United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

DarthOne

☦️
New Mexico Mayor Demands Power to Enact Local Gun Control Laws

We haven't heard much from New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham over the past few weeks. In fact, ever since a federal judge gave the green light for her ban on open and concealed carry to be enforced at parks and playgrounds throughout Albuquerque and Bernalillo County the governor's maintained near radio silence on the issue. The New Mexico State Police announced a few days ago that there expanded presence in the city, which was also a part of her public health order declaring a "gun violence" state of emergency in the city and county, has resulted in 140 arrests, but made no mention of any citations for violating Grisham's carry ban, and it's unclear at this point whether any law enforcement agency is actually enforcing her edict.

Grisham's also avoided making specific demands of legislators in the next session, though I expect that will change as we get closer to January and the start of the 2024 session. While she's keeping mum for now other anti-gun politicians are starting to make their own asks of lawmakers, including the mayor of Santa Fe.

A new proposal that could allow cities and counties to determine their own regulations on guns. Santa Fe Mayor Alan Webber plans to introduce this proposal to the legislature to make public safety better.
"When we see something happen anywhere in America and lives are lost. Then local officials, a mayor or a county official in that community is put in the position of saying, I wish I'd done more. I wish I'd tried more," Webber said.
Mayor Webber's proposal would revise the state's constitution to allow counties to have more control regulation.
"The point is simply to allow more local choice and more local control so that we at the local level can reflect the views of our residents and indicate that we take seriously trying to reduce or eliminate gun violence at the local level," Webber said.

In other words, instead of one public official overstepping their constitutional authority, Webber wants every locality in the state to have that same power.

It won't be easy for Webber to get his way, thankfully. The New Mexico constitution explicitly states "No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms," so the state legislature doesn't have the authority to approve a change on its own. Even if they approve Webber's proposal, it would then have to be passed by a majority of New Mexico voters. According to one recent poll, 83% of voters in the state believe a "crackdown on criminals is the best way to keep families safe," not targeting the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners. The poll also found 68% of survey respondents opposed to the governor's executive order carry ban, and I doubt many of those folks would be eager to give their local mayor and city council the same power to enact ordinances infringing on their Second Amendment rights that the governor has used and abused.

Still, legislators might find Webber's plan appealing since it would allow them to say they're "doing something" without actually voting for more gun control laws themselves. His proposal will be just one of many gun control bills introduced at the Roundhouse in the coming weeks, and we'll have a much better sense of how much support it has once formal legislation has been laid on the table and legislators have the chance to sign on as co-sponsors. In the meantime, New Mexico gun owners and Second Amendment supporters should be reaching out to their own representatives and senators and urge them to reject Webber's plan to create hundreds of mini-Grishams across the state.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
Yeah, the governor's bullshit really should have been stomped down by the State Supreme Court, and I really wished it would go to the USSC to get stomped down, too, just like California's attempt to take away both open and concealed carry. Frankly people should carry in these parks anyway just because of dangers from the local wildlife, both the four-legged and two-legged kind. :cautious:
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul


Basically, a scumbag who was involved in a lot of gun crimes also had a domestic abuse restraining order was found to have possession of firearms, and he makes an actual good argument about that being unConstitutional, and the USSC is trying to decide on this because it's obvious this guy shouldn't have guns because of the other things he was involved in, but there is an argument about prohibiting people who have restraining orders from having firearms being unConstitutional under both Bruen and a few other previous decisions. But it's looking like the USSC is going to reverse the lower court's decision that previously found this restriction on firearm ownership to be unConstitutional.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Different states implemented such restrictions with substantial differences. In my opinion, firearms restrictions fall within the lawful authority of the courts in imposing a TRO for cause, and due process is amply satisfied by the procedures of the courts in this. However, they shouldn’t automatically be applied in every case of alleged domestic violence prior to court hearings.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
And I'm worried that false accusations are going to result in deaths, rather like how Red Flag laws have been implemented and abused.
Which is why I’m saying it should fall under the due process rules established for TROs and not a special automatic rule.
 

Vetrom

war
"Here's your pistol M'am. See Sergeant Hinkle for your safety training and range time. Have a great day!"

It's a bit of a hot take, but im cool with government mandated safety training *if and only if* said training and at least an initial round of testing is provided to all comers, at government expense

If it's 'too expensive', that means maybe the government is demanding too much. We regulate plenty of other things, for good reason, as history has shown.

I get the feeling the government wouldnt really be willing to jump all in on "shall-train" though, even if I think it would contribute far more to a more competent and well informed populace.
 

Wargamer08

Well-known member
It's a bit of a hot take, but im cool with government mandated safety training *if and only if* said training and at least an initial round of testing is provided to all comers, at government expense

If it's 'too expensive', that means maybe the government is demanding too much. We regulate plenty of other things, for good reason, as history has shown.

I get the feeling the government wouldnt really be willing to jump all in on "shall-train" though, even if I think it would contribute far more to a more competent and well informed populace.
Training requirements are almost always an impossible and arbitrary bar that exist as a soft ban, like 'may issue'. As soon as you have a faceless bureaucracy deciding whether you get a right or not, the answer is usually no. I would only accept training requirements as a step towards availability on the part of currently heavily restricted weapons like select fire and artillery/armored vehicles.

I need to pass a course? Then toss that automatic weapon registry in the trash where it belongs.
 

Blasterbot

Well-known member
I think hypothetically Training could be a requirement. it would require trust in the government of course. and that is in very short supply right now. but if something like a basic gun safety course could be added in middle school or high school that might work. course you would have to trust the schools for that. and the students to not be complete fuckwads.
 

PeaceMaker 03

Well-known member
I always thought the MG registry and CCL should be automatic given for anyone with a good conduct discharge from military or currently serving active/reserve/NatGuard.

It would also force the military to do better weapons training for non-combat arms (NCA) pax. Lord knows some of the NCA are damn scary handling weapons.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
I always thought the MG registry and CCL should be automatic given for anyone with a good conduct discharge from military or currently serving active/reserve/NatGuard.

It would also force the military to do better weapons training for non-combat arms (NCA) pax. Lord knows some of the NCA are damn scary handling weapons.
I'm going to disagree. First, that Federalizes CCL, which is a bad idea. Second, it gives credence to the idea that the military is somehow the 'militia' from the 2nd amendment. And also, in a just world, there would be no MG registry nor CCL.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
I'm going to disagree. First, that Federalizes CCL, which is a bad idea. Second, it gives credence to the idea that the military is somehow the 'militia' from the 2nd amendment. And also, in a just world, there would be no MG registry nor CCL.
I agree with your last.
There is also a VERY large amount of vets who wish they got these things free.
Because it would make a good reasons for people to get in, do a single contract and leave to own a MG.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
I'm going to disagree. First, that Federalizes CCL, which is a bad idea. Second, it gives credence to the idea that the military is somehow the 'militia' from the 2nd amendment. And also, in a just world, there would be no MG registry nor CCL.
Federal gun licenses already exist. They don't prevent states from also issuing gun licenses.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Federal gun licenses already exist. They don't prevent states from also issuing gun licenses.
Not for concealed carry they don't. The only thing even remotely close is the MG registry and the FFL, neither of which has to do with concealed carry.
 

PeaceMaker 03

Well-known member
I'm going to disagree. First, that Federalizes CCL, which is a bad idea. Second, it gives credence to the idea that the military is somehow the 'militia' from the 2nd amendment. And also, in a just world, there would be no MG registry nor CCL.
I can see your point for everything you wrote. And all valid concerns.

My feelings on 2A are very f you’re not on probation, not mental or medically unfit, not doing illegal drugs, you are free to own carry what you want up to crew served weapons…….
My issue is states like Michigan, LEO, retired LEO, Judges, and a few others have automatic CCL w/o classes, proof of weapons competency, or back round checks. Can even carry on school grounds.

Yet everyone in the military has basic weapons competency at minimum and multiple back round checks. If they have no criminal record that bars CCL why are they not treated the same as a judge who has no weapons training and is elected to office and may have a criminal record.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
My issue is states like Michigan, LEO, retired LEO, Judges, and a few others have automatic CCL w/o classes, proof of weapons competency, or back round checks. Can even carry on school grounds.
The issue with special carve out is that they fracture a movement. It's a way to stop actual gun rights grassroots activism by appearing to grant them.
 

PeaceMaker 03

Well-known member
The issue with special carve out is that they fracture a movement. It's a way to stop actual gun rights grassroots activism by appearing to grant them.
Another good point, the special carve out for police, judges and wardens should apply to everyone who has not lost their liberties due to criminal behavior/ mental/ etc.

It does however highlight the utter lack of logic in gun policy and the illegal state franchise of those rights.
Military persons of good standing( not had liberties restricted for above reasons), are not trusted to be armed, but political bureaucrats who have no weapons training are given automatic franchise.

Lawyers with guns on a military range……very scary. I would detail an E4 or competent E3 to babysit the lawyers. With special instructions to not allow them to point a loaded weapon at anyone, or themselves. I really did not care how they did it.
Dealing with them in G-staff was bad. The stories from the officer's basic that lawyers and doctors have to do……
So glad I never had to deal with that.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
I take a far less absolutist view on gun rights than most of y'all here, but I am 100% for applying absolute federal preemption to firearms rights and saying that *only* Congress has *any* authority to regulate firearms and ammunition in any way whatsoever.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top