A gun rights group sued New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) and other state officials on Saturday over an emergency order banning firearms from being carried in public in Albuquerque.

The National Association for Gun Rights, alongside Albuquerque resident Foster Haines, filed suit just one day after Grisham announced the public health order temporarily suspending concealed and open carry laws in the city.

The group argued that the order violates their Second Amendment rights, pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

  • @radau@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    New Mexico requires you to be licensed to concealed carry doesn’t it? Curious what this accomplishes, how many licensed concealed carry holders are aggressors in a crime?

      • @chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        That is a very misleading link.

        Yes, sometimes CC holders commit violent crimes, and with millions of them out there the list is gonna be long.

        But the rate at which they commit gun crimes is way, way below the average person.

        If you’re in a crowd with 9 carry license holders and one random person and you get shot, odds are it was the person without the license that shot you.

      • @aidan@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        For a long time the push was “background checks” or licensing, “closing the loopholes”. Yet this blocks people who specifically went through a more stringent license process specifically when violent crime is more of a risk. (And according to the article I read that could be misrepresenting it, only violent crime - not even specifically gun crime)

        • blazera
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Youre showing me a story of a dead two year old as a result of negligent gun ownership. Yes im on the side of the gun control advocates on this one.

      • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Cops commit violent crimes at 1/2 the rate of the general public. Concealed carriers commit violent crimes at less than 1/10 the rate of the general public. You are twice as safe in the presence of a cop than a random member of the public, and more than 10 times safer in the presence of a known, licensed concealed carrier than a random member of the public.

        The license doesn’t “stop” violence, but it is an indication that the individual has never before been involved in violent crime (passed a background check) and has received significantly greater training and instruction on the laws governing use of force than the average member of the public has received. Those two requirements select a cohort significantly less likely to resort to criminality.

        • blazera
          link
          fedilink
          -51 year ago

          Concealed carriers commit violent crimes at less than 1/10 the rate of the general public.

          I dont buy it

          • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s not at all controversial. That is an incredibly conservative claim.

            The “general public” includes 19 million convicted felons and far more people convicted of violent misdemeanors. Background checks exclude all of these individuals from licensure.

            Throw a dart at the general population, and you have an 8% to 12% chance of hitting a previously convicted violent criminal.

            Throw a dart at the licensed carrier population, and your probability is virtually 0%.

            Keep in mind that recidivism rates are typically above 80%. One group has about 16 million ticking time bombs, and the other group has none. Your risk of violent attack is vastly lower from concealed carriers than from the general public.

            • blazera
              link
              fedilink
              -11 year ago

              All of those felons were previously not convicted felons. Any of them could have been convicted of felony gun crimes while being licensed carriers.

              • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                That sounds reasonable on first inspection, but it doesn’t actually hold up to scrutiny.

                The problem with that theory is that you have to be 21 (in almost all states) before you are eligible for a license. There are a few states where you can be as young as 18, but not many.

                The overwhelming majority of convicted felons had disqualifying criminal records as juveniles. They were ineligible due to their juvenile convictions while still ineligible due to age. They are members of the general population, but they never became eligible to become licensed carriers.

                • blazera
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 year ago

                  Alright i think the lack of citation’s gone on pretty long now.

      • @radau@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        While interesting info on that link, it is diluted by some of the statistics. Holding a concealed carry permit doesn’t make you more liable to commit suicide for example as you could just as easily own that weapon without the CCW.

        Overall does feel like a rather small list given the total number of license holders and a lot of the situations don’t seem to pertain to concealed carry. Now if the list showed every incident where a CCW holder escalated a situation and unjustifiably shot someone that would be another story.

        The license is to protect yourself against (ideally one) armed aggressors or someone with a physical advantage (i.e. someone attempting to assault a woman in a parking lot). That could be someone with a knife, blunt object, firearm. Nobody gets one thinking they’re going to stop a mass shooting, the odds would be stacked against you to stop a mass shooter.

        • blazera
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          oh boi guns are to protect people, we must have the least homicides in the world from all that protection we have.

    • Cethin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -31 year ago

      What’s the chances of a licensed car driver committing a crime?

      • @radau@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Well in California where I am, you have to be really stupid to not pass the driving test, so it would almost be more on par with open carry, which I’m not really against them banning.

        (Disclaimer, I don’t know NM laws I’m basing this off of Cali if they just hand out permits for a fee and nothing else then feel free to point that out).

        Concealed carry typically requires training, getting fingerprinted, interviewing with the Sheriff, and them ultimately deciding whether or not to approve it. It also requires a renewal every 2 years which is much more than drivers as you have to retake the training to renew.

        I do think driving should require you to at least take a basic test every few years though, a lot of people seem to not know how to drive.

        • Cethin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          The point is a license does not stop crime. I’m not disagreeing licensing should be required for firearms (probably in general, not just CC), but the argument licensing will stop it can be proven false by pointing out other things that require licenses yet are still used for crimes. They may prevent some, but it won’t be zero, so is not an argument against the city preventing it.