New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque

What a silly hill to die on. This is blatantly unconstitutional. That's obvious to everyone, even those of us who might agree in spirit. So it's just a waste. A waste of time and tax payer money. New Mexico is gonna spend time and resources on this that could be better spent elsewhere.
What's more it wastes political capital. Capital that is gonna be needed soon for the Democratic party. So I can't fathom why she's doing this. She just gave conservatives the high ground and a huge rallying call.
- With the current court, it is unconstitutional. Several states banned public carry when the country was founded including Virginia so it's not like that was unheard of at the time.
- 100% this. It feels like sabotage.
- Show me where the constitution gives you a right to open carry.
  Oh that's right, it doesn't.
  
  I love how effectively controversial things like this function like bug traps in drawing out the gnats - makes it easy to identify the low-effort trolls for a quick block.

A judge has already issued a temporary order to block the ban.
- Thank goodness, the murders can continue
  
  I know right, this governor should have made murder illegal instead touches forhead
  
  For a second there I worried my children could die without firearms!

Open or concealed carry is insane. You Americans are unhinged.
This is from a gun owner.
- Believing a politician can unilaterally suspend a right protected by both the federal and state constitution is unhinged.
  
  I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on carrying a gun in public
  
  Good thing open carry isn't protected then.
- I think the last time we cared about another country's opinion of how we live our lives was in 1775.
  
  We'd definitely be better off if we actually care about how countries that are objectively better in multiple metrics do things differently.
  Like oh I don't know, Healthcare. Plus the overwhelming amount of gun violence that doesn't exist in any other country than our own, the other ones are probably on to something.
  
  my God do you realise how cringe this statement is
  
  Well, how the people who haven't been shot yet live their lives at least.
  
  I wish I could give you a gold award.
  
  Hah, a classic!
- "This from a gun owner" is my favorite take on the "how do you do, fellow kids" meme.
  
  Well I own 5 guns and would never even consider carrying in public ¯(ツ)_¯

From what I saw, even the Democrat AG of New Mexico won't support or defend this in court.
- Yeah, she's also lost the support of many of her party members.

Goddam...we love our guns, though.

Finally, somewhere I might be able to visit there and feel at least a little bit safe in public.
- There's plenty of places you can feel safe in public.
  They're just not in America.
  
  You do realize hundreds of millions of people live here feeling perfectly safe, right?
  Life is generally not what you see sensationalized on TV.
- you think criminals are going to follow this decree?
  
  You think every criminal with a gun started the day as a criminal with a gun? The majority of mass shootings started that day as "just another perfectly legal person with a gun being allowed to carry wherever".
  Tell me how many of the last 50 mass shootings were done by someone who was already a "criminal with a gun"
  
  I mean, some of them? Plenty of people who shoot others are first offenders. And I'm sure even many dangerous people wouldn't carry a gun around if the mere act of carrying could get you sent to jail. Carrying being legal means that you can blend into the crowd of law abiding people.
  Nobody thinks every gun crime will be stopped with any single act of gun control. But they all reduce it.

“I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer,” she said at a news conference, flanked by law enforcement officers."
It's only temporary and there's bound to be exceptions.
Seems like she is desperately making a wake-up call to gun owners to come up with a solution to killings.

Easy there, we don’t want to make any militias feel well regulated.

Well, its kill or be killed out there. If you're the only one alive, they can only hear your side of the story

Literally unconstitutional.
- Yet there’s plenty of precedent at the federal and state level for places where carrying guns is not allowed. 🤔
  
  Specific places, generally, not open public places as specified in the article.
- Well regulated
  
  means well-supplied and ready to go on a moment's notice
  
  Shall not be infringed. As someone else pointed out there's already a TRO, this is just a political stunt.
  
  Is part of the dependent clause. Its reasoning.
  If you paid attention in English class youd know this
  
  Yawn, it's clear you don't know how to read literature from the period. There's plenty of explanation of the phrasing, indeed by the writers themselves in contemporary missives. But you don't really care, you already have your ideology.
  Go read any Jane Austen and you'll learn. Even better, the Federalist Papers, or the Adams/Jefferson letters.
- Literally constitutional. States can set the laws and regulations around firearms, as established by supreme court precedent.
  
  I look forward to seeing you proven incorrect by the courts. The TRO is already in place.
  
  The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.
  
  Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.
  "The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," Urias said during the hearing.
- There's already a temporary restraining order halting enforcement
- So is forced jury duty and the draft. But many can only count to two.
- I'm no expert on the US Constitution, but I was under the impression that the second amendment basically lets you have guns (well, something something well regulated militia, but that part is universally ignored by now). It doesn't say you're allowed to carry in public. I know states already get to set carry laws, which is why some states are open vs concealed carry. I don't see how this is much different. It's not like they're even saying you can't have guns at your home.

Just a reminder that the right to bear arms in public places was only established in 2008.
- Art. II, § 6: Right to Bear Arms No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
  New Mexico has it in it's constitution that carrying a firearm has been legal since 1911. Concealed was allowed in 2003.
- Only explicitly recognized in 2008. The constitutional amendment SCOTUS used for this ruling was established nearly 250 years ago and has remained unchanged since.
  
  How come it took so long if the premise was correct the entire time?
- The worst part about this dumb ass talking point is that it implies that the Supreme Court is the source of our inalienable rights
  
  By talking point, you mean how the US constitution was written and the whole point of the supreme court?
  Edit: Until congress does their job and pass legislation on these matters, this is unfortunately how the cookie crumbles.

Ah yeah... Not constitutional.
She's just doing this for her image.
- She's about to term out anyway, so she doesn't really care what it does to her.
  
  Ah I didn't know that.
  Well, grasping for straws, trying to say that she did something bold etc. Anyway I read in another article that a judge is blocking this