NM governor suspends open & concealed carry in Albuquerque for 30 days

[KingClown]

My point is that there is no evidence that anyone other than the Superintendent supported this. You agree with me that there is no proof, yet you argue with me.

That's my only point. Go back and read what I wrote. Please.

You are all arguing with me, but thou are also agreeing with me. It's weird.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Because we dont want to risk being the proof that he is enforcing it.
Again I site the MoCo carry law. No one has been arrested yet but no one wants to be the first eithier

 

[JohnnyE]

I can't drive 55

Sammy Hagar approves.

 

[teratos]

Sammy Hagar approves.

Lone Ranger is in the way

 

[whistlersmother]

Agree with you 100%. That was not the comment that was made, nor was it the comment that I made in reply.

I understand the rationale fear, based upon the statement of the Superintendent. We are on the same page

I was addressing the guy who said that all of NMSP would enforce this law. Just cause the clown with the brass on his shoulders says something, it doesn't mean the beat cop is going to do it.

I am not disputing the legimate basis for concern. I am disputing the allegation that every trooper (or even ANY trooper) would blindly follow the Superintendent.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Fair enough.

Its unfortunate that the police are tasked with two distinct activities - public safety, which is difficult enough, but also with enforcing restricting laws under the guise of public safety.

 

[Doctor_M]

Only the military and police should be allowed to keep the military and police.

 

[Bob A]

Maryland desperately needs more principled men in the mold of Jack McCauley.

Who folded when ordered to shut up when testifying before the MD GA. After he retired and his pension was secure, he came on strong.

Like my signature line has always said, "The hand that signs the paycheck rules the world."

 

[Bob A]

Link to the text of the letter from NM's Attorney General to the Governor, refusing to defend her ban:

N.M. Attorney General Refuses to Defend N.M. Governor's Temporary Ban on Gun Carry in Albuquerque Area

The Truth About Guns (Dan Zimmerman) has what appears to be an accurate copy of the letter from the A.G....

reason.com

 

[Biggfoot44]

I don't know, from what I am hearing in this thread it's not an elected position like Sheriff, the state police superintendent is appointed by the Governor of NM, so in theory at least he serves at her pleasure and she could fire him if she got a bee in her bonnet.

That being said, it would be a terrible look.

Actually in New Mexico , Not appointed directly by the Governor .

Appointed by the Director of Public Safety , and confirmed by New Mexico Senate .

Still a political element to the job , but deliberately set up for degrees of separation of getting one on one pressure from Governor .

 

[Biggfoot44]

My point is that there is no evidence that anyone other than the Superintendent supported this. You agree with me that there is no proof, yet you argue with me.

That's my only point. Go back and read what I wrote. Please.

You are all arguing with me, but thou are also agreeing with me. It's weird.

Ok. (At least up until the time the quoted post I just read was posted ) nobody has been busted for this .

Doesn't mean they couldn't have .
Doesn't mean ( at least some ) wouldn't have if there were to be directives / policies/ memos to do so ..

We don't know ( yet) :

Did NMSP say to Gov one thing , then turn around and give different orders ?

Did he issue orders , and 100% of NMSP refuse to follow ?

Was there explicit decision made ( somewhere in Chain ) to not enforce for the moment , pending some public opinion/ political / legal criteria , and after ( whatever )happens , then it's game on ?

If so , by whom , for what criteria , to what intended purpose ?

**********************************

Plenty of reasons to speculate and discuss , beyond " If it didn't happen in first day or two , it won't or can't happen " .

 

[CrueChief]

One thing missing from this whole Discussion,, by the NM gov, by the media, by the online critics, etc.

My brother lived and worked in Albuquerque NM for 35+ years and intended to live out his life their,, he (and his wife) loved it.
Just a few years back he retired and the City and state started to spiral down the drain.
They rang the "Dinner Bell" for the homeless and Albuquerque has a homeless problem worse than SF. The homeless/open air drug markets all through the city, with tents on capitol and courthouse lawns,, tents down town in medium strips, etc.. Had a problem with wacked out homes staggering into traffic,, so the mayor closed the roads off.
They have "No Bail" system now,, Brother sent me a news clip showing the "5 most wanted" in Albuquerque,, The number 1 on the list was wanted for murder,,, he committed this murder while out on "no Bail" for committing another murder.
This is just a small sample,, Then one day the violent masses made it out to their suburb.

Brother moved to TN last year on a lake and could not be happier.

So why has NO ONE asked the NM gov why she is not clamping down those committing these "gun crimes" ?

How does one get released without bail for murder? Asking for a friend.

 

[johnkn]

Gov Lujan Grisham said no constitutional right is intended to be absolute.




WHAT? NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS INTENDED TO BE ABSOLUTE? f'n idiot


.

 

[AssMan]

Spoon is also making another point in his posts, although it probably wasn’t intentional. Let’s say Spoon is right and no officer will enforce this, the statement by the chief indicating that they would is enough deterrent for most, so they (leadership at least) are actively participating in this anti-gun scheme.

 

[Stoveman]

For your listening pleasure this video contains actual audio clips of the judge giving his finding for the TRO in the New Mexico case.

Link:

Outstanding, and from a Biden appointed judge no less.

 

[JohnnyE]

Gov Lujan Grisham said no constitutional right is intended to be absolute.




WHAT? NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS INTENDED TO BE ABSOLUTE? f'n idiot


.

While she is an idiot, the statement that "no constitutional right is intended to be absolute is accurate. We all have 1A freedom of speech, but that does not include liable or slander. We have freedom of religion, but if a religion claims it needs to engage in human sacrifice, the exercise of that religious tenant is prohibited, etc.

 

[whistlersmother]

While she is an idiot, the statement that "no constitutional right is intended to be absolute is accurate. We all have 1A freedom of speech, but that does not include liable or slander. We have freedom of religion, but if a religion claims it needs to engage in human sacrifice, the exercise of that religious tenant is prohibited, etc.

Libel and slander are civil items, yes?

I can libel and slander you all I want - gov can't restrict me from doing so.

You can take me to civil court for remedy, but its not a 1A restriction.

 

[Growler215]

Gov Lujan Grisham said no constitutional right is intended to be absolute.




WHAT? NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS INTENDED TO BE ABSOLUTE? f'n idiot


.

 

[JohnnyE]

Libel and slander are civil items, yes?

I can libel and slander you all I want - gov can't restrict me from doing so.

You can take me to civil court for remedy, but its not a 1A restriction.

But my civil action will be decided by the government's court system. My free exercise of religion example would be enforced by LEO's and the criminal courts system.

 

[teratos]

Gov Lujan Grisham said no constitutional right is intended to be absolute.




WHAT? NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS INTENDED TO BE ABSOLUTE? f'n idiot


.

This is true. In terms of the 2A, you can't own nukes.

What this DOESN'T mean is that the government can abridge the exercise of the right within the confines of what is traditionally recognized as behavior covered by this right.

 

[Growler215]

While she is an idiot, the statement that "no constitutional right is intended to be absolute is accurate. We all have 1A freedom of speech, but that does not include liable or slander. We have freedom of religion, but if a religion claims it needs to engage in human sacrifice, the exercise of that religious tenant is prohibited, etc.

I think human sacrifice falls under Oliver Wendel Holmes's principle that "your rights end where my nose begins."

 

[Worsley]

Imagine the fall out if she wins this. It would be fascinating to see how may “do not comply” folks, will in fact “comply”.