I can't believe that nobody has posted about this. Evidently the Governor of New Mexico
issued an order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least 30 days. This applies to both open and concealed carry as well as to those law abiding citizens that posses a permit.
This order is clearly a violation of The Constitution, but in addition to that she seems to think that "
no Constitutional rights are fixed, including her oath".
Her direct quote:
Quote:"No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute," she retorted. Grisham cited restrictions on free speech as an example of how rights can be curtailed in emergency situations
Talk about ground for impeachment... Thankfully for the citizens of Bernalillo County the Sheriff, Police Chief nor the District Attorney are backing her up.
The bottom line is that none of the shootings that she references was carried out by a law abiding citizen. This is nothing more that just another liberal gun grab.
It was in the let's talk about thread. I agree its needs its own thread.
Roughly speaking, yes, in an emergency, certain constitutional rights and duties are curtailed. The civil war is the most obvious example of that.
Does a spate of random shootings give the governor of NM the power to declare an emergency and suspend gun rights? Of course not.
(09-14-2023, 03:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It was in the let's talk about thread. I agree its needs its own thread.
Roughly speaking, yes, in an emergency, certain constitutional rights and duties are curtailed. The civil war is the most obvious example of that.
Does a spate of random shootings give the governor of NM the power to declare an emergency and suspend gun rights? Of course not.
Why does it not surprise me that a far-left democrat like you thinks that Constitutional Rights could ever be curtailed?
(09-14-2023, 03:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It was in the let's talk about thread. I agree its needs its own thread.
Roughly speaking, yes, in an emergency, certain constitutional rights and duties are curtailed. The civil war is the most obvious example of that.
Does a spate of random shootings give the governor of NM the power to declare an emergency and suspend gun rights? Of course not.
Give me an example of said emergencies when it's okay for certain constitutional rights and duties to be curtailed.
(09-14-2023, 04:41 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2023, 03:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It was in the let's talk about thread. I agree its needs its own thread.
Roughly speaking, yes, in an emergency, certain constitutional rights and duties are curtailed. The civil war is the most obvious example of that.
Does a spate of random shootings give the governor of NM the power to declare an emergency and suspend gun rights? Of course not.
Give me an example of said emergencies when it's okay for certain constitutional rights and duties to be curtailed.
The right to a speedy trial and the right to face your accusers was severely curtailed by the civil war from 1861 to 1876. As I said above.
(09-14-2023, 04:28 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2023, 03:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It was in the let's talk about thread. I agree its needs its own thread.
Roughly speaking, yes, in an emergency, certain constitutional rights and duties are curtailed. The civil war is the most obvious example of that.
Does a spate of random shootings give the governor of NM the power to declare an emergency and suspend gun rights? Of course not.
Why does it not surprise me that a far-left democrat like you thinks that Constitutional Rights could ever be curtailed?
You should really change your avatar.
(09-14-2023, 06:07 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2023, 04:41 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]Give me an example of said emergencies when it's okay for certain constitutional rights and duties to be curtailed.
The right to a speedy trial and the right to face your accusers was severely curtailed by the civil war from 1861 to 1876. As I said above.
(09-14-2023, 04:28 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Why does it not surprise me that a far-left democrat like you thinks that Constitutional Rights could ever be curtailed?
You should really change your avatar.
Violating the Constitution is not justified by saying they violated the Constitution.
(09-14-2023, 06:14 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2023, 06:07 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The right to a speedy trial and the right to face your accusers was severely curtailed by the civil war from 1861 to 1876. As I said above.
You should really change your avatar.
Violating the Constitution is not justified by saying they violated the Constitution.
Not everything that happened in the past is justified, of course. I don't want to get too far in the weeds before I remind you that I agree with all of you that this particular violation today in New Mexico was not justified.
(09-14-2023, 06:19 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2023, 06:14 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Violating the Constitution is not justified by saying they violated the Constitution.
Not everything that happened in the past is justified, of course. I don't want to get too far in the weeds before I remind you that I agree with all of you that this particular violation today in New Mexico was not justified.
That still means you think there are circumstances that do justify it.
(09-14-2023, 07:43 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2023, 06:19 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Not everything that happened in the past is justified, of course. I don't want to get too far in the weeds before I remind you that I agree with all of you that this particular violation today in New Mexico was not justified.
That still means you think there are circumstances that do justify it.
You don't think fighting the civil war required imposing martial law in certain areas?
(09-14-2023, 09:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2023, 07:43 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]That still means you think there are circumstances that do justify it.
You don't think fighting the civil war required imposing martial law in certain areas?
Of course not, I believe the Sovreign States each have the right to secession. Any other position in this matter is to deny the right to free association.
(09-14-2023, 10:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2023, 09:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You don't think fighting the civil war required imposing martial law in certain areas?
Of course not, I believe the Sovreign States each have the right to secession. Any other position in this matter is to deny the right to free association.
At least my position denies the right to own other people.
I don't know... there have been times in our past when that was allowed. Doesn't that prove its legitimacy?
New Mexico governor says Republicans should 'thank' her as tensions flare over Democrat's sweeping gun order
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's gun order in the state capital has been criticized by Republicans and even members of her own party
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham says state Republicans are fundraising off her back amid her controversial gun order in the state's capital that has riled the GOP, members of her own party and gun rights groups.
"I’m still waiting on a thank-you note from the New Mexico GOP," she wrote Thursday on X, formerly known as Twitter. "Way to use my call to action around gun violence as a fundraiser instead of using it as an opportunity for immediate action to save New Mexican lives."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-mex...-gun-order
Wait. I thought our former president and his supporters wanted to abolish the Constitution. Why would violating the Constitution matter to those that desire to abolish the Constitution?
(09-15-2023, 08:20 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Wait. I thought our former president and his supporters wanted to abolish the Constitution. Why would violating the Constitution matter to those that desire to abolish the Constitution?
You thought wrong unless you meant Barry and Mike Obama. We know you meant Trump, but they merely want the actual Constitution upheld via corruption free elections rather than that 2020 sham that gave us The Vegetable.
(09-15-2023, 12:08 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know... there have been times in our past when that was allowed. Doesn't that prove its legitimacy?
Just like Joe's underwear, it depends.
FSG already put his cards on the table. What do you think? Was suspending parts of the Constitution in order to fight the civil war legitimate and/or justified?
(09-15-2023, 08:31 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-15-2023, 08:20 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Wait. I thought our former president and his supporters wanted to abolish the Constitution. Why would violating the Constitution matter to those that desire to abolish the Constitution?
You thought wrong unless you meant Barry and Mike Obama. We know you meant Trump, but they merely want the actual Constitution upheld via corruption free elections rather than that 2020 sham that gave us The Vegetable.
Glad to see the Spin Doctors are live and well.
(09-14-2023, 10:55 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2023, 10:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Of course not, I believe the Sovereign States each have the right to secession. Any other position in this matter is to deny the right to free association.
At least my position denies the right to own other people.
That's nice but irrelevant to the question of suspending the Constitution.
(09-15-2023, 09:08 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (09-15-2023, 08:31 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You thought wrong unless you meant Barry and Mike Obama. We know you meant Trump, but they merely want the actual Constitution upheld via corruption free elections rather than that 2020 sham that gave us The Vegetable.
Glad to see the Spin Doctors are live and well.
![[Image: rDw1D8.gif]](https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-10-2021/rDw1D8.gif)
(09-15-2023, 09:57 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2023, 10:55 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]At least my position denies the right to own other people.
That's nice but irrelevant to the question of suspending the Constitution.
(09-15-2023, 09:08 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Glad to see the Spin Doctors are live and well.
It's completely relevant.
Actions should be judged by their motives (or virtues) and by their results (utility, consequence) as well as the rules they broke (deontology, rights).
Wait until you guys find out that 4th amendment rights are partially suspended within 100 miles of the Mexican border. It's been that way for decades.