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.

  • ColeSloth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fine. No vehicles, no candles, no walking around without a helmet on. Public safety is number one!

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Vehicles require licenses and you are regulated where you can drive. Many, MANY fire codes have been written for home goods, furnishings and house materials to prevent fires from common things like candles. You must wear a helmet on bicycles or motorcycles (and other things similar) in most states.

      So, yes?

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        And you aren’t regulated on where you can shoot? What accessories you can have (state dependant)? How long your barrel can be wothout paying a $200 tax for no reason that effectively just limits the poor and disenfranchised?

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        …And you think that there isn’t an entire federal agency devoted largely to regulating firearms…? Spoiler: the BATF exists, but there are limits on what they can do. This is beyond the scope of their power, because they can’t violate the constitution and court precedent.

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

          Except we have people arguing against registration. In my state all you have to do is be 21, not have a felony, and maybe pay child support and you’re good. Have a gun.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Guns do in fact have other uses. Namely self defense, which while yes some killing may be involved in defending oneself with a firearm, “want” is a liiiiitle far since most would rather just not be in a life or death situation that would necessitate armed self defense, though assuredly they are glad to be able to use it to “not die” as opposed to “dying by the attacker’s hands.”

        Also hunting, USPSA, IDPA, etc.

        • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, actually. A gun’s purpose is to maim or kill. “Self defense” is simply a phrase for “I will hurt you back more than you hurt me”. It doesn’t change the purpose of a gun. It would likely take decades, but we could absolutely lower the amount of guns the US has. People just think that’s too hard and refuse to care that a household with a gun is more likely to get shot and die than a household without one.