Sheriffs have refused to comply with requirements to detain people on the possibility that they were undocumented. Whether a public response is positive seems to be based on if the actions in question will harm anyone and what that harm might be.
3 Likes
That’s not, at all, what’s happening here, though, is it? No, this sheriff if refusing to stop handing out conceal-carry permits like so much candy on Halloween.
9 Likes
The worst explanation he gave was that he was concerned that the well regulated militia would cause political violence. If these people are so prone to violence that the Sheriff is afraid of them, maybe they shouldn’t be carrying guns?
8 Likes
Ah, I misread the article. I thought he was refusing to not hand out permits. Sorry.
2 Likes
Can the governor relive or charge him?
Cause 100% That’s what needs to happen.
1 Like
2 Likes
As an aside, did he make that uniform himself? With construction paper?!
Fine. Fire him for dereliction of duty. His job responsibilities are clear, and if he doesn’t want to do them, he should get a job elsewhere.
There’s someone else with red hair and a short temper who thinks shouting the loudest makes him the best and smartest.
So the Gov. says “no guns in public for 30 days”. This Sheriff says “no, I won’t enforce that”. Some people are saying that the Gov. doesn’t have the power to do so. So is this sheriff insubordinate or upholding federal law? Is his action the proper one? As I said earlier how the public responds seems based on who might be harmed by his actions, and what the harm is. At what point does such an order become unlawful?
Both branches interpret laws, If you don’t interpret the law, you cannot apply it. The Judicial branch makes legal judgements, based on preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt standards. Absolving the executive branch of interpretation of law encourages them to break it, because they no longer need to balance how the various parts interact.
Nothing about this is about issuing carry permits. The permits at stake here were already issued. They aren’t “can carry in this location from Sept 5 to Sept 15”. It’s all about piety signaling. The Governor has already stated that she knows the order won’t be followed by criminals.
In this case specifically, there’s SCOTUS precedent on point that what she’s trying to do is unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution. And unfortunately, there’s clear New Mexican Constitutional language that says she’s wrong under the state laws too.
And more unfortunate for her, she recently signed a Qualified Immunity reform law into existence, which means that any law enforcement officer can’t use that defense anymore. Sheriffs have to follow Federal law, even if they don’t enforce it, and when state and Federal law conflict, Federal law is Supreme. Not that it matters in this case, because both NM law and Federal law deny the Governor the authority to do this.
1 Like
I feel like there are a million textbooks out there that explain interpretation responsibility in the exact opposite manner that you are describing.
The police must interpret the constitution, in order to know whether what they are doing are constitutional, and must interpret the law, in order to know whether what they are doing is legal. This is especially so in New Mexico, which just obliterated the doctrine of Qualified Immunity.
But beyond that, you have the prosecutors and Attorneys General which need to do the same thing, in order to make sure what they’re doing will hold up in court.
And the New Mexican Attornery General has interpreted this the same way I am:
New Mexico attorney general won’t defend governor’s gun ban (nbcnews.com)
“Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster,” he wrote
He’s declining to defend the order in court. This is likely fatal to her order, unless she stumps up personally to pay for a lawyer to defend it.
1 Like
Well, I guess more kids will just have to die, because god forbid, we do the right thing even if it clashes with the technically legal thing… /s
3 Likes
Ummmm…
Lol
The end justify the means, right? Even if the ends won’t actually be accomplished by the means chosen.
That’s not what I’m saying, and I suspect you know that… I’m saying her point is to not have this policy stand, it is to make a point about kids being killed. If you think that is unimportant, and that rules lawyering matters more, than good for you. I’m glad she’s bringing this to broader public attention as a systemic problem that we MUST solve. We are LITERALLY killing off our children in order to preserve a man-made right. This shit isn’t handed down by any god, or the laws of physics. WE CAN CHANGE THEM. And I for one appreciate using her position to draw yet more attention to this issue. Maybe we can stop dicking around with debating the law, which is fundamentally, a thing we can and should change, and finally figure out a way to MOVE forward and save the lives of our children… 
6 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
