>The Governor of New Mexico has just declared the 1st & 2nd Amendment “does not exist” due to an “emergency.”
>Under this legal theory all of our “rights” are essentially eliminated.
https://apnews.com/article/albuquerque-guns-governor-concealed-carry-fc5b4b79bf411b8022c3ad58975724d7
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/new-mexico-governor-temporarily-suspends-open-concealed-carry-albuquerque-violence-every-turn.amp
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1700334945992847588?t=16PRdKqeAtzqCyp93pwtZg&s=09
whole video treason starts at 10:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=360k-MCJbfE
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 7D144D832F2B33DE993423384923E051-102144.jpg (99.8 KB, 1200x675, AP20218760553243.jpg)
File (): AE2B40A8A795D6856CEA4DEB4429F6AF-150581.jpg (147.1 KB, 989x1221, bWVkaWEvRjVsMUo3SGJnQUFZRnhWLmpwZw.jpg)
>>366801
I’m curious to see if this actually gets addressed by a district court, or if it’s deemed too short in duration to justify a legal injunction
I’m curious to see if this actually gets addressed by a district court, or if it’s deemed too short in duration to justify a legal injunction
She probably set the duration to be short so it would be over before anyone could get a hearing in court. If I lived in New Mexico, I would just ignore the order.
>>366808
That just makes it all the more sinister. A short term infringement is still an infringement. Bad precedent to set.
That just makes it all the more sinister. A short term infringement is still an infringement. Bad precedent to set.
>>366816
The precedent was already set during COVID. Our governor is just the first to get brave enough to test the precedent during a time when there's obviously no real public health threat. She admits it herself, she doesn't expect anyone to obey. This is a test of the backlash. And so far it's the same pathetic display of protests by conservatives and libertarians. "Oh but the police aren't enforcing the ban it so its a win!" Nope, we just showed our spinelessness. She will try this bullshit again, probably after canning some right wing sheriffs. Then where will we be?
The precedent was already set during COVID. Our governor is just the first to get brave enough to test the precedent during a time when there's obviously no real public health threat. She admits it herself, she doesn't expect anyone to obey. This is a test of the backlash. And so far it's the same pathetic display of protests by conservatives and libertarians. "Oh but the police aren't enforcing the ban it so its a win!" Nope, we just showed our spinelessness. She will try this bullshit again, probably after canning some right wing sheriffs. Then where will we be?
>>366835
Not gun restrictions specifically. The general precedent of suspending Constitutional rights for the sake of "public health" is what I was referring to. We had zero freedom of assembly, petition, etc., and your ability to run a business was related to how friendly you were with Grisham and her cronies. There were a few high profile stories of her just being ruthless with a few places that skirted her lockdown rules, getting them shut down. Which led to a bit of a scandal when she then tried to meet with some businesses privately during lockdown to transact, to sell some jewelry she owned iirc. Anyway, she suffered no long term consequences for any of that.
Not gun restrictions specifically. The general precedent of suspending Constitutional rights for the sake of "public health" is what I was referring to. We had zero freedom of assembly, petition, etc., and your ability to run a business was related to how friendly you were with Grisham and her cronies. There were a few high profile stories of her just being ruthless with a few places that skirted her lockdown rules, getting them shut down. Which led to a bit of a scandal when she then tried to meet with some businesses privately during lockdown to transact, to sell some jewelry she owned iirc. Anyway, she suffered no long term consequences for any of that.
10 replies | 2 files | 6 UUIDs | Archived