New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has issued an emergency public health order temporarily suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County.
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.
Only explicitly recognized in 2008. The constitutional amendment SCOTUS used for this ruling was established nearly 250 years ago and has remained unchanged since.
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.
Slavery was always legal and only after the civil war did restrictions come about (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). Ignoring hyperbole, it is a fact that the “well regulated” portion of the 2A was understood to allow for restrictions until Scalia made up a reason to ignore it, again in 2008.
Im not going to defend the way NY is going about it, but to say there is no history for gun regulation by States is ignoring history and stare decisis.
Also ignoring the web 1.0 webpage, why did Scalia argue that this portion of the 2A can be ignored? Cant the state pass laws to maintain the well regulation of arms?
You can ignore that source if you want, there are plenty others. But the fact remains that well regulated does not give the government the right to regulate arms.
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.
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.
Just a reminder that the right to bear arms in public places was only established in 2008.
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.
Only explicitly recognized in 2008. The constitutional amendment SCOTUS used for this ruling was established nearly 250 years ago and has remained unchanged since.
How come it took so long if the premise was correct the entire time?
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.
Slavery was always legal and only after the civil war did restrictions come about (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). Ignoring hyperbole, it is a fact that the “well regulated” portion of the 2A was understood to allow for restrictions until Scalia made up a reason to ignore it, again in 2008.
Im not going to defend the way NY is going about it, but to say there is no history for gun regulation by States is ignoring history and stare decisis.
Ignoring the metaphor cause yeesh.
But “well regualted” means and always meant something to the tune of well trained and supplied. "The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. ". And more importantly " Right of the people " and “Shall not be infringed” are clear and obvious.
Also ignoring the web 1.0 webpage, why did Scalia argue that this portion of the 2A can be ignored? Cant the state pass laws to maintain the well regulation of arms?
You can ignore that source if you want, there are plenty others. But the fact remains that well regulated does not give the government the right to regulate arms.
The worst part about this dumb ass talking point is that it implies that the Supreme Court is the source of our inalienable rights
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.
I mean that rights are inherent to being human, not bestowed by 9 people with law degrees
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.
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.
The constitution doesn’t bestow those rights, it just defines how the government interacts with them