced???

I know my opinion, on that, what's your's??

[mehavey]

ALCON:

> " New Mexico governor amends controversial temporary
> gun ban, now targets parks, playgrounds . .

Can in fact governor do even that, w/o some due process via either legislative or regulatory action?

[Metal god]

Let me ask this . Once a SCOTUS ruling is handed down, is “a” legislature/s required to follow that decision? Meaning when it comes to the 2nd amendment now and the recent Bruen decision should any legislature be required to show how there new law regardless of type have a historical equivalent before introducing the bill ?

If not shouldn’t the AG or governors office official counsel do a review based on the SCOTUS decision before signing ?

How many times in the last 10 or 20 years have we heard a politician/lawmaker say yes this new law is likely unconstitutional but it will take years for it to work its way through the courts . How is that even close to being reasonable? The whom ever that signed an oath to the/there constitution sign something into law they admit is unconstitutional.

[44 AMP]

Let me ask this . Once a SCOTUS ruling is handed down, is “a” legislature/s required to follow that decision?

Not a lawyer, just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it, possibly less, but the simple answer to this questions is "no",

They are not required to follow the ruling. They should, we expect them to, but they are not required to.

If not shouldn’t the AG or governors office official counsel do a review based on the SCOTUS decision before signing ?

I think they should, I think they ought to, but as far as I know, there is no legal requirement for them to do so, and so, they rarely do it.

How many times in the last 10 or 20 years have we heard a politician/lawmaker say yes this new law is likely unconstitutional but it will take years for it to work its way through the courts . How is that even close to being reasonable?

I'd say THEY think it is reasonable, because they get what they want often for years, until/unless it gets before the high court and gets thrown out.

The law is a world of technicalities, and "technically" court rulings only apply to the case in which the ruling is made. Smart folks will look at the rulings and reasoning and apply those standards to laws and regulations going forward, but they are not bound by law to do so, and zealots with a cause they believe valid will happily do things that are not legal, but are the law until they are ruled invalid.

In "macro" terms, "its only a crime if you get caught" seems to be one of their operating principles.

or so it seems to me...

[natman]

Originally Posted by mehavey

ALCON:

> " New Mexico governor amends controversial temporary
> gun ban, now targets parks, playgrounds . .

Can in fact governor do even that, w/o some due process via either legislative or regulatory action?

IMO, no.

On the one hand, this new version is on somewhat firmer constitutional ground in that "sensitive places" are allowed.

On the other hand, it's the legislature's job to define what sensitive places are, not the governor's. The weak pretext of a "public health emergency" is not going to hold up. If anything good comes out of this it will be to establish precedent that criminal violence is NOT a public health matter any more than auto accidents are and that the executive branch may NOT use "public health emergency" as an excuse to suspend the Second Amendment.

[Metal god]

I was thinking unless its a completely different order anything she does to the existing executive order is moot because the judge TRO’d the complete order . So changing the words around in ex-order 1234 doesn’t mean anything because the judge TRO’d ex-order 1234 .

Am I understanding how that works , does she need to write a separate new order or can she just tweek the old one ?

[Wag]

From what we're hearing in town, the judge only TRO'd parts of the order. The rest are still in effect. Including her new unconstitutional amendments.

She's desperate to get her way, like a petulant child.

--Wag--

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by DaleA

I suspect these folk just plain old don't like guns. They don't want there to BE guns anywhere, at all.

They are proud of their gun ignorance and intolerant of anyone speaking intelligently about guns and their capabilities.

I think Colonel Jeff Cooper hit on something when he coined the word 'hoplophobe'.

hoplophobe-Someone who has an irrational fear of guns. Etymology. Firearms authority and writer Colonel Jeff Cooper claims to have coined the word in 1962: hoplo- (“weapon, arms”) +‎ -phobia (“fear”).

I'm going to guess many of the gun haters just really don't like the people who own guns. We are seeing too many guns laws directed at us, not those committing crimes.

[44 AMP]

As I understand it, some parts of the order actually dealt with public health matters, and not gun control. IF so, it is quite likely the judge did not put a restraint on enacting those parts.

I am past fed up with political figures pushing /passing/ issuing laws, decrees or orders to show they are "doing something" when those rules don't do anything about fixing or even reducing the problem.

Where is the sense in that?? Constantly we here about how we need "common sense" gun control laws. And we've gotten a lot of them in recent decades. Yet the problem persists. Has even gotten worse in specific locations. Since that is the case, "common sense" tells me the "solutions" aren't working.

Also tells me that if the people in those positions can't (or won't) offer us solutions that work, they aren't the people who should be in those positions.

[Metal god]

As I understand it, some parts of the order actually dealt with public health matters, and not gun control. IF so, it is quite likely the judge did not put a restraint on enacting those parts.

From what we're hearing in town, the judge only TRO'd parts of the order. The rest are still in effect. Including her new unconstitutional amendments.

ah yes that makes more sense , just toss it in amongst some legitimate orders and hope it sticks .

[44 AMP]

Lets not loose sight of the root cause here, the NM governor's belief that she has the legal authority to issue the order under "public health emergency" rules. AND that the Governor has publicly stated that SHE doesn't believe Constitutional authority OR her oath of office is absolute, (and therefore binding on her actions).

in effect, she is saying that because she has declared gun violence a public health emergency this gives her the authority to act in any way she sees fit, and what the law and her oath of office bind her to does not matter. Its an "emergency" and we have to do this "for the children!!!"




In my opinion, any elected official who is either not smart enough, or is too lazy to work within the framework of established law should not BE an elected official and should be replaced as soon as the law allows it.

[armoredman]

She publicly said the Constitution doesn't bind her, nor does her oath. Many are at work to impeach her.

[NJgunowner]

The politicians are in a bind. They have a group of supporters saying "DO SOMETHING" like petulant children who have no idea what "something" means. And if they don't do "something" they'll vote in someone else who will. So the politician throws things at the wall to see what sticks so during the next election cycle "I tried, but those evil pro-gun people blocked it! You need to give me more money and help vote in my friends!".

And they never want to address the root issues, as it might actually fix "something" and then what could they use to drum up support?

[44 AMP]

They're in a slightly worse bind than that. The more radical part of the base that wants them to "do something" that involves restricting or banning guns and isn't happy with things that might actually have an effect on crime, unless they include bans/restrictions on guns.

And then there's our side who is never happy with the entire idea that guns are the problem. and consider gun restrictions to be the wrong thing to do and actually increase the problem.

Most of the folks I know would be quite happy to have our gun rights left alone, and feel that catching, and removing from society those people who shoot people for fun or profit is the better way to go.