This weekend in “The Party of Democracy”

[berryberry]

This weekend in “The Party of Democracy”

1. California passed a bill to take away custody of your ***** if you won’t mutilate them for the leftist tranny cult.

2. The Governor of New Mexico illegally and unilaterally revoked the 2nd amendment rights of her constituents.

[tommy156]

Unilaterally? Um, no. The emergency declaration was challenged in court, and upheld by a New Mexico judge. That's not what "unilaterally" means.

[eyecu2]

Just because Benny Johnson says it's a violation of rights doesn't make it true. That said, "no open carry" vs concealed is what was what I believe she put a moratorium on. Governors can do a lot of short term declarations and put a cooling off period for times when shit gets crazy. Things like curfews, shelter in place etc are common when there is an uprising or result of a threat to public safety in general. That said, she cannot mandate a longer time frame without state or local legislation voting for that. Sadly it seems that conservatives are more concerned about the capability of gun carry vs the deaths that are spiked in that area. It doesn't have an easy fix but a cooling off pd. Doesn't seem out of line, and even bringing in the Natl guard if the situation is deemed an emergency. Sounds like the "wild west" is living up to it's name.

[berryberry]

I should be amazed that ill informed leftists defend this illegal and unilateral act trampling the constitution. But we have seen before that leftists have no respect for the constitution

Here is the real funny part where someone looks really foolish now

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Just because Benny Johnson says it's a violation of rights doesn't make it true.
.
.
Governors can do a lot of short term declarations

When even far left Ted Lieu tells the leftists they are wrong, well . . .

Ted Lieu - I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.

[Devo]

They asked her if the criminals would quit carrying guns, and she said no, even she admits it was a useless act.

Bottom line is the people who have concealer carry permits don't cause crimes, they stop crimes, she should have applied the directive to EVERY cop and security guard, and then you would have seen a reaction far greater than what has occurred.

Hell, even Pencil Neck from Florida, Hogg, said it was too much, and wrong.

[berryberry]

Yep - and yet we have leftists here defending her illegal, unilateral and unconstitutional act

It is so bad that some Sheriffs in New Mexico have gone on record they will refuse to enforce her unconstitutional act

[tommy156]

Not illegal, nor was it unilateral. Words mean things.

[berryberry]

Bernalilllo County Sheriff John Allen calls New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s illegal and unilateral order banning concealed carry “unconstitutional” and says it will not be enforced

Kudos to him for standing up for the constitution and against this fascist Governor's illegal order

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by tommy156

Not illegal, nor was it unilateral. Words mean things.

... You left out "unconstitutional"...

... Why?

... Leaving out words surely means things also.

#### Salty

[tommy156]

Would you mind addressing the fact that it was neither illegal nor unilateral first? Or are we skipping over those obvious mistakes to go after a single potential misnomer? Whether or not it was unconstitutional is still up for debate. The others are not.

[Smarty1]

Well let’s see…

Illegal means in violation of the law
Unconstitutional means in violation of the constitution
The constitution is the supreme law of the land

An unconstitutional act is therefore one that violates the supreme law of the land. Hence unconstitutional implies illegal.

Unilateral means an action taken by one person without outside input. Who else besides the governor was involved with the proclamation? Agreement after the fact by a court does not change the fact that the ban was implemented unilaterally.

[tommy156]

The ban was upheld in a court of law. Hence, not unilateral.

And in an emergency declaration, the law may be temporarily suspended for any number of reasons. You realize it's all temporary, right?

[Smarty1]

It was ENACTED unilaterally. Only the governor had any part in enacting the ban, nobody else. The court upholding it occurred after the ban was already enacted. That is generally how courts work. They don’t take on hypothetical cases. There are no “How would you rule if the governor enacts a ban on guns” type of cases. The court will only rule on matters like this after having been enacted.

Unilateral does not mean illegal or even undesirable. It means that the action was taken by a single person, in this case the governor of New Mexico. Someone else agreeing with the action after it has been enacted does not mean it was not enacted unilaterally.

As far as temporary, we’ll I have read the Constitution on many occasions. None of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights include language that allows temporary exceptions in the case of perceived emergencies. While I agree that rights are not absolute, there is absolutely no provision for total suspensions of any of these rights under any circumstances. That is a dangerous idea, and one that both sides of the political aisle ought to agree should never be considered. Today it is a Democratic governor banning guns because of an emergency. Tomorrow it could be a Republican governor allowing police to search any person or any person’s property without probable cause because there is rampant drug trafficking causing an emergency. Such things should not ever be condoned by either side, not even temporarily.

This is NOT suspending a law temporarily. This is suspending a Constitutional right. That should never happen, not even temporarily. Don’t let partisan tribal affiliation blind you to the danger of actions such as this.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by Smarty1

Well let’s see…

Illegal means in violation of the law
Unconstitutional means in violation of the constitution
The constitution is the supreme law of the land

An unconstitutional act is therefore one that violates the supreme law of the land. Hence unconstitutional implies illegal.

Unilateral means an action taken by one person without outside input. Who else besides the governor was involved with the proclamation? Agreement after the fact by a court does not change the fact that the ban was implemented unilaterally.

100% spot on and accurate

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by Smarty1

It was ENACTED unilaterally. Only the governor had any part in enacting the ban, nobody else. The court upholding it occurred after the ban was already enacted. That is generally how courts work. They don’t take on hypothetical cases. There are no “How would you rule if the governor enacts a ban on guns” type of cases. The court will only rule on matters like this after having been enacted.

Unilateral does not mean illegal or even undesirable. It means that the action was taken by a single person, in this case the governor of New Mexico. Someone else agreeing with the action after it has been enacted does not mean it was not enacted unilaterally.

As far as temporary, we’ll I have read the Constitution on many occasions. None of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights include language that allows temporary exceptions in the case of perceived emergencies. While I agree that rights are not absolute, there is absolutely no provision for total suspensions of any of these rights under any circumstances. That is a dangerous idea, and one that both sides of the political aisle ought to agree should never be considered. Today it is a Democratic governor banning guns because of an emergency. Tomorrow it could be a Republican governor allowing police to search any person or any person’s property without probable cause because there is rampant drug trafficking causing an emergency. Such things should not ever be condoned by either side, not even temporarily.

This is NOT suspending a law temporarily. This is suspending a Constitutional right. That should never happen, not even temporarily. Don’t let partisan tribal affiliation blind you to the danger of actions such as this.

Extremely well said

It is just laughable how leftists support trampling our constitutional rights. We have seen it here. We have seen it with how they supported the Senile Biden Administration trampling American's First Amendment rights.

Do they never think this could not happen to constitutional rights they support if they continue to support Democrats breaking the law like this?