New Mexico Governor's Comment on Constitution Sparks Debate Over Gun Control

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has sparked a debate over gun control after she said that the Constitution is not "absolute" in the wake of her executive order suspending the right to carry firearms in public in Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least 30 days in response to a spate of gun violence.

🔊 Click play button to listen

New Mexico State Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham was ripped on social media for saying that no Constitutional rights were "absolute." ((Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images))

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and gun rights groups argue that this right is absolute. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is not unlimited, and that the government can regulate firearms in certain ways.

Governor Grisham has argued that the gun violence in Albuquerque is a public health emergency, and that the order is necessary to protect public safety. She has said that the order is only temporary, and that it will be lifted once the gun violence in Albuquerque has subsided.

The legal battle over the order is likely to continue. Gun rights groups have already filed a lawsuit challenging the order, and it is possible that the case will end up in the Supreme Court.

Governor Grisham's comment that the Constitution is not "absolute" has been met with criticism from some legal experts, who argue that it is a dangerous precedent to set. However, others have defended the governor, arguing that she is simply acknowledging the reality that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

The issue of gun control is a complex and controversial one, and there is no easy answer. There are strong arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. It is important to weigh the potential benefits of gun control measures against the potential infringement on Second Amendment rights.

Here are some of the arguments for and against the governor's order:

Arguments for:

• The gun violence in Albuquerque is a serious problem, and the order is necessary to protect public safety.
• The order is only temporary, and it will be lifted once the gun violence in Albuquerque has subsided.
• The government has a legitimate interest in regulating firearms to protect public safety.

Arguments against:

• The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, and the order violates this right.
• The order is unlikely to be effective in reducing gun violence.
• The order will only punish law-abiding citizens, while criminals will still be able to get their hands on guns.

It is still too early to say what the ultimate outcome of the legal challenges to the order will be. However, the issue of gun control is likely to continue to be a contentious one in the United States for many years to come.

In conclusion, the governor's comment on the Constitution has sparked a debate over gun control. There are strong arguments to be made on both sides of the issue, and it is important to weigh the potential benefits of gun control measures against the potential infringement on Second Amendment rights. The outcome of the legal challenges to the order will have a significant impact on the debate over gun control in the United States.