springfield shooter

"...The group’s counsel Bhavani Raveendran attached the brief, in which she claims the Fourteenth Amendment amended the meaning of the Second Amendment...." Might be news to SCOTUS.

For those that maintain a prayer list, Judge Benitez would be a good name to add.

Thanks for the clarification.

So the state's word is as good as it's financial situation? Go figure.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't the fact that there would be "exempts" used as a selling point when this was passed?

People ignorant of their rights (and the constitutional protections thereof) are easier to control.

A lot of the country is still waiting for you to confess to your ignorance of (or more likely disregard for) the Constitution. In the meantime, thanks for bringing to the forefront the problem of elected officials using "emergency powers" in a dictatorial manner. Especially as it involves abrogating clearly enumerated rights.

Has there not been any "investment" in these communities to this point? How about "re-imagining" arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating the criminals running amok in Chicago? I'm just sayin'.

I admire the man's fidelity to the Constitution and SCOTUS precedent.

Biden nominee. This should be interesting.

What would be really interesting is if the NM state AG sued the governor to recover any judgement against the state.

What she calls "narrow readings" are the law of the land. Article 6, Clause 2 Governor.

Just another good reason for a gun safe with a dial on the front of it.

Hey Governor: Article 6, Clause 2. You are the small fish in a big pond here.

So, to reiterate: The Constitution establishes the federal government, and also sets limits on it's powers. Further, Article 6, Clause 2 establishes the Federal Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land". In other words, it takes precedence over state constitutions. The governor of New Mexico (hereafter "the governor") has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. The governor has stated that her oath to the Constitution is not absolute. But it is by that same Constitution...and not some monarch's supposed divine right...that she ultimately exercises power. Therefore, the emergency power that the governor claims to (but does not) have is, in her mind, allowed by a document that she plainly states she doesn't respect or feel legally bound by. But how then can she have this authority, if the Constitution is not legally binding? You can't make this stuff up.

So....if the criminals aren't going to follow the order, how is the community made safer?

Challenge to N.M. Governor's Ban on Public Gun Carry in Albuquerque and Surrounding County

And to pump up her Leftist bona fides. Of course, targeting legal gun owners does precisely that.

When these individuals declare that no Amendment to the Constitution is absolute (or in this case, the governor says that her oath isn't absolute....which in itself is an incredibly stupid statement), I want to ask them how they feel about the 13th. Legal challenges are apparently in the works. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/opponents-prepping-court-challenges-impeachment-after-governor-michelle-lujan-grisham-imposes-emergency-carry-ban/

We need to understand that there are those of the "political class" that would like precisely that.

Bush V. Gore was decided 12/12/2000, less than four weeks before the Electoral College was to meet.

IIRC, the time before counting and certifying the Electoral College vote was pretty short in that case.

Given their obvious....and vigorous....efforts to combat crime in the Chicago/Cook area, we can be certain that harassing law abiding gun owners is the last thing on the Democrats' minds.

Hard to see the 7th Circuit using a state precedent that clearly (per the state court itself) doesn't touch on the 2A issues. Not saying the state wouldn't try, of course.

Because he wanted to challenge the state on the way it does it's legislative business....correct?