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.

    • aidan@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is it gun homicide rates or violent crime rate that is used for determining where carrying is restricted?

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Guns only have a role of homicide, they lead to more homicides, so they should always be restricted.

        • aidan@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Guns are a force equalizer, they make victimizing anyone- weak or strong, a risk

          • blazera@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They make a lot of things a fatal risk. Bad relationship? Road rage? Wanna be famous? Guns have let all these things be motivation for murder.

              • blazera@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                All far from comparable alternatives to a gun. Seriously, i encourage you to look up baseball bats in road rage incidents, and imagine a gun instead. And all of these things have roles outside of homicide.

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

            Then why is it more likely to die from a gunshot if you own a gun? Aren’t guns supposed to make sure you don’t die?

            • aidan@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              A lot of reasons, people who feel the need to buy a gun are likely at higher risk of gun crime. For any significantly high enough group of people who own guns, some will be reckless and hurt themselves or provoke others. People are unempathetic and don’t realize pointing a gun at others constitutes a deadly threat- to name a few reasons. Why don’t you think?

              Aren’t guns supposed to make sure you don’t die?

              Guns are designed so that their owner can immobilize a threat to their life as effectively as possible, that doesn’t mean all people use them for their intended use case. Cars aren’t designed to crash, but the more people that drive cars increases the risk of crashes. I personally am in a lot of cities at night- and would feel safer with a gun. I’m not exactly of a threatening stature, I’d rather be able to defend myself in those situations than just be at the mercy of basically the person attacking me who’s bigger than me. There are tons of examples of people be paralyzed, getting concussions, or killed by people attacking them with fists, blunt objects, or knives when they’re getting mugged. There is only one way I could (if carrying a gun were possible) credibly deter that.

    • ThrowThrowThrewaway7@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      Neither are abortion rates. You’d support a governors ability to end all abortion in a state under a public health emergency?

      • poshKibosh@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Classic whatabout-ism:

        • “I think we need a solution to an issue”
        • “What about this completely different issue that has absolutely nothing to do with what you just said? Checkmate idiot”
      • CeeBee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The problem with the term “abortion” and banning it is that an “abortion” is an umbrella term for many things.

        When a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (embryo is forming in the fallopian tube, baby cannot develop and it will kill the mother) the “fix” is called an abortion. There is no scenario where the embryo can mature (they *need" to be attached to the uterine wall) and it would 100% kill the mother.

        Another one is an incomplete miscarriage. It’s when the embryo/fetus dies, but doesn’t come out. And the fix is usually a D&C, which technically (in medical terms) results in, and is considered, an abortion.

        While I personally do not agree with abortions (in the context of avoiding an otherwise healthy pregnancy). I would never shame or coerce someone from getting one. It’s not my decision, and it doesn’t involve me. I’m not part of the equation.

        And despite my disagreement, I think anti-abortion laws are not only wrong, but also harmful.

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

            The colloquial abortion is only the fetus-deletus one

            What? I assume you’re suggesting that elective surgery to terminate a healthy pregnancy is “the only fetus-deletus one”.

            If that is what you mean. Then no, you are wrong. Because the scenarios I outlined above are not hypotheticals. They are literal and direct examples of women who were refused treatment for those conditions in states that have banned abortions. The medical staff were legally unable to provide the medical intervention those women needed to save their lives. Some of them had to travel out of state to get treatment. I don’t know what happened to all of them.

        • ThrowThrowThrewaway7@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The problem with the term ‘gun rights’ and banning them is that ‘gun rights’ is an umbrella term for many things. When a person owns a firearm for self-defense or hunting, and it is used responsibly, it is considered an exercise of ‘gun rights.’ There are also situations where the use of firearms is necessary for self-defense and protection.

          Another example is target shooting or competitive shooting, which is a legitimate and responsible use of firearms. These activities are all grouped under the term ‘gun rights.’

          While I personally may not agree with unrestricted access to firearms (in the context of avoiding unnecessary risks and violence), I would never shame or coerce someone from exercising their Second Amendment rights. It’s not my decision, and it doesn’t involve me. I’m not part of the equation.

          And despite my disagreement, I think restrictive gun control laws are not only wrong but also harmful.

          Just like with abortion, the debate over gun rights is multifaceted and involves differing perspectives on individual rights, public safety, and the balance between regulation and personal freedom.

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

            Your argument is basically “people who don’t break the law are fine, so we shouldn’t let people who do break the law ruin for the rest of us”. Sounds like nuance, but it’s not.

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

          You somehow missed the fact that this isn’t a law. No elected member of the New Mexico Legislature voted on this. This is one person in the Executive Branch deciding they can write and impose law at their will. And you support this?