• njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a silly hill to die on. This is blatantly unconstitutional. That’s obvious to everyone, even those of us who might agree in spirit. So it’s just a waste. A waste of time and tax payer money. New Mexico is gonna spend time and resources on this that could be better spent elsewhere.

    What’s more it wastes political capital. Capital that is gonna be needed soon for the Democratic party. So I can’t fathom why she’s doing this. She just gave conservatives the high ground and a huge rallying call.

    • SeaJ
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      With the current court, it is unconstitutional. Several states banned public carry when the country was founded including Virginia so it’s not like that was unheard of at the time.

    • rambaroo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Show me where the constitution gives you a right to open carry.

      Oh that’s right, it doesn’t.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I love how effectively controversial things like this function like bug traps in drawing out the gnats - makes it easy to identify the low-effort trolls for a quick block.

  • deconstruct
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    A judge has already issued a temporary order to block the ban.

      • sudo22@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know right, this governor should have made murder illegal instead touches forhead

        • CoderKat
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think it’s quite an equivalence. When carrying firearms is illegal (as it effectively is in my country of Canada), you know whenever you see someone with a gun that you should run and call the police. You know they’re up to no good. In many US states, if you see someone with a gun… you kinda just have to deal with it. Maybe they’ll shoot you. Maybe they just need to overcompensate for something. You can’t really run from it because it can be so common.

          A decent amount of gun crime is also spur of the moment acts. They won’t go home, get their gun, and come back. The gun violence only happens because the perpetrator happened to have a gun when they were angry. Banning carrying doesn’t guarantee people won’t be armed in public, but it sure will heavily reduce it.

          • sudo22@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Criminals don’t open carry. If you see a gun holstered on someone, they are explicitly showing you they are not a threat to you unless you become a threat to them. If they wanted to harm you, why would they show their hand before making a move.

            Lethal crimes of passion are far more rare than you’re making them out. Carrying a pocket knife is legal in Canada no? Do you feel you’re in constant danger of being stab by any random angry stranger? Cars are common in Canada, do you flinch at every intersection because you aren’t sure if someone had a bad day and wants to run someone over randomly? No of course not, because the overwhelming majority of people don’t want to hurt anyone

              • sudo22@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Want and need are different. I don’t want to shoot a rabid dog that got loose, but I absolutely will before it bites me. Same with any other threats to my bodily safety that I can’t escape from.

            • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Did you see that video of the lady open carrying in Houston who started shooting at the car that cut her off? Hilarious. Sorry, you were saying?

              • sudo22@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Did you see the article of the Saskatchewan mass stabbing that had something like 28 casualties? Anecdotes are not indicative of trends.

                In a country of 300M you will have outliers. But there are hundreds if not thousands of carriers not hurting a fly for every article like this. Texas alone has 1.7M licensed carriers. So that ratio is actually probably in the hundreds of thousands to 1.

                • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  US has a gun problem. It isn’t really news. Unfortunately guns are ingrained into US culture and people will defend their right for guns against all common sense.

            • Worstdriver@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The problem is that the things you talk about are all tools. Including guns. It’s just that the primary tool use of a gun is to kill. If I see someone openly carrying a gun they are saying, “I am ready to kill.” Carrying a knife? “I am ready to cut something.” Driving a car? “I am going somewhere”

              Can those latter two things be used to kill? Of course. Anything can be used to kill, but that isn’t their primary function. The primary use of a gun, the reason why guns are made, is to kill things. And that makes all the difference.

              • sudo22@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Uh, yeah? This shouldn’t be a revolation.

                A family member of mine concealed carries because she was raped (I know a couple women like this but I know my family memeber’s reasoning better since she’s family). Do you want to be the one to tell her she’s being paranoid? I sure don’t.

                And if she uses the gun on a would have been rapist, blame the rapist not the person defending themselves.

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep. Waiting until after murders occur is definitely the right approach to curbing gun violence.

          • sudo22@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly, that’s why she should have made murder illegal a long time ago instead so the murders stop without the courts ruling it unconstitutional forhead touch x2

  • Poob@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Open or concealed carry is insane. You Americans are unhinged.

    This is from a gun owner.

    • sudo22@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Believing a politician can unilaterally suspend a right protected by both the federal and state constitution is unhinged.

      • Poob@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wasn’t commenting on that, I was commenting on carrying a gun in public

        • sudo22@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public. So its unhinged to ban these individuals from carrying thinking it’ll stop criminals.

          • Poob@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Again, I wasn’t commenting about the ban. Just the desire to carry a gun in public.

            • sudo22@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Ah gotcha. Its about wanting to be safe. Violence happens unfortunately, so I concealed carry to give me the ability to defend myself (and more importantly my partner) if I ever am faced with that.

              • SeaJ
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                No offense but that is extremely paranoid. I love in a not so great part of a major city and have never really felt unsafe enough to feel the need to carry. Hell, even my step dad, who was a police officer and has been shot at, does not feel the need to carry. I guess I could see if you live somewhere super dangerous like St Louis or Wichita but it seems a bit silly otherwise.

                Also, shouldn’t your partner be the one carrying of they are the less safe of the two of you?

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

                  I’m not in st louis but I’ve had a knife pulled on me for attempting to enter walmart. Luckily however the guy decided not to attack, idk if it had anything to do with me grabbing the grip of my carry pistol or not, but I’d imagine it’s pretty likely that’s the reason he started running away.

                  Paranoid or not, I was able to afford food for that night and avoid being stabbed, so I’ll just consider it my “good luck charm.”

                • sudo22@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t see it as paranoid. I totally agree with you its unlikely I’ll ever need it, but it costs me nothing to concealed carry where I can. Worst case my pants are slightly less comfortable, best case I save a life.

                  My partner is disabled and is of a very small stature which means I’m a far faster and more accurate shot so I carry when its the 2 of us. If theyre alone they carry a lower power pistol so they can handle using it.

              • Administrator
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                1 year ago

                sorry you feel unsafe in your country. You should move

                • sudo22@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Crime happens everywhere, some places more then others sure. But I prefer to have the right to the tools to protect myself, rather than just hope that I’ll never need them.

          • PoliticalAgitator
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public.

            Than the general public in America maybe, but legal gun owners in other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero, since they’re properly vetted through laws that aren’t dogshit.

            But even giving you that point, what about all the violent crime those permissive laws enable?

            Over 70% of mass shooters use legal firearms. Of the remaining, most are teenagers who took the poorly secured firearm of a family member.

            There is no magic gun fairy distributing illegal firearms. Every firearm in the hands of a criminal was either bought legally, stolen from a “responsible gun owner” who didn’t secure it, straw purchased or purchased through a loophole.

            Nevertheless, the pro-gun community opposes more robust background checks, mandatory safe storage laws or the closing of loopholes.

            And what does the public get in return? Mostly just shot because none of the pro-gun promises have come true.

            Good guys with guns intervene in 3% of shootings. The crime rate remains the same as comparable countries. The country is no more free when measured by any metric except guns. The government spies on and kills its own citizens.

            The gun laws are a failure.

            • sudo22@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t feel like writing an essay to address all your points, I don’t have the time right now I’m sorry. Ultimately it comes down to the fact the highest law (and most state constitutions) of the land gives us the inalienable right to arms. Period. (And no “well regulated” does not mean legal regulations)

              I believe we would be far better off dealing with the root of violence, like many European countries have done but gun control advocates like to only focus on gun control laws. People with financial, health, reproductive, and employment security don’t commit violent crimes. Things like labor protections, maternity/paternity leave, mandatory vacation time, physical and mental healthcare that won’t bankrupt you are some of the things that dramatically reduce all violent crime regardless of the tool used.

              Look at violent crimes in the US compared to the UK for things like murder using only the human body (ie kicks, punches, strangulation, etc), its lower per 100k in the UK and many other European countries. There’s no body control laws restricting how strong or trained your body can be, yet its lower. Its because people who’s needs are actually met don’t need to turn to or are driven to crime, our social protections in the USA suck ass and need to be fixed.

              • SHOW_ME_YOUR_ASSHOLE
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I agree with you. Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we’d probably still have just as many murders. There’s something else at play here that causes us to be violent. As a general rule happy people don’t kill others. Legislation to fix our social issues would go a long way towards reducing violence, but it’s a whole lot easier to just say “guns bad”.

                • PoliticalAgitator
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’ve built a idea of how murder works entirely in your imagination.

                • SeaJ
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we’d probably still have just as many murders.

                  Absolutely not. Your odds of surviving a knife attack are an order of magnitude higher than of you are shot.

              • PoliticalAgitator
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah sounds good. How about we take your guns now and when you’ve finished building all of that, you can have them back?

                After all, your post is clearly admitting that American society isn’t fit for the near indiscriminate sale of guns to citizens.

                • sudo22@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Because guns in America are used defensively at least 1 to 1 (this ratio is higher in some studies) with their use in crime. So no, until the crime is gone I want to defend myself. And once crime is gone, then who are you making safer by disarming anyone.

            • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              other countries have a violent crime rate of functionally zero

              The US isn’t far removed from homicide rates of other countries when comparing the rates.

              Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.

              • PoliticalAgitator
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Fun little exercise for anyone clicking that link: Sort by highest homicide rate and scroll down until you hit “United States”, counting the number of countries along the way that you’d be comfortable moving to and would expect to have a reasonably comparable quality of life to the USA.

                Was the number zero? Probably, because most of those countries are not doing well. Wars, widespread poverty, corruption, exploitation, poor educational and medical outcomes.

                I’m sure plenty of them are full of amazing people and cultures and would be great for a holiday, but they’re not exactly nipping at the USAs heels when it comes to GDP.

                Anyway, we’ve identified all the countries that are worse, what about the ones that are better? Keep scrolling down past the USA, still looking for that country you’d actually want to live in.

                Takes a while huh? You’d think with all the promises the pro-gun people make and comparative wealth of America, it would be firmly in the #1 spot.

                Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.

                Nobody is claiming that gun control will stop all violence. But the existence of violence doesn’t obligate us to provide quick, easy access to the means to escalate violence and maximise damage, even to people with a long history of red flags.

          • SeaJ
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a horrible selection bias though. That is basically saying “this group of people with no violent crimes in their records has a lower violent crime rate than the general public which does.” Of course they do.

            • sudo22@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes. You’re right, these people are vetted by the state and authorized because they passed BG checks and firearms proficiency tests. Which is why a law targeting this group is dumb (beyond just being unconstitutional).

              • SeaJ
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Definitely should have been in your initial point since I have often seen that point used by gun nuts as if they are some paragon of lawfulness. Permitted concealed carry owners are definitely not the ones committing violent crime in New Mexico. Can’t really say the same for quite a few other states that allow permitless concealed carry though.

      • Poob@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well I own 5 guns and would never even consider carrying in public ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nifty. Neither being a firearm owner nor count of firearms in any way invalidates the decisions of those who choose to do so.

          • Poob@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re right. It was only a side point to imply that not every gun owner is as loony as certain American ones.

            • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Unfortunately, the only loony stance here is that legally carrying firearms is somehow a loony thing to do.

              It’s always weird seeing how incapable some people are of considering that a different point of view is every bit as valid as their own.

              • Poob@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not all views are valid. That should be pretty obvious. I don’t consider carrying a firearm to be a valid view. It’s paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government.

                • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Not all views are valid.

                  I don’t consider carrying a firearm to be a valid view.

                  It’s interesting that you seem incapable of considering yours may be the invalid view.

                  It’s paranoia on the level of believing lizard people run government.

                  I’d argue being so terrified of the possibility someone might be legally carrying a firearm to, itself, be the indicator of paranoia.

      • Soulg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’d definitely be better off if we actually care about how countries that are objectively better in multiple metrics do things differently.

        Like oh I don’t know, Healthcare. Plus the overwhelming amount of gun violence that doesn’t exist in any other country than our own, the other ones are probably on to something.

      • PoliticalAgitator
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, how the people who haven’t been shot yet live their lives at least.

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Finally, somewhere I might be able to visit there and feel at least a little bit safe in public.

    • PoliticalAgitator
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s plenty of places you can feel safe in public.

      They’re just not in America.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You do realize hundreds of millions of people live here feeling perfectly safe, right?

        Life is generally not what you see sensationalized on TV.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You think every criminal with a gun started the day as a criminal with a gun? The majority of mass shootings started that day as “just another perfectly legal person with a gun being allowed to carry wherever”.

        Tell me how many of the last 50 mass shootings were done by someone who was already a “criminal with a gun”

        • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is some mental gymnastics. How many days started with someone intending on drunk driving? how many days started with someone intending on smashing someones face with a hammer. good lord, by your logic we are ALL criminals just waiting to happen. quick someone call Tom Cruise and the Pre-crime unit.

      • CoderKat
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, some of them? Plenty of people who shoot others are first offenders. And I’m sure even many dangerous people wouldn’t carry a gun around if the mere act of carrying could get you sent to jail. Carrying being legal means that you can blend into the crowd of law abiding people.

        Nobody thinks every gun crime will be stopped with any single act of gun control. But they all reduce it.

  • tastysnacks@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, its kill or be killed out there. If you’re the only one alive, they can only hear your side of the story

  • rayyyy@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    “I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer,” she said at a news conference, flanked by law enforcement officers."
    It’s only temporary and there’s bound to be exceptions.
    Seems like she is desperately making a wake-up call to gun owners to come up with a solution to killings.

    • eric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yet there’s plenty of precedent at the federal and state level for places where carrying guns is not allowed. 🤔

      • Throwaway
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is part of the dependent clause. Its reasoning.

        If you paid attention in English class youd know this

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              How convenient, the words that dont matter are the ones you dont want to matter

              • transigence@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Let me try to explain:
                The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it’s ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn’t written to restrict the rights of the people.
                The prefatory clause is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…,” which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you’re blue in the face about how “well regulated militia” was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it’s not part of the operative clause.
                “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It’s hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don’t want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it’s intuitive.

                • blazera@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  13
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Its still not empty words, it is intent, which we supposedly have a history of using when interpreting the constitution for modern cases.

                  and you don’t want to get shot.

                  I dont think America is the place to be if you dont want to get shot. Did you write this thinking we have a good track record or something?

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

            A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

            In the above sentence, who has the right to keep and eat food, “the people,” or “a well balanced breakfast?”

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So if you skip breakfast you don’t deserve the right to food? No lunch or dinner? Snacks ist verboten?

                It clearly says the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. You know you’re wrong.

                • blazera@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The hell is this weird strawman. Im not arguing against food im telling you how a sentence is written. As written, a balanced breakfast is the entire reason people have the right to food.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You wrote a dumb shit sentence because the militia is the cause of the clause that follows in this stance, and in your example a breakfast is not the cause for keeping food but rather breakfast food.

                  You made a bad example and declared it victory lol

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

          Your right to bear arms is not infringed by specific controls.

          You have a right to freedom of religion but local codes still come into okay for sacrifices/burnt offerings/etc.

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

            Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.

            “The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” Urias said during the hearing.

      • CatWhoMustNotBeNamed@geddit.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yawn, it’s clear you don’t know how to read literature from the period. There’s plenty of explanation of the phrasing, indeed by the writers themselves in contemporary missives. But you don’t really care, you already have your ideology.

        Go read any Jane Austen and you’ll learn. Even better, the Federalist Papers, or the Adams/Jefferson letters.

        • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or more specifically, Federalist #29, which argued that the US should not have a standing military. THAT was the reasoning behind 2A. Of course our forebears learned pretty quickly that was a dumb ass hill to die on, and we have a huge standing military. The reasons for the 2A have been buried in progress, yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their guns in fear that the big bad world will touch them.

          • CatWhoMustNotBeNamed@geddit.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks for finding which paper it was… I have a copy but didn’t feel like finding it and finding the right paper. Call me lazy 🤷‍♂️

            And in the end, they codified what they saw as a natural, inborn, individual right. That wasn’t by accident - Jefferson was very intentional in the words he chose (and they argued over, properly). Knowing the language had to be clear and concise, this is what resulted. It’s pretty clear if you’ve read anything from 1600 onward.

            Some of how the writing of the time (and place, Britain) flows is, I suspect, partly an influence of French language that some also knew - “twenty and four years” is clear French construction, not English at all. Keeping in mind that before Shakespeare, the “English language” such as it was, was considered beneath “proper” Brits. Shakespeare marks the beginning of that change, so the French language influence carried on for a long time among the upper classes as a distinction.

            It’s pretty interesting to see this same kind of complex construction (from our perspective) in period writings, but also in many science papers today, where complex ideas are strung together in paragraph-long sentences in an attempt to capture the detail and nuance. Medical journals are particularly guilty of this.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their gun

            I’d argue the scared neanderthals are the ones pants-shittingly terrified of imagine objects.

          • transigence@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it’s just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn’t dangerous is mental illness.

      • transigence@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is patently false. Take a look at all the restrictions on the 1st amendment. I’m not allowed to walk into congressional chambers and scream at the top of my lungs in protest am I?

          • transigence@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.

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

              If you possess any right to any firearm whatsoever, your right to bear arms has not been infringed.

              The type of “arms” are unspecified.

              To think anything else is to simply not have a functioning grasp on sanity.

        • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          All that would mean is that there is a current disagreement. The assault weapons ban was constitutional. California’s regulations on firearms is constitutional. Those are all court rulings with a lot more gravitas than a NM TRO.

          There is no right via the second amendment for the unregulated possession or carry of firearms, just like there is no right in the first amendment to unlimited free speech. Those are interpretations that are entirely grounded in an optimistic layperson’s interpretation of what a multi century old complex body of laws actually should mean, rather than the actual legal interpretations.

          The government tightly regulates speech. It’s allowed to, over-generous interpretations of the First be damned. It is the same thing with firearms.

          It’s culture war bullshit that will go back and forth for another century if we last that long. The pendulum is currently in a pro-gun direction. At some point it will swing back and we will have a federal ban on weapons and mag caps again.

          The problem of course is the American gun fetish, not the guns themselves. As long as people culturally fetishize guns as symbols of freedom and masculinity, we’re going to have this. It’s got an intersection with Southern and African American honor culture that escalated violence, and an increasing intersection with right wing domestic terrorism, which in turn informs mass shootings. But it’s easier to do an ineffective gun ban than address that.

          • JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, that’s a nice wall of text, but it isn’t going to make this order any more constitutional. Law enforcement isn’t enforcing it, and the state AG isn’t even defending it apparently.

      • JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.

        “The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” Urias said during the hearing.

        • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you take every district court decision to be the last word on what is or isn’t constitutional, or do you wait for the supreme court to rule?

          What is “constitutional” changes all the time. The AWB was constitutional. Mag limits were constitutional. Background checks are constitutional.

          At some point, this may be found to be constitutional, or not, but it’s not like the constitution is some unchanging document, and it certainly doesn’t mean that federal or state governments cannot restrict who can buy which firearms under which conditions, or regulate how they may be legally carried. That’s been the case forever.

    • nothing
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s already a temporary restraining order halting enforcement

    • CoderKat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m no expert on the US Constitution, but I was under the impression that the second amendment basically lets you have guns (well, something something well regulated militia, but that part is universally ignored by now). It doesn’t say you’re allowed to carry in public. I know states already get to set carry laws, which is why some states are open vs concealed carry. I don’t see how this is much different. It’s not like they’re even saying you can’t have guns at your home.

    • sith_lord_zitro@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Art. II, § 6: Right to Bear Arms 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.

      New Mexico has it in it’s constitution that carrying a firearm has been legal since 1911. Concealed was allowed in 2003.

    • sudo22@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only explicitly recognized in 2008. The constitutional amendment SCOTUS used for this ruling was established nearly 250 years ago and has remained unchanged since.

        • sudo22@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          CC/OC has always been legal in the US and only after the civil war did laws restricting carry start to pop up (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). NY recently used a law restricting the rights of Catholics and Native Americans as a historical justification for their CC restrictions. The state laws took awhile (and the fear of some groups carrying to subside) to become infringing enough before law suits began. Someone needed to sue and be able appeal enough times in order to be heard by the SCOTUS, which is difficult and time consuming. But the ruling SCOTUS made isn’t what makes CC legal, it is a firm statement that it always was legal and laws infringing on that have always been unconstitutional.

    • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The worst part about this dumb ass talking point is that it implies that the Supreme Court is the source of our inalienable rights

      • Rodsterlings_cig@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        By talking point, you mean how the US constitution was written and the whole point of the supreme court?

        Edit: Until congress does their job and pass legislation on these matters, this is unfortunately how the cookie crumbles.

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            They’re only declared inherent human rights on the very same sheet of paper that defines the rights and codifies them into law. Without the government backing them, they don’t mean anything and are just words written on a piece of paper.

            • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The constitution doesn’t bestow those rights, it just defines how the government interacts with them

          • Rodsterlings_cig@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree in principle, but not in totality (largely due to bad faith arguements). Everyone should have the right to privacy and basic essentials, to carry a glock around wherever not so much.

  • Turbo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah yeah… Not constitutional.

    She’s just doing this for her image.

      • Turbo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah I didn’t know that.

        Well, grasping for straws, trying to say that she did something bold etc. Anyway I read in another article that a judge is blocking this