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
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 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
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 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
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 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)

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 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.

        • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would ask your source instead, but you haven’t posted anything at all, so I’ll just ask you.

          Do cops commit violent crimes at 1/2 the normal rate because cops are less likely to be arrested or convicted?

          Am I twice as safe in the presence of a cop if I’m the cop’s wife?

          Am I safer near a concealed carry person vs. someone who just isn’t carrying a gun?

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Do cops commit violent crimes at 1/2 the normal rate because cops are less likely to be arrested or convicted?

            Cops are less likely to be arrested and convicted for using force because they are trained on the specific laws governing the use of force. The travesty isn’t that the cops get away with using force. The travesty is that the government provides this training only to police, and not to the general public. The public is woefully and dangerously misinformed as to when the law says they can use force. The only training most of us receive is from employers, and they don’t teach the law: they teach a corporate policy designed not to protect people, but to shield themselves from liability.

            For example, the corporate policy during an armed robbery is almost always “appease the robber”. Give them everything they demand. Do nothing to protect yourself, the business, the money, etc. Robbers have taken this to mean that carrying a gun will ensure employee compliance. The lesson they learn is that the more they escalate, the less resistance they will face.

            The law does not have this same “appeasement” strategy. The law considers an armed robbery to be a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm to every customer and employee present. Anyone receiving or observing such a threat is fully justified in using lethal force to stop the threat. The person who decided on a “career” in armed robbery after learning corporate policies doesn’t even realize that they have placed themselves in grave danger from anyone who understands the law.

            We should be learning the law governing use of force in school, so every last one of us realizes that armed robbery is suicidal behavior.

            Am I twice as safe in the presence of a cop if I’m the cop’s wife?

            Easily.

            I don’t think you understand how high the rate of domestic violence is among the general populace. Cops are less likely to commit DV, but much more likely to be reported by their victims. The stereotype arises from this selection bias.

            Am I safer near a concealed carry person vs. someone who just isn’t carrying a gun?

            Assuming you are not committing a violent crime, you are far safer next to the carrier than the random persons. It’s not even close. The violent crime rate among the general population is an order of magnitude higher than among concealed carriers, and most of that violent crime is committed by individuals who are not carrying firearms.

            However, If you are committing a violent crime, you are in extraordinary danger from that concealed carrier.

            You need to remember that “general population” doesn’t include just you and your neighbors. It includes all the people living in those boarded up, abandoned homes located in that nearby urban area that you don’t dare stop in after dark. The “concealed carrier” cohort excludes all the criminals in those areas that make the place unsafe.

            • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It also includes the various degens that happened upon a badge and a gun because we hardly vet our police forces and legally avoid cops that are smart enough to disregard unjust laws.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Just out of curiosity, what “unjust” law should cops disregard?

                I mean, the idea is rather problematic. You’re arguing that cops should deliberately not follow certain laws; that they should specifically break some. I’d need to know which ones you’re talking about.

                One question I do have: why don’t you simply repeal these “unjust” laws, or at least challenge them in court? Then we don’t need officers deciding which laws to follow and which ones to break.

                Again, the largest problem is that the government only provides legal training on use of force laws to police. Everyone else is learning it from corporations, Hollywood, or (in the case of concealed carriers) from private instructors. It should be taught in high school.

                • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You aren’t wrong (necessarily).

                  Drug laws are the biggest one to me. People should have the right to destroy themselves if they are witting and prepared.

                  Cops already disregard the law depending on their own opinion. Going 5 mph over the speed limit is either a deduction on your license or a fine , depending on the cop.

                  What would be considered a lawful use of capital punishment is dependent on the cop, defending their evaluation of self-defence.

                  Cops have the legality and opportunity to alter their decisions, which means cops choose to enforce laws that disregard social normality or morality.

                  Also: This is America.

                  Half the country considers abortion murder and police violence as retribution. I wish we could simply change the way we do things to fit my or the average person’s opinion, but we’re a big country with a lot of people.

                  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    What would be considered a lawful use of capital punishment is dependent on the cop,

                    That’s an example of my point: your statement demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the laws governing use of force. The government has trained police on these laws, but they have not trained you.

                    First off, referring to it as “capital punishment”: the only entity authorized to mete out capital punishment is a judge and jury. Police are not at all involved in anything that can be described as “capital punishment”.

                    Police may only use lethal force in the same circumstances that you or I may use it. The law does not grant police any additional authorization to use lethal force. Such force may only be used to stop a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm to an innocent person. The only difference between you shooting someone and police shooting someone in an identical situation is that the government has expressly trained them on the law, and they have not trained you. So, when you articulate your reason for shooting, your explanation is very likely to miss some important requirement, while the cop’s explanation is fully consistent and compliant with the law. Your neighbor could be involved in an identical shooting, remain silent, and have his lawyer offer an explanation. I could be involved in an identical shooting, and articulate my justification the same way as the cop. Everyone of us - except you - would be deemed justified. But you, not having been trained on the laws governing use of force, could blurt out some irrelevant comment like “he needed to die” and be charged, because that comment suggested you had a mindset inconsistent with self defense.

                    The cops aren’t the problem here. The problem is that the government has not provided you with the proper training on the laws governing use of force, so you don’t understand the ramifications of what you say.

                    More importantly, because the government has not trained you on the laws governing use of force, you cannot accurately distinguish between a justified and an unjustified use of force. A cop, a lawyer, a juror, or someone else who has been trained in the laws can look at the situation and make an informed decision on whether the shoot was justifiable or not. You cannot. You can only make a decision on what “feels” right.

                    You need to be able to identify the law in question, and articulate your opinion on a use of force in terms of that law for your opinion to be sufficiently informed.

        • blazera@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 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
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            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@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 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
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 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.

      • radau@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 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@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

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

    • Apollo
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Less guns being carried around?

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • radau@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 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@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 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.