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

[eruby]

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

What would Oliver Wendell Douglas say?

 

[spoon059]

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 " .

I'm still not sure you are understanding my point. I'll try to simplify my argument.

The Superintendent is a moron for saying that his agency will support an unlawful rule from the Governor that clearly violates his authority, based upon the US and NM Constitutions. If you want to vilify someone, have free reign at this clown for his public proclamation. The Superintendent is a politically appointed decision, and this Superintendent is likely more worried about keeping his job than following his oath. Verbally attack him at will.

However, condemning the ENTIRE ORGANIZATION based simply upon nothing more than the statement of a political appointee is a fools errand. Neither you nor I know if a single trooper would have attempted to enforce these laws. In fact, I understand that police in New Mexico no longer have qualified immunity, so they would be individually and personally liable for any arrest that is deemed to be illegal. Even the suck ups within that agency would likely have to stop and think REALLY HARD about whether this was the hill upon which they wanted to die.

I think the Superintendent should lose his job for agreeing to enforce such a blatantly illegal ruling. I might even be up for tarring and feathering him... but I draw the line at suggesting that the entire agency is full of troopers just frothing at the mouth to violate the Constitutional rights of the citizens. Until there is evidence to suggest that the troopers would resort to such action, it is not fair to paint them all with the same brush.

As usual, I have the audacity to request that we wait for and rely upon the FACTS, rather than burn the entire bridge based upon speculation...

 

[MigraineMan]

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.

Pretty universally, the restrictions on Constitutionally-protected rights come into play when behavior infringes on the Constitutionally-protected rights of another.

I have a right to property.
You have a right to property.
I do not have a right to your property.

 

[johnkn]

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.

It appears she stated: "NO constitutional right is absolute" What about the 13th amendment (abolition of slavery) , 15th (right to vote not denied by race), 19th (women's right to vote). etc.?

She's attempting to pick and choose bits to fit her (warped) agenda..... but we all here know that....

.

 

[Growler215]

What would Oliver Wendell Douglas say?

"Green Acres is the place to be?"

 

[Blacksmith101]

There are numerous threads on this forum that say to avoid getting shot by police do what they tell you to do. Now we have people saying don't do what the head of the police says because he doesn't really mean it.

I have no doubt the rank and file NMSP officer would be reluctant to actively enforce this law especially since NM enacted a law removing their qualified immunity from law suits so most would turn a blind eye. However, just like the Superintendent likely made his pronouncement in order to keep his job when the rank and file LEO is backed into a corner and given the same choice of enforce an unconstitutional law or loose their livelihood I expect the majority of them to do the same as their superintendent.

So do we need yet another poll to see how many are in favor of:

Do what the police tell you so you won't get shot.
or
Don't pay attention to what police say because they don't really mean it.

 

[RFBfromDE]

What would Oliver Wendell Douglas say?

LISA!

 

[spoon059]

There are numerous threads on this forum that say to avoid getting shot by police do what they tell you to do. Now we have people saying don't do what the head of the police says because he doesn't really mean it.

I have no doubt the rank and file NMSP officer would be reluctant to actively enforce this law especially since NM enacted a law removing their qualified immunity from law suits so most would turn a blind eye. However, just like the Superintendent likely made his pronouncement in order to keep his job when the rank and file LEO is backed into a corner and given the same choice of enforce an unconstitutional law or loose their livelihood I expect the majority of them to do the same as their superintendent.

So do we need yet another poll to see how many are in favor of:

Do what the police tell you so you won't get shot.
or
Don't pay attention to what police say because they don't really mean it.

Sigh...

Can't figure out if some of you are just obtuse or trolls...

 

[Blacksmith101]

Sigh...

Can't figure out if some of you are just obtuse or trolls...

Some of us are obtuse trolls that like to point out hypocrisy.

 

[rambling_one]

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."

He left the hearing room peacefully. Imagine the optics had he made a fuss, and had to escorted out by fellow troopers.

Admittedly my memory isn’t what it used to be, but I am of the impression Jack had intended to work a few more years, but elected to retire early after the fiasco. He is the only law enforcement officer outside of our heroic sheriffs who fully intended to make his displeasure known.

 

[Occam]

Can't figure out if some of you are just obtuse or trolls...

I'm not a troll and generally not obtuse. But I'd still like to know how the average citizen is supposed to know when the main voice of a law enforcement agency is lying about things. You, in your line of work, are WAY too close to the subject to see it from a normal citizen's perspective. They guy in charge of the police said they're going to enforce it. How is Soccer Mom Janet supposed to know he's lying?

 

[JohnnyE]

Pretty universally, the restrictions on Constitutionally-protected rights come into play when behavior infringes on the Constitutionally-protected rights of another.

I have a right to property.
You have a right to property.
I do not have a right to your property.

...but the government may use eminent domain to take our property, with "just" compensation for public use, but there have been instances where government has take property and then sold it to a developer to fix up a blighted area. Not so absolute after all.

It appears she stated: "NO constitutional right is absolute" What about the 13th amendment (abolition of slavery) , 15th (right to vote not denied by race), 19th (women's right to vote). etc.?

She's attempting to pick and choose bits to fit her (warped) agenda..... but we all here know that....

.

Good catch on the 15th and 19th, and the 13th does contain its own exception (...as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted...).

She should have more accurately stated not all constitutional rights are intended to be absolute. To the extent that they are not absolute, the exclusions should be as few, far between, and limited as possible. SCOTUS is conducting a wonderful 2A clinic right now.

 

[Bob A]

Pretty universally, the restrictions on Constitutionally-protected rights come into play when behavior infringes on the Constitutionally-protected rights of another.

I have a right to property.
You have a right to property.
I do not have a right to your property.

Unless the police pull you over and seize your property (usually cash) because they pretend to think you're a drug dealer, even if you have receipts and all the relevant information. Or they decide to take your house because some developer claims he can build something there that will bring in more tax dollars, or you and a few hundred other place your valuables in a public safe deposit facility and the FBI takes it all.

 

[eruby]

Some of us are obtuse trolls that like to point out hypocrisy.

I'm an acute troll (fold-ee-role)

And I'll eat you for supper

 

[spoon059]

Some of us are obtuse trolls that like to point out hypocrisy.

Then point it out. What have I specifically said that is hypocritical? Not your broad interpretation about what could have been or might be. Quote what I have written that is hypocritical. I will address any actual examples you provide.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

 

[spoon059]

I'm not a troll and generally not obtuse. But I'd still like to know how the average citizen is supposed to know when the main voice of a law enforcement agency is lying about things. You, in your line of work, are WAY too close to the subject to see it from a normal citizen's perspective. They guy in charge of the police said they're going to enforce it. How is Soccer Mom Janet supposed to know he's lying?

That isn't a point that I am making. You cannot prove something that doesn't exist.

Barack Obama apologized to the world for Americans. Although he was speaking for you, did that represent you?

Biden said that the biggest threat to America is white supremacy. Did that represent you?

The Superintendent should 100% be held to task for saying that he would ensure implementation of this unlawful rule. I would have zero ground upon which to stand to defend him. He should be sued for saying he would strip you of a God given right.

Trooper Jones, pushing a marked car on the turnpike, may or may not agree with the boss and may or may not enforce that law. He has zero liability until he actually tries to arrest someone for it.

To say that the ENTIRE force can't wait to violate your rights, simply because of the comments of the one moron isn't fair.

I heard someone in your line of work say that my mommy is fat, therefore I hate EVERYONE in your line of work. Doesn't make sense, right?



Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

 

[rseymorejr]

Let's have a moment of non-emotional ranting here. The appointed Superintendent of the State Police said that his department would enforce it. Of course he said that, he wants to maintain his appointment.

Not a single Trooper made any attempt to enforce it.

Just like when Covid restrictions hit and The Montgomery County Executive said that MCPD would enforce these Covid restrictions and be demanding Covid vaccine cards and arresting people for violating. Of course the Chief said that MCPD would enforce those illegal orders, because the Chief wants to maintain his job.

Not a single Montgomery County Police Officer enforced any of those orders and arrested a single person on those trumped up laws.

I know it makes a certain portion of the users here feel all good and sexually satisfied to bash the police at every turn, but it's getting to be like the boy who cried wolf here...

None of that matters. A certain percentage of people, hearing a police chief or superintendent stating they will enforce one of these ******** laws, will comply out of fear. The result is the same the right is infringed whether the law is actively enforced or not.

 

[ToBeFree]

Last I heard is that one can change the constitution. Not sure if you could hamper/nullify a previous 'right'. I'll leave that for better minds.

 

[RFBfromDE]

Last I heard is that one can change the constitution. Not sure if you could hamper/nullify a previous 'right'. I'll leave that for better minds.

Amendments may and have nullified/reversed prior amendments. See prohibition.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Then point it out. What have I specifically said that is hypocritical? Not your broad interpretation about what could have been or might be. Quote what I have written that is hypocritical. I will address any actual examples you provide.

Ok . In regards 21-22 .

Not an official press release to that effect , but enough multiple independent feedback , that MoCo PD , included municipal PDs , and SA office At Present will not arrest over otherwise legal carry , under 21-22 . If they're doing something otherwise actually illegal , charge them with that instead .

It's a tactical legal maneuver to keep the court challenges on the Civil Slow Track .

MoCo , thru their lawyers insist that they Can enforce it . And refuse to voluntarily commit to not enforce for the duration of court proceedings .

( Going hypothetical ) What if proceedings run their course , Or some Ofc goes off script and does charge , letting that cat out of the bag , and nothing left to lose on that point ?