The Mayor, DA, Police Chief and County Sheriff have all said they won't enforce it. The DA stated it was blatantly unconstitutional and the Chief of Police stated that he didn't want to expose his officers to what was sure to be civil rights lawsuits. The mayor said it was straight up illegal and had no force of law.
New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque
- Thread starter armoredman
- Start date
The Mayor, DA, Police Chief and County Sheriff have all said they won't enforce it. The DA stated it was blatantly unconstitutional and the Chief of Police stated that he didn't want to expose his officers to what was sure to be civil rights lawsuits. The mayor said it was straight up illegal and had no force of law.
US Constitution is the least of her problems.....
New Mexico Constitution
Article II - Bill of Rights
§ 6 Right to bear arms.
Universal Citation: NM Const art II § 6
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
New Mexico Constitution
Article II - Bill of Rights
§ 6 Right to bear arms.
Universal Citation: NM Const art II § 6
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
Doc Intrepid
New member
There were many lessons-learned from the COVID panic, and the various decrees enacted by Governors via "emergency edict" powers:
Citizens could lose their jobs for not (wearing masks or getting vaccines) complying with emergency health directives;
Citizens could be prevented from earning a living (barbershops, beauty salons) or running a business with threats of expensive legal compulsion if they failed to adhere to emergency health directives;
Citizens could be unwillingly separated from military service if they objected to emergency health directives;
And all these conditions could be extended indefinitely as there were (and still are) very few limits on the capacity of any state governor to declare an emergency health condition until they see fit to ease their directives. The average citizen does not have the resources to fight state government-declared directives when the consequences are so dire.
One of the key requirements for sensible Americans going forward is to completely eradicate the notion of gun violence as a disease or public health problem - to be addressed as one would a virus or a bacteria.
It is a weaponized and pernicious effort by anti-gun politicians and organized groups to enable anti-gun efforts to be treated as a public health threat rather than a criminal threat.
Otherwise, look for the lessons taken away from the COVID panic to become far more common and wide-spread as anti-gun strategies.
Citizens could lose their jobs for not (wearing masks or getting vaccines) complying with emergency health directives;
Citizens could be prevented from earning a living (barbershops, beauty salons) or running a business with threats of expensive legal compulsion if they failed to adhere to emergency health directives;
Citizens could be unwillingly separated from military service if they objected to emergency health directives;
And all these conditions could be extended indefinitely as there were (and still are) very few limits on the capacity of any state governor to declare an emergency health condition until they see fit to ease their directives. The average citizen does not have the resources to fight state government-declared directives when the consequences are so dire.
One of the key requirements for sensible Americans going forward is to completely eradicate the notion of gun violence as a disease or public health problem - to be addressed as one would a virus or a bacteria.
It is a weaponized and pernicious effort by anti-gun politicians and organized groups to enable anti-gun efforts to be treated as a public health threat rather than a criminal threat.
Otherwise, look for the lessons taken away from the COVID panic to become far more common and wide-spread as anti-gun strategies.
LeverGunFan
New member
The NM State Police work for the governor, and I don't recall reading in any of the reports if the SP commissioner has said if they will enforce the order or not. So any protestors could be in jeopardy if the state police elect to enforce the governor's order.
Note the report does not say "carry" it says "possession." AND, its not limited to one city, but covers everywhere there have been more than 1,000 violent crimes (note it does not say "shootings", it says "violent crimes") per 100,000 residents SINCE 2021.
Note that a town with a population of 100 that has 1 "violent crime" meets this threshold.
When I lived in New Mexico I did some of the state traffic accident statistics. One of the lowest population counties would not-infrequently have the highest or nearly so traffic accident death rate per capita (I don't remember if this was reported per 1,000 or 10,000 persons) because 1) the county have very low population 2) was so rural that a traffic accident on the one "major" road could go undiscovered for many hours 3) response time one-way by helicopter to the nearest trauma hospital was nearly an hour. So even if discovered while alive and were able to get a message out (this was in the 80's so no cell phones) responses were often too late. But the same county would also often have the lowest rate because it would go years without any traffic crash fatalities because the number to crashes was low.
Another thing to consider, and I mean seriously consider is who and what we elect to the state legislatures. AND, where their loyalties actually lie. IT should be the people (and the law) but often it is "the party" and that is bad for all of us.
In my state, the governor was granted emergency powers, under existing law, for 30 days. After which, the legislature was supposed to reconvene and either authorize another 30 days, or end the emergency powers authority.
They never did. Unser Fuehrer...pardon me, our governor KEPT his emergency powers for over 600 days. Nearly two years, and NEITHER the legislature (the majority of which is the same party as the governor) nor the courts (which were virtually shut down for everything other than day to day law enforcement cases) did ANYTHING to enforce existing law.
And, even worse, no one will do anything to punish the Gov for violating the law, as he is "retiring" from politics at the end of his current term. Any court case brought now will almost certainly take years to reach a verdict, and even if he is found guilty (sadly not a certainty) no one is going to be interested in dragging that particular worm out of his comfy retirement hole for something that happened in the past and "no longer matters" today.
And, while I applaud LEO personel and groups for solidly opposing the new measure and stating that they will not enforce it, there is a drawback to that.
The drawback is that, if the law is not enforced, then "no one is harmed" and there are no "test cases" to bring before the courts to get them to rule on the law (or executive order). So legal challenges can only be brought on violations of legal procedures in creating the law, and those lack any urgency since "no one is being harmed".
Understand that I would not volunteer to be a test case, don't think any ordinary folks would, but without someone suffering harm under the law, getting it ruled invalid has a very low priority in our system. Basically if someone is being harmed, the push is to "fix it now" before others suffer the same harm, or worse. But if no one is, then it gets treated as an "administrative matter" which they will address when they get around to it.
Good for would be tyrants, bad for us....
Aguila Blanca
Staff
"Gun violence is an epidemic."
There you have it. The anti-gun forces have been pushing this malarkey for at least 20 years or so, with the AMA leading the charge. Pediatricians are at the front, so those of you who have young children need to be especially careful. You need to teach your children that it's NOBODY's business if you have guns in the house. Watch out for spaces on patient intake forms where they ask about guns in the house. As far as I know, that's not a medical-related question so it doesn't need to be answered. However, if you leave it blank they'll undoubtedly ask why, so IMHO it's better to just lie and enter "No." I don't think that's illegal, since you're not under oath or penalty of perjury when you fill out a patient intake form at a doctor's office.
Also, never allow a doctor to examine your child without a parent present in the exam room. Discuss with your kids ahead of time how they should respond if a doctor asks them about guns in the house. And, on a different topic, also be on the alert for pediatricians steering kids in the direction of gender dysphoria.
It's very sad but the truth is that in the United States today, you actually can't trust your family pediatrician (unless it's someone you know very well).
There you have it. The anti-gun forces have been pushing this malarkey for at least 20 years or so, with the AMA leading the charge. Pediatricians are at the front, so those of you who have young children need to be especially careful. You need to teach your children that it's NOBODY's business if you have guns in the house. Watch out for spaces on patient intake forms where they ask about guns in the house. As far as I know, that's not a medical-related question so it doesn't need to be answered. However, if you leave it blank they'll undoubtedly ask why, so IMHO it's better to just lie and enter "No." I don't think that's illegal, since you're not under oath or penalty of perjury when you fill out a patient intake form at a doctor's office.
Also, never allow a doctor to examine your child without a parent present in the exam room. Discuss with your kids ahead of time how they should respond if a doctor asks them about guns in the house. And, on a different topic, also be on the alert for pediatricians steering kids in the direction of gender dysphoria.
It's very sad but the truth is that in the United States today, you actually can't trust your family pediatrician (unless it's someone you know very well).
I no longer have children in the house, my youngest turned 40 this year, so that's not a problem.
I do answer when there is a blank that asks if I own a gun or if there is a gun in the house.
I answer honestly, and the answer I give is "no". I do not own A gun, and there is not A gun in the house.
If you were taught proper English, the article "a" is singular.
What worries me more, at the moment, is a State Governor (or any elected official at any, and every level or authority) who believes that their oath of office is not absolute, and is dumb enough to publicly say so.
If an oath can be modified or altered, any part ignored at the oath taker's whim (emergency or NOT) then the oath is non-binding and invalid.
Consider the implications of that. IF the SWORN oath of office is not binding, how can any sworn oath be, including sworn testimony in court. And, by extension all oaths or promises in general???
Doesn't that mean that no govt official, no police officer, no doctor, no ONE can be trusted because they swore and oath??
since that is apparently what the NM Governor believes, why aren't the police included in her "no carry" order???
Doesn't seem to be "equal treatment under the law" to me.....
Remember the Lautenberg Amendment (law) that turned misdemeanor domestic violence convictions into lifetime bar to firearms possession?? It did NOT exempt the police, or the military. It applied to them as individuals, on duty AND off.
Lots (some estimates run as high as thousands) of police officers (and military) were legally barred from having a gun, even in the official course of their duties.
WHY isn't the NM Gov following that precendent? Aren't these things that should be publically asked and responded to?? OR should that governor just be recalled and sent packing for politically terminal stupidity??
I do answer when there is a blank that asks if I own a gun or if there is a gun in the house.
I answer honestly, and the answer I give is "no". I do not own A gun, and there is not A gun in the house.
If you were taught proper English, the article "a" is singular.
What worries me more, at the moment, is a State Governor (or any elected official at any, and every level or authority) who believes that their oath of office is not absolute, and is dumb enough to publicly say so.
If an oath can be modified or altered, any part ignored at the oath taker's whim (emergency or NOT) then the oath is non-binding and invalid.
Consider the implications of that. IF the SWORN oath of office is not binding, how can any sworn oath be, including sworn testimony in court. And, by extension all oaths or promises in general???
Doesn't that mean that no govt official, no police officer, no doctor, no ONE can be trusted because they swore and oath??
since that is apparently what the NM Governor believes, why aren't the police included in her "no carry" order???
Doesn't seem to be "equal treatment under the law" to me.....
Remember the Lautenberg Amendment (law) that turned misdemeanor domestic violence convictions into lifetime bar to firearms possession?? It did NOT exempt the police, or the military. It applied to them as individuals, on duty AND off.
Lots (some estimates run as high as thousands) of police officers (and military) were legally barred from having a gun, even in the official course of their duties.
WHY isn't the NM Gov following that precendent? Aren't these things that should be publically asked and responded to?? OR should that governor just be recalled and sent packing for politically terminal stupidity??
Aguila Blanca
Staff
And if the question is "Are there any guns in the house?"?44 AMP said:
Well, the answer is still no. I don't have any cannons or naval guns, all I have is a few rifles and pistols. The difference was drilled into me during Army Basic Training: "This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon
https://www.koat.com/article/bernalillo-county-sheriff-gun-health-order/45082887
The county sheriff made some great comments today. To the point, blunt and candid, well stated. Crystal clear.
--Wag--
The county sheriff made some great comments today. To the point, blunt and candid, well stated. Crystal clear.
--Wag--
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's an unusually erudite sheriff.
LeverGunFan
New member
armoredman
New member
This is shaping up very interestingly.
Some comments from the New Mexico Attorney General, Raul Torrez, a Democrat:
“Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico’s chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence,” Torrez said. “Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster.”
"I encourage you to engage in a more thoughtful and deliberative process with members of the New Mexico legislature rather than taking unilateral action that infringes on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens while having little if any discernible impact on the underlying dynamics driving gun violence...."
"rebranding gun violence as a "public health emergency" will not satisfy the heightened judicial standard for a blanket prohibition..."
"the novel reclassification of gun violence as a "public health emergency" appears to have been adapted as a pretext...unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny."
“Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico’s chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence,” Torrez said. “Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster.”
"I encourage you to engage in a more thoughtful and deliberative process with members of the New Mexico legislature rather than taking unilateral action that infringes on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens while having little if any discernible impact on the underlying dynamics driving gun violence...."
"rebranding gun violence as a "public health emergency" will not satisfy the heightened judicial standard for a blanket prohibition..."
"the novel reclassification of gun violence as a "public health emergency" appears to have been adapted as a pretext...unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny."