Because he’s a lawyer who likes being a constitutional law nit?
Does the constitution says something about conceal and open carry?
I’m no 2nd Admendment scholar but I’m going to bet that there were some city in New Mexico that restricted guns in city limits in the 1800s or 1900s, probably Albuquerque itself, and that it won’t make a difference
Because the NM GOV’s position is insane, untenable, illegal, and should be purged from any self-respecting political body’s platform and message.
Ted’s tweet (and the near-universal firestorm in response to the Gov) is a very clean riposte to all the leftists that just want the Dems/Biden to exert unilateral control.
It ain’t work that way.
Why is it insane?
Try to think about the intended goal of disarming the public, and then think what would happen if the public was disarmed.
I don’t need to imagine it, I’ve been to several countries where it’s largely true.
Were any of those countries the USA?
So why didn’t you just lead off with we’re only counting the US instead of trying to play some college freshman hypothetical?
Like it’s one thing to say, look owning guns is popular, you can’t do unpopular things, instead of talking about illegality, constitutionality, insanity, and the like.
1 Like
Insanity - it’s perfectly sane, lots of cities did it in the past. Lots of cities and countries do it in the present
Illegal - this ties in with untenable but only because the law rests on popular support. Like lots of people like guns and they’re very passionate about it. The Constitution and the conservative movement have backfilled their arguments to say, actually the founding fathers thought everyone should have a gun, when a cursory look at the Constitution shows they weren’t concerned with it.
It’s a prime example of living constitutionalism. We’ve invented a right that everyone should have a gun because a lot of people want to have guns.
But since we can’t do living constitutionalism as a legal theory, that’d allow too much stuff in, we can only do it for this one (and a few other things) and do a sleight of hand and call it originalism.
8 Likes
It’s a very sane position that just isn’t likely to be upheld.
You’re all living in a bubble. If you can’t at least realize that there is no hope.
What the Gov proposed is insane to do in a country where if it was tried J6 would be a drop in the bucket.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the living or dead constitution or law; it is simple politics. You take millions of guns from crazy gun nuts and they don’t react like a reasonable Aussie.
It’s not my fault you didn’t realize the US was the topic when we’re talking about the act of a governor of a US state. That should be obvious.
That’s what I said though?
Like it’s one thing to say, look owning guns is popular, you can’t do unpopular things, instead of talking about illegality, constitutionality, insanity, and the like.
1 Like
I think it would be insane to do something so knowingly inciting. Obviously you hold a much higher opinion of the armory owning public.
A bit of irony in “let’s keep guns off the streets to avoid unnecessary violence” and then be like “uh you can’t do that, you know how violent people in the streets are”?
Things can always get worse
So now the gun argument is lost? In the past we couldn’t regulate guns because it wasn’t going to make a difference, there were too many of them out there that making laws against getting more there was ridiculous. Now, we can’t make laws regulating guns because the gun owners are too violent and will overturn the government? Fuck that. I don’t think there are that many people with guns and a willingness to take on the government. I think there are a relative few people with a lot of guns who never really end up doing anything with all their guns.
4 Likes