• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Mexico Governor (Lujan Grisham) Unconstitutional Order Sparks Calls For Impeachment

If you support Trump calling for overturning the Constitution in order to put him back in power Because Of How Terrible It Is

or

If you support Grisham in calling for overturning the Constitution in order to ban the carry of firearms Because Of How Terrible It Is

...Then I am utterly uninterested in hearing you claim to be upset about the other.



To the left-leaning folks in the thread who immediately came in and acknowledged that this was unconstitutional, stupid, and wrong.... :hat tip: Kudos.
 
We don't have these problems in godless, abortion-happy, whores in Babylon, beer soaked, tax crazy, immigrant welcoming New England.
 
She really screwed the pooch for herself.

There are many other less politically self-destructive ways she could've tried to stop the violence. But she decided to choose the completely stupid way.
 
Roadvirus said:
She really screwed the pooch for herself.

There are many other less politically self-destructive ways she could've tried to stop the violence. But she decided to choose the completely stupid way.
Click to expand...
AND earlier today, she doubled-down on stupid:

"Everyone is terrified of the backlash for all of these political reactions. None of those individuals or groups focused on the actual injuries or deaths of the public."

"They aren't dealing with this as the crisis that it is."

Lujan Grisham is right about one thing - There IS a crisis - a CONSTITUTIONAL crisis. On her part.

She must immediately be impeached, convicted, and removed from office.
 
Cool. Your burning coif is pretty. What other parts of your head are you setting on fire today?
 
reinaert said:
Cool. Your burning coif is pretty. What other parts of your head are you setting on fire today?
Click to expand...
Now there's a truly asinine argument.

If fact it's not an argument at all. It's just asinine.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." - Maurice Switzer
 
Okay…your post has some tijgs wrong here.

Firearms are not banned…you can still legally purchase and own a firearm, you can’t just walk around with it in public spaces, either concealed or open….

In certain places that meets a requirement of a certain level of violence…in which only a handful of areas in the state actually qualify for. And includes state government buildings.

If you have problems with the ban actually is, cool. Go for it.

But let’s deal in facts, for a change, and kick the chicken little act to the curb.
 
SkyChief said:
Don't lecture me, boy. You screwed up by claiming BS on something that wasn't BS.
Click to expand...

Triggered much? LOL. You did not quote properly and then did not actually give us your original source.

SkyChief said:
The sheer ignorance in this statement is ASTOUNDING. Of COURSE she banned gun possession. She banned carrying them in public.
Click to expand...

The sheer ignorance in this statement is ASTOUNDING. She did not ban possession. You can possess the gun in private, e.g. in your home. You cannot carry it in public is the only restriction she imposed.

SkyChief said:
The MASSIVE elephant in the room that all you gun grabbers ignore is that ...
Click to expand...

I never stated whether I agree or do not agree with her order. That's irrelevant to my point. My point was that you completely misrepresented what she did. Which is what you did, girl.
 
Slavister said:
Triggered much? LOL. You did not quote properly and then did not actually give us your original source.
Click to expand...
I quoted perfectly. You frustrated that I gave you a (figurative) spanking for foolishly accusing me of making it up " Apparently you made it up."

But I did'nt make it up. Lujan Grisham DID in fact say that, and I quoted her perfectly. I never claimed that the quote was in the link I provided, BECAUSE IT DOES'NT MATTER IF IT WAS IN THE LINK OR NOT. THE POINT IS THAT LUJAN GRISHAM SAID:

"Effective IMMEDIATELY - No person other than law enforcement officer or licensed security officer shall possess a firearm - either openly or concealed."

That is TOTALLY a gun ban, and her ban is 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Slavister said:
. . She did not ban possession.
Click to expand...
100% WRONG. She DID ban possession. READ HER ABOVE QUOTE.
Slavister said:
You can possess the gun in private, e.g. in your home. You cannot carry it in public is the only restriction she imposed.
Click to expand...
100% WRONG.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution provides a right to carry a gun outside the home.

Slavister said:
I never stated whether I agree or do not agree with her order. That's irrelevant to my point.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You claimed that I made stuff up. That was false. And then you
Slavister said:
My point was that you completely misrepresented what she did. Which is what you did, girl.
Click to expand...
The reason you will not post an intelligent argument is because you are incapable. You post nonsensical stuff that isn't even true, AND THEN YOU ACCUSE ME OF MAKING SHIT UP.

dude, you gun-grabbers crack me up!
 
Jason Warfield said:
Okay…your post has some tijgs wrong here.
Click to expand...
Actually, none of them do. They are 100% correct.
Jason Warfield said:
Firearms are not banned…you can still legally purchase and own a firearm, you can’t just walk around with it in public spaces, either concealed or open….
Click to expand...
100% wrong.

The governors dictate prevents citizens from possessing a firearm: Note the word possess.

"Effective IMMEDIATELY - No person other than law enforcement officer or licensed security officer shall possess a firearm - either openly or concealed."
Jason Warfield said:
If you have problems with the ban actually is, cool. Go for it.
Click to expand...
It really doesn't matter if I have a problem with Lujan-Grisham's gun ban or not. The point in the OP is that her gun ban violated New Mexico State Constitution (which allows open carry) and the U.S. Constitution (which allows open AND concealed carry), and she needs to be immediately removed from office via the impeachment process. She has demonstrated that she is unfit to serve.
Jason Warfield said:
But let’s deal in facts, for a change,
Click to expand...
Facts!!! I love facts! Everything in the OP is based in fact, contrary to what you lefties claim. The false statements and claims were made by you guys.
Jason Warfield said:
and kick the chicken little act to the curb.
Click to expand...
I'm not even going to ask what this means.
 
Last edited:
When I first read the Governor's statement, I took it to mean that a person cannot open / or conceal carry (possess) during the restriction period.
I did not take it to mean one cannot own (posses) a firearm.
I can see how some can interpret the statement the way you did.



Many States require a permit to carry a weapon in public (concealed carry). Some States like Arizona are an open carry State and reciently included concealed without a permit required.

Do you consider requiring a permit to carry (concealed or not) an infringment upon your right to own a firearm?
 
mike2810 said:
When I first read the Governor's statement, I took it to mean that a person cannot open / or conceal carry (possess) during the restriction period.
I did not take it to mean one cannot own (posses) a firearm.
Click to expand...
But she plainly stated that no person can possess a firearm (UNLESS they are a L.E.O. or a licensed security officer.)

mike2810 said:
. . . Many States require a permit to carry a weapon in public (concealed carry).
Click to expand...
True, but this has no relevance to the deliberate and blatant violation of the Peoples' constitutional rights that the NM governor ordered.
mike2810 said:
Do you consider requiring a permit to carry (concealed or not) an infringment upon your right to own a firearm?
Click to expand...
Of course.
 
SkyChief said:
But she plainly stated that no person can possess a firearm (UNLESS they are a L.E.O. or a licensed security officer.)
Click to expand...
and again when I read the statement it seems the law pointing to having the weapon on your person. Not saying you cannot own a weapon.
imo, the order is poorly written.
SkyChief said:
True, but this has no relevance to the deliberate and blatant violation of the Peoples' constitutional rights that the NM governor ordered.
Click to expand...
Do you expect the State to go to each house and confiscate the firearms?
imo, some are reading what they want into the order.
SkyChief said:
Of course.
Click to expand...
I expected you would.

So what is your solution to the gun violence in NM and other States?
 
SkyChief said:
I quoted perfectly. You frustrated that I gave you a (figurative) spanking for foolishly accusing me of making it up " Apparently you made it up."
Click to expand...

I said "apparently" since I figured you got it somewhere. She indeed said that and I stand corrected. However, I do note you still did not provide us the source where you ACTUALLY got it from.

In any case, my main point stands - your OP is a misrepresentation.


And yet that's not what she did, and if you read your own OP link, you'd know that yourself.

SkyChief said:
100% WRONG. She DID ban possession. READ HER ABOVE QUOTE.
Click to expand...

She clearly did not ban private possession but only carrying in public.

SkyChief said:
100% WRONG.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution provides a right to carry a gun outside the home.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing about Supreme Court rules. I am arguing with your misrepresentation. Her order does NOT prevent someone owning / possessing the guns.

Further, you did not state anywhere that this was a 30-day order, nothing permanent.
 
SkyChief said:
Alabama Governor Bentley faced impeachment because he used State money to cover up an affair he had with an aide.

His impeachment had nothing to do with voting rights.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?
 
mrjurrs said:
What are you talking about?
View attachment 67467756
Click to expand...
We're talking about the unlawful order that Governor Lujan-Grisham made. Her gun ban violates both the New Mexico Constitution AND the U.S. constitution - BOTH statutes state that a citizen has the Right to keep and bear Arms. - - without infringements.
Slavister said:
Her order does NOT prevent someone owning / possessing the guns.
Click to expand...
BULLSHIT.

The governor's dictate EXPLICITLY prevents the People from the possession of guns. The only individuals excepted from the dictate are law enforcement officers and licensed security officers.

The governor's dictate is in direct violation of the Second Amendment, and requires an IMMEDIATE impeachment/removal from office.

If Gersham's impeachment doesn't happen, then this will give the green light to other rogue gun-grabber governors to pass equally stupid laws/directives.

In order to preserve the Republic, constitutional infringements must be properly pursued, and upheld. Governor Lujan-Grisham must be impeached.
 

Lies. The governor's order does not prevent someone owning a gun.
 
Slavister said:
Lies. The governor's order does not prevent someone owning a gun.
Click to expand...
Of course it does.

Governor Grisham plainly stated that: "Effective IMMEDIATELY - No person other than law enforcement officer or licensed security officer shall possess a firearm - either openly or concealed."
 
Last edited:
SkyChief said:
Of course it does.

Governor Grisham plainly stated that: "Effective IMMEDIATELY - No person other than law enforcement officer or licensed security officer shall possess a firearm - either openly or concealed."
Click to expand...

That's not what the order DOES however... at least not according to the article in YOUR OWN OP. Guess you did not bother reading the article or you are having comprehension issues.

"Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, on Friday announced a 30-day ban on the right to carry open or concealed firearms in public in an effort to curb gun violence and illegal drug use in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County"
 
As usual, your nonsensical arguments fall flat.

The truth is that New Mexico Governor Lujan-Grisham violated her oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. We now know that the NM governor doesn't give a shit about the Constitution.

She needs to be impeached/convicted/and swiftly removed from office.

If this is not done, then other State Governors will attempt this crap. Americans need to nip this in the bud.
 
Slavister said:
It's literally in the article in your own OP and you are trying to pretend it's not!
Click to expand...
You're very frustrated - as you should be.

You're trying desperately to rationalize the misdeeds of Governor Lujan-Grisham. Of course, there IS no rationalization, and you are frustrated.

And you should be. You just CANNOT offer a logical explanation for Lujan-Grisham's unconstitutional dictate.
 
SkyChief said:
You're very frustrated - as you should be.

You're trying desperately to rationalize the misdeeds of Governor Lujan-Grisham. Of course, there IS no rationalization, and you are frustrated.

And you should be.
Click to expand...

I am not frustrated at all but sounds like you are. I am only laughing at you since you a desperately trying to contradict the article in your own OP. Nice try misrepresenting it though.
 
Slavister said:
I am not frustrated at all but sounds like you are. I am only laughing at you since you a desperately trying to contradict the article in your own OP. Nice try misrepresenting it though.
Click to expand...
Nah. You're VERY frustrated. Your position is flawed, and you've painted yourself into a corner.

You're desperate. There is no denying that. Don't feel bad - - - other gun-grabbers are as just as desperate as you!

Hopefully, the Constitution will prevail. The rogue governor needs to be impeached.
 
What the New Mexico Constitution says about gun rights: "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. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."

So yeah, she didn't just violate the US Constitution, she violated the New Mexico Constitution. As for impeachment and removal, New Mexico has the same rules as the US--a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. I expect she will be at least impeached if not removed as soon as the New Mexico legislature next meets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…