Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signs a bill into law in 2019 that expanded background checks to nearly all gun sales in New Mexico (AP Photo/Morgan Lee)
Previous Post
Next Post

“…with thunderous applause…”

By MARY HUDETZ Associated Press

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a bill Friday to drastically expand mandatory background checks on firearms sales in New Mexico, as she shot down opposition against the measure and other proposed gun reforms as being part of a national “misinformation campaign.”

The governor, a Democrat who took office in January, commended the bill’s Democratic sponsors, students and other gun-reform advocates who pushed for the law, saying it would enhance public safety in a state that FBI statistics say has one of the nation’s highest violent crime rates.

The law will close a loophole for firearms sales in New Mexico by requiring background checks to be conducted on people who want to purchase from vendors online, at gun shows and other venues where sellers may not have a federal license.

Felons are among those who are not lawfully permitted to own a firearm under federal law.

“What we’re doing is increasing the standards and the safety precautions,” Lujan Grisham said. “We have to change the climate, and universal background checks are not an imposition on an individual purchasing a firearm.”

As she signed the bill, she was surrounded by about a dozen youth, including some of the 100 students who participated in a “die-in” Friday in the capitol’s rotunda.

The demonstration was held to call attention to school shootings in the United States. Some wore T-shirts bearing the names of victims shot and killed at school. A few fought back tears as the students lay on the marble floor for six minutes and 20 seconds — the time it took for a gunman to kill 17 students at a Parkland, Florida, high school in February 2018.

Several law enforcement officials also stood behind the governor, including the Albuquerque police chief and Santa Fe County sheriff. About 30 other sheriffs in the state have said they will not enforce the law, as well as any others that win approval in the Legislature this session.

The sheriffs argue the bills infringe on gun owners’ constitutional rights and would be ineffective in stopping criminals from obtaining weapons.

“I really think next year we’ll be back at the Legislature, saying, ‘Well that didn’t’ work, what do we do now?’ ” Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace said in a phone interview.

In other states — including Washington, Nevada and Illinois, — sheriffs have taken similar positions against gun reforms in their states, with some of the locally elected law enforcement officials adopting “Second Amendment sanctuary” sentiments to back their decisions not to enforce the laws.

In New Mexico, at least 26 counties have adopted resolutions saying they will not allow for resources to be spent on any laws their sheriffs believe are unconstitutional.

More than 20 states have similar restrictions for sales on at least some private firearms sales, according to the Brady Center, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that advocates for expanding gun control laws nationwide.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • I wonder how the leftists are gonna feel when they find out no one is paying any attention to them? I seriously doubt that (outside of a few citified liberals in Albq and Santa Fe) anyone is going to take their brother down to the courthouse to get a background check before handing over the old 12GA. I also doubt many Sheriffs are going to do anything to try to enforce this idiocy.

      Didn’t I hear that several New Mexico Sheriffs have already said that they will do NOTHING to enforce this?

      • I live in New Mexico (not in Albuquerque or Santa Fe) and nearly all of the 32 sheriffs in the state are not going to enforce this unconstitutional law that this governor just signed. The governor needs to focus her governorship on reducing poverty in the state since it is one of the worst in the country, improving education and healthcare, and bringing more businesses and jobs to New Mexico. Then law enforcement can focus enforcing laws that are legitimate and not have to go around wasting time and taxpayer money enforcing laws that are unconstitutional, which, thank God for their good common sense, they aren’t going to enforce anyway. This is the stupidity we are having to deal with in this state.

        • QUOTE: “The governor needs to focus her governorship on reducing poverty in the state since it is one of the worst in the country…”

          It will only get worse. No leftist Democrat governor has ever made their state better, no matter how much they taxed and spent.

    • Unfortunately gun control legislation does not account for the fact that 42% of all gun involved crimes are performed using stolen weapons. All of the anti-gun legislation in the world will never reduce gun violence

  1. typical liberal jackass. She is not protecting the citizens in the least. It is making the state more dangerous. She needs to be deported to Cuba.

  2. The original concept of the nation (as defined in the Constitution) was a weak, limited national government focused on national matters, with States pretty much free to organize themselves and operate as they saw fit. This concept was/is called “federalism”. The underlying theory was that national government was to protect the States from each other, and foreign powers. The states were considered “laboratories” of self-governance, experimenting with various means and methods of same. The result would be a nation with a “hodge-podge” of different State laws and customs, with any State free to adopt or abandon elements of State governance that succeeded, or failed, in other States. People of the States who wanted a change in government could either gain political influence to make changes, or move to a State more suitable to the person. The nation would be dynamic.

    The founders did not want uniformity of law and custom imposed upon the States, except in those areas where the States delegated power to permit the national government to establish uniformity.

    While POTG decry the hodge-podge of state laws regarding firearms, this is what the founders envisioned (remember, the federal constitution had not been coerced onto the States at the beginning; that happened 79 years later). With the chaos of “gun laws” among the states, we are seeing state sovereignty at work. And that “work” is being supervised and advised by a US Supreme Court that established the validity of certain restrictions on firearms, individualized in each state.

    Maybe that whole “laboratory” of governance thing needs to be abandoned for a simpler and more manageable national government, inside which the states are simply precincts organized and managed from a single, uniform central committee government. Let’s call that concept National Reciprocity of Law.

    • Blow it out your ass because it seems that restrictions of my rights(federal & stat) always seem to supersede freedoms (federal & state)

      Please, let’s get on with CW2.0

      • “Please, let’s get on with CW2.0”

        Why wait for someone else to start it? Grab your gear and head out now.

    • Except the federal government has 150+ plus years of precedent of simply ignoring all that by way of force. Those days are gone, long gone. Any real power the states had died with the confederacy. The BOR is now applicable to the states when before it wasn’t. States are now subservient to the Feds, and the only way they’ll ever retain that power is beat the federal military in combat.

    • Yes, states can and should differ on local laws. No, this should not allow states to infringe on basic individual rights, including those outlined in the bill of rights (speech, press, search, arms, equal treatment under law, etc.)

      One of the few valid responsibilities of our bloated Federal government, in my opinion, is to uphold individual rights against state governments that would trample on them. This, along with ensuring free trade between states, managing foreign relations, and providing for a common defense goes back at least as far as the civil war and right to the founding if you consider the establishment of a supreme court.

      Should the right to bear arms be one of those upheld against state infringement? Hell yes!

    • The problem with your proposal is that we are far more mobile than the founders ever envisioned. This is compounded by the adoption of the 17th Amendment, which ended state power as separate entities; forcing the into compliance with the Bill of Rights is a necessity to protect the citizens from politicians (elected tyrants).

      • “The problem with your proposal is that we are far more mobile than the founders ever envisioned.”

        Not sure which “proposal”, or element of the comment you are addressing, but….

        A single nation of multiple, uniformly governed precincts (the idea of states is archaic, and being obliterated by the urgency of the mobility you describe) is needed, in place of the chaos of states operating independently of each other and the central government. Uniformity and rationalization of law can only come from a coordinated, centralized, single source of rule. Why do we want to maintain all the “hodge podge” of state and local laws that impede the natural growth of the nation toward economic success and social fairness?

    • You’re right. I can’t wait for states to reinstate slavery and disenfranchise female and black voters. After all, states should get to do what they want. Let them censor their detractors and do house-to-house searches for contraband and criminals, including political enemies.
      There was the concept of various state policies, but it was guided by common rights of their citizens.

      • “There was the concept of various state policies, but it was guided by common rights of their citizens.”

        Corrects, sort of. Disestablishment of State sponsored (funded) religion did not occur with the ratification of the Constitution. Connecticut disestablished in 1818, New Hampshire in 1819, and Massachoochoo in 1833. However, none of this was due to federal mandate (or the Constitution). The States simply decided that State sponsorship of religion was no longer useful.

        It does take some work, but don’t look back at history through eyes that see only the result of that history. The States of the founding never contemplated being fiefdoms serving the central government. The States were extremely jealous and suspicious of each other, and especially of a strong central committee. If you take the time to read the constitutions of the original States, you will be surprised at how those constitutions were not conformed to, or by, the federal constitution. The original States ceded limited powers to the central committee, but they did not agree that all their internal operations would be controlled by the central government guiding document. The ninth and tenth amendments had real meaning at the founding.

        BTW, the nation can bring back slavery if it decides there is advantage. The only part of the constitution that is declared unamendable is the equal representation of each state in the Senate. The 13th and 14th amendments can be repealed or amended.

    • This is exactly how I read the original Constitution. It’s a document that says WE THE PEOPLE have all power and sovereignty, but we choose to give up X, Y, and Z powers to form a federal government. The Bill of Rights says “Just in case you misread the part where unenumerated rights are reserved to us, the people, here’s a list of things we didn’t talk about that absolutely are untouchable by the federal government that the federal Constitution constructed.”

      Although I strongly believe that California and New York have laws that are anti-American, I believe that the federal Bill of Rights can’t negate them. I believe it is the duty of the people of each state to say “I gave up Powers X, Y and Z to the Feds; I’m willing to give up Powers A, B and C to my state,” as defined by their state’s Constitution.

      • “I believe that the federal Bill of Rights can’t negate them. ”

        If we were living prior to 1868, you would be correct in your conclusion. However, the 14th Amendment essentially forced the federal constitution upon the states (use of small case “s” is intentional). The SC developed a whole theory of law called “incorporation”, whereupon the states are bound by the federal constitution, pretty much making states precincts of the central government. Which is circular reasoning at its finest.

  3. Serious question, how are private sale bans enforceable? First, any firearm purchased before the law passed can’t be assumed to be sold after the ban. Second, unless the firearm shows up at a crime scene, how are they going to know the weapon was transferred? And even then, when the firearm is traced back to it’s original owner he could simply claim that it was lost or stolen. Seems to me like a law that will be ignored more than obeyed.

    • “Serious question, how are private sale bans enforceable?”

      It probably depends on what “is” is.

      One mechanism of enforcement is the buyer. A buyer who avoids the UBC is stuck with a calculation of risk regarding subsequent sale. Owner sells directly to buyer. Buyer decides to sell the gun. The seller risks the character of the new buyer. If the new buyer sells privately, and the third buyer is forced to explain possession, the third buyer says he/she/it bought if from a friend. Records demonstrate there is no record of UBC. Authorities have one suspect in custody, and come looking for the source of the sale. The source of the sale cannot demonstrate use of the UBC. Authorities now have two suspects in custody. Second suspect names the original private seller, who also bypassed the UBC. Now, three suspects in custody.

      The “plan” is that all the uncertainty will squelch private sales, thereby making everybody feel safer, regardless of facts. A subtle, but important secondary effect is that eliminating(?) private sales will cause the secondary market for gun sales to operate just like the diamond industry; the price for used diamonds is dismal, so people keep them, buying new diamonds (which are as common as Port Costa parking lot rocks) at higher prices. Higher prices. The intent is to drive up gun prices so that only the rich can afford them; a limited market will dry up a supply chain, resulting id fewer gun sales.

      “Will it go ’round in circles? Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?”

        • No sales slips. Then just say you sold it before the ban. Nobody knows nuthin’. The way it’s always been, my friend.

        • “Then just say you sold it before the ban.”

          So those who want to sell guns made after the law is in effect are screwed?

      • ‘…and the third buyer is forced to explain possession…’

        Aside from being caught in the commission of a crime with the firearm in his possession or being a felon in possession, in what conceivable circumstance would the third buyer be forced to explain his possession? And how would that not be a violation of the 4th Amendment? Even in the event you were questioned about the acquisition, it would take a thorough investigation to uncover a lie, which is unlikely to happen since they’d have no reason to question it. ‘Yeah, we did a transfer.’ ‘Who was the FFL who did the transfer?’ ‘I don’t remember.’ Or, ‘Oh yeah, I bought that years ago.’ Or, ‘I bought that when I lived in another state.’ Now are they going to take down the make, model and serial number and start searching for 4473s? I doubt it. Even when doing a transfer on a previously illegally transferred weapon the FFL isn’t going to know or care about where the seller acquired it, he’s just going to take the numbers down, write them in his book, have the buyer fill out the 4473 and do the NICS check. Seems pretty unenforceable to me.

        • “Seems pretty unenforceable to me.”

          “OK, dirtbag. We gotcha on illegal possession. What we want is the person who sold you the piece. Tell us that, and you get a deuce, suspended. Dummy up, and you do the distance.”

          The “enforceability” is in the risk calculation. The risk that one day, the gun you bought illegally will come back to bite you. Of course, none of this disturbs the criminal a whit.

        • ‘Of course, none of this disturbs the criminal a whit.’ – Bingo – this won’t prevent a single crime.

          I think you might underestimate the non-compliance and ignorance of the law factors. If you are an otherwise law abiding citizen and you sell a firearm to another otherwise law abiding citizen there’s almost no chance of either of you ever getting caught.

          • “If you are an otherwise law abiding citizen and you sell a firearm to another otherwise law abiding citizen there’s almost no chance of either of you ever getting caught.”

            But you are no longer a law abiding citizen. Which is also part of the risk calculation, is it not?

        • I guess the ‘law abiding citizen’ label when refusing to comply with unconstitutional laws depends on where you stand on the Constitution being the highest law of the land.

          • “I guess the ‘law abiding citizen’ label when refusing to comply with unconstitutional laws depends on where you stand on the Constitution being the highest law of the land.”

            Revering the Constitution as law supreme, but allowing every person to decide the meaning of the law at any given moment is not a recipe for a viable society, or nation. If that were to be the case, then the individual, not the constitution becomes the highest law of the land. Which, I believe, is called anarchy.

        • Sam, when the state becomes superior to the individual’s conscience you get worse things than anarchy, you get things like the Holocaust. And this is ingrained in the Bill of Rights – the rights of religion, speech, assembly, association, to keep and bear arms – these place the individual as superior to the state.

          • “Sam, when the state becomes superior to the individual’s conscience you get worse things than anarchy…”

            The constitution does not memorialize that the individual is completely sovereign under all circumstances. Indeed, there is even a provision that is beyond the will of the people to amend the constitution…Article 5, “…and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” The upshot is that every other provision of the Constitution can be amended; all of it.

            So, let’s take Article 5, and determine what the law is.

            Article 5 does not permanently set the number of Senators for each state (using small case “s” because the states have not been sovereign since 1868). The allocation of Senators may be increased, or decreased at the will of the people, but all states must have the same number of Senators. Or maybe that isn’t what the statement means at all. Maybe it means each state must have two Senators, but the number may be increased (for each state), so long as all states have the same number of Senators.

            So what does any of that have to do with individuals determining the validity of law? Well…..

            Any other provision of the constitution may be amended (or repealed by amendment), including the first ten amendments. (However, I am sure that any attempt to amend Article 3, Sec. 1 will be declared an unconstitutional constitutional amendment). Yes, the entire BOR remains only at the will of the people, expressed through their Senate. The BOR can be repealed.

            Then what? If the amendment process available through the constitution is used to amend away the BOR, what is the law? If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then the people can make that supreme law exclude the BOR. And of course, there is always the eternal argument that the BOR (even the entire Constitution) means more or less than what the words on paper read. If the Constitution is the supreme law, then the constitution must, itself, be absolute, not subject to interpretation. But, we know it is subject to interpretation. To believe that the individual is the sole determiner of the meaning of law, then the Constitution is not supreme. The logic cannot be that the Constitution is supreme where I like it to be supreme, but in other instances, I, the individual, am supreme.

            In 1904, the US Supreme Court (Jacobson v. Massachusetts) declared that the constitution does not prohibit absolute liberty from government intervention, nor provide an absolute right to be free of government regulation. (This may be a formal declaration that “compelling government interest” is a valid limit on individual freedoms…all of them). Thus, if the government mandates vaccinations of every kind, the individual cannot claim protection of individual liberty, nor disobey without legal consequence. Claiming to be sovereign, superior to the law will not exempt the individual from consequence. Claiming a right that cannot be exercised (without extreme force) is futile if one believes claiming such a right neutralizes the government’s ability to take corrective action.

            I invite you to consider this article discussing the limits on individual freedom and the results of autonomous decisions about law:

        • The individual is supreme under our Constitution (freedom of religion = freedom of conscience), however the arbiter of whether an individual’s acts are justifiable reason for disregard for law is to be determined by a jury of our peers.

          I disregard out of hand the notion that either the state or federal government has any right to forcefully put something into our bodies that we do not want (by reason of conscientious objection or otherwise). What the government does have the authority to do is to place us in quarantine if we pose a grave risk to other citizens. This is incredibly dangerous ground you’re treading on. Does a Christian baker have the right to decline to bake a cake that celebrates something that violates his Christian faith? Does a pro-life doctor have a right to refuse to perform abortions? If the government passes a law that says all Jews are to be rounded up, loaded on cattle cars and sent to execution camps, do you have the right to refuse to participate? The individual conscience always reigns supreme, America is only different by recognizing this in it’s constitution.

          • If the proper number of states ratify an amendment to the First Amendment that states, “No individual may be denied the right to worship in the home, however, no public displays of any kind outside the home are permitted”, then what?

            In the instance above, the Constitution properly designates that freedom of religion is restricted to the person, the person’s mind, and place of private residence. A person may claim they have an absolute right to worship when, where, and however they please. Yet, such a claim could not be sustained in court. Even the US Supreme Court would have difficulty declaring that a properly ratified amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional. Yes, that would mean the Thirteenth Amendment. We would like to think there are classes of amendments that by their nature are exempt from the amendment process, but there is no constitutional support for that line of reasoning.

            A person can declare themselves answerable only to something called “the natural law”, but a person cannot escape the discipline of the written law. Each of us can easily believe we are the sole entity in a nation that can determine which public laws are to be obeyed, and which are not. However, that is the definition of chaos (as noted before). In order to exercise the rights of natural law, a person must be able to personally enforce those rights. There is, after all, a condition known as “dead right”.

        • ‘…then what?’ – Then the Constitution would no longer recognize the individual conscience to be superior to the state.

          I think you’re confusing rights and law. Rights come from God (capital G), laws come from man. Humans are infinitely more fallible than God, even the ones who sit on the Supreme Court. SCOTUS once ruled that black people aren’t human and can no more sue for their freedom than a horse could. Over a century later the same body ruled that human fetuses aren’t human. The Supreme Court is a political body and have no more of a say as to what’s ‘right’ than the president or the congress. And bear in mind that there were a number of men who went to the gallows in Nuremberg for ‘following orders’.

          • “I think you’re confusing rights and law. ”

            In order to understand “rights”, laws must define them. My thesis is that the superiority of the individual over the consensus of the society cannot be sustained because opinions are at variance and odds between superior individuals. Perhaps what is being confused is the difference between theoretical rights, and functional rights.

            Theoretically, your right to self-defense is absolute. Effectively, that is not so. Theoretically, “rights” are absolute. Effectively, that is not so. If a law is not followed by anyone, what is the impact of such law? If there is no impact (other than for purposes of debate), does the law really exist?

            If you decide that a law violates one of your absolute rights, and you act contrary to the restrictions of the law, where is the court of appeals that declares the law null and void simply because you declare such law impermissible? To attempt to be exempted from what you consider a violation of your absolute right, you must engage the legal and judicial systems. If you are overruled, but still believe your right remains absolute, that government has no power or authority to compel you to conform, where do you appeal?

            In short, society, the peaceful interaction between individuals cannot operate, endure, survive if each member declares themselves separate and apart from that society, and by natural right, supreme ruler over their life. No society is functional if each member declares themselves unfettered by law that defies the superiority of the individual. Forming a society (compact, contract, constitution) of necessity requires that individuals surrender absolute, supreme rights of the individual in one measure or another.

            In my experience, people who proclaim themselves superior to the laws of their society do so with the expectation that everyone else will follow those laws so that the superior individual can act without regard to anyone else in the society.

            The US Constitution is unique, not only it its conception and publication, but in that the people agree to “play by the rules”, even those they don’t like. When that unstated agreement fails (as it is doing today), then we see more frequent examples among the people we call “the crazies” demanding they be exempt from restraints, but everyone else be governed by restraints established by “the crazies”. Ironically, “the crazies” are perfect examples of “the superiority of the individual”.

        • ‘In order to understand “rights”, laws must define them.’

          Here’s where you’re wrong; rights don’t come from man (laws), they come from God. Neither are they defined by man. Man can choose to respect those rights or man can choose to trample on those rights. Far more often than not, man has chosen to trample on those God given rights. Our constitution recognizes these God given rights, which is highly unusual, but man can still ignore the Constitution and trample on our rights should they choose (slavery, Jim Crow, etc). The Constitution is only as powerful as the peoples’ will to adhere to it. Did the Jews have a right to life? Did the Armenians? How about the Tutsis? Man denying rights does not invalidate those rights.

          • “Man denying rights does not invalidate those rights.”

            Did I forget to note that rights that cannot be enforced are only theoretical. That is, if you cannot enforce your rights, you do not effectively have them. But the bottom line is that if each individual is sovereign, “rights” are subjective, based on the convenience of the person claiming to be the supreme law of the land. Humans are incapable of being 100% consistent in their thinking. Thus, “rights” are subjective, negating the individual as the supreme arbiter of law. For the idea of total sovereignty of the individual to work, you rapidly come to the situation where power determines who gets what rights. The strongest sovereign individual rules.

            At is base form, the “right to life” has been declared unalienable. That is, cannot be taken or surrendered. As a result, no group of sovereign (or individual sovereign) citizen can demand a life forfeited as justice for a life taken. “Liberty” is also declared an unalienable right of the individual. As a result, no individual (or group of) sovereign citizen can demand forfeiture of liberty as justice for any crime. If a person believes in unalienable rights, those rights are absolute, not subject to the laws of humans. Once you move down the road of, “unalienable, except for/when/if…”, the idea of sovereign individuals begins to crumble of its own inconsistency.

            The entire concept of limits on unalienable rights undermines the idea of the “sovereign individual”. If the “sovereign individual” can, with impunity, declare what codified laws are acceptable, and which are not, then the discriminator of who may exercise which right becomes an exercise in power (meaning you truly have only those unalienable rights you can personally enforce; i.e. power). If unalienable rights can be denied in any form, the individual is no longer sovereign.

        • So since the Jews were unable to enforce their right to life, that right was just theoretical. The Nazis weren’t really violating their rights. Until of course, the Soviet and American armies crushed the Nazi regime and then they magically got their right to life back. Makes no sense.

          I’m not talking about individual sovereignty, I’m talking about individual rights. If you violate the rights of others you may forfeit your rights. If you break into my house and point a gun at me, we both have a right to life, but you have violated my rights and I have a right to take your life for the purpose of preserving my own life. If you break into my house when I’m not home and steal my stuff, you have also violated my rights and the state may take your freedom for a period of time.

          Where it gets screwy is when people think their rights trump the rights of others. For instance the baker has the right to practice his religion and the gay couple have the right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom. But when the gay couple believe that their right to celebrate their bedroom activity trumps the baker’s right to practice his religion you get a lot of stupidity.

          • “So since the Jews were unable to enforce their right to life, that right was just theoretical.”

            Before proceeding, let me offer a hearty “thanks” for this long dialog. It is interesting, challenging and engaging. ‘Preciate it.

            As to the rights of Jews in Nazi Germany….

            If one understands the difference between “rights”, and enforced “rights”, then, yes, the rights of Jews in Nazi Germany were merely theoretical (maybe only an academic curiosity). The rights of Jews in der Reich were not enforced, nor were they enforceable. The effective value of the rights of Jews was precisely zero. If you cannot enforce your rights, they are null and void. Unenforceable rights have no effectiveness, and such rights cannot provide any safety or advantage to the individual. What is, and what should be are as far apart as the East is from the West.

            Regarding your examples of persons trespassing on your right to life, or property, those examples are not the totality of rights. If you are attacked, for the present, you may actually have the effective right of self-defense. But, if self-defense is prohibited, where do you go to effectuate your rights? You may, for the present, have the right to protect your property up to, and including, use of deadly force against a thief. But if law prohibits protection of property, where do you go to effectuate that right? If law proscribes one of your rights, and you are imprisoned for exercising your right to whatever, what value or use to you is that right? \

            Being morally correct does not make one immune to the action of law one rejects. All of this is simply saying that law defines rights, in the real world. Indeed, the founders found it necessary to codify unalienable rights in law…the Constitution.

            One can claim to be a sovereign individual, but cannot enforce that theory effectively. Of what value is such a claim. If all people are the final judge of what is right, then nothing is wrong, everything is permissible, and chaos results. It is as inescapable as physics. But let’s return to the concept of unalienable rights. If rights are unalienable, there can be no limitations set by governments. Allowing even one limit undercuts the idea that a different limit is impermissible, because we cannot actually justify one limit not alienating rights, while another limit does not.

            What is the proof that unalienable rights exist? Is such proof objective, or subjective. Are such rights explicit in every society on the planet, or only the subjective inference of humans contemplating nature? Humans seem to be the only animal species on the planet that abhors natural culling of the herd. The natural instinct, the actual nature of humans is to be predators. By what objective authority does one human, or group of humans, decide that human behavior should, or must, be constrained? Humans are not even an endangered species (another unnatural construct).

            Unalienable rights are a human creation of convenience, not of objective certitude. The concept of unalienable rights is a Western notion not supported by the bulk of human history, nor generally accepted among societies. We may find individual rights useful, but that is not a universal norm, never has been. If unalienable rights are a fiction of philosophers, especially philosophers of only a portion of the population of the planet, then the individual cannot be sovereign, superior to anyone, or anything. We may benefit from the idea of unalienable rights, but we proclaim total sovereignty of the individual only when we are the sole beneficiary; when it suits us. To operate in a rational, organized society/community, some sovereign rights must be subordinated to the group, which is objective proof that unalienable rights do not actually exist, nor is the sovereignty of the individual complete. Individual sovereignty, unalienable rights cannot be constrained by another sovereign individual. Even agreeing that some unalienable rights can be made subordinate to another unalienable right means sovereignty of the individual is a fiction.

        • ‘To operate in a rational, organized society/community, some sovereign rights must be subordinated to the group…’

          I’m pretty sure you’re wrong there. I tried to come up with an example where’d you’d be right but I couldn’t come up with any.

          • “I’m pretty sure you’re wrong there. I tried to come up with an example where’d you’d be right but I couldn’t come up with any.”

            If you are sovereign, if you have unalienable rights, you cannot permit any restrictions on your rights. Your right of free travel cannot be impeded by traffic laws. Your right to pursuit of happiness cannot be impeded by any safety laws. Your right to liberty cannot be constrained by any regulation. Sovereign individuals are lawless agents by default. A sovereign individual has no standards by which to be held accountable.

            Ex: Your pursuit of happiness and liberty are expressed as loving to play loud music at all hours of the night. We share a wall. My right to pursue happiness is expressed as wanting peace and quiet to sleep during the evening. The community has a noise ordinance in place. We are two sovereigns in conflict over the right to pursue happiness. You are visited by police about a noise violation. You refuse to comply with an order to turn down your music so as to not penetrate the shared wall. In court, you tell the judge you are sovereign in pursuit of your definition of “pursuit of happiness”, and cannot be made to subjugate your sovereign right to my sovereign right to a night’s sleep. Two sovereigns who claim superiority over the other sovereign. If society, through laws and ordinances cannot cause a sovereign to acquiesce to community law, how is the conflict settled?

        • You don’t have a right to infringe on the rights of others. I made that point with the home invasion scenario. And in the Christian baker scenario I pointed out the fallacy of people thinking they have a right to things they don’t have a right to, like a right to force others to celebrate your lifestyle – that’s not an unalienable right. You have a right to live your life as you see fit, and others have a right to reject that lifestyle. Driving too fast on a crowded freeway is not an unalienable right (unless you’re trying to outrun a pyroclastic flow). Playing your music loud and disturbing your neighbors is not an unalienable right.

          Now you could make the case that makes the 1964 Civil Rights Act not only unconstitutional but an infringement on individual rights, and you’d be right. But there was no social benefit to the 1964 CRA. White people didn’t accept blacks as their equal because of an act of congress. Truth is it had a lot more to do with the likes of Jackie Robinson and James Brown. Once whites, even the ones in the south, started seeing blacks as individual humans and judging them as such, the free market would have taken care of businesses that discriminated against them. The fact that the 1964 CRA passed was merely a misguided acknowledgement of what had already changed in the vast majority of society.

          You could make the argument that conscription represents a right that could be infringed for the ‘greater good’. Conscription denies the right to freedom and in many cases the right to life for young men. It is a form of slavery. The vast majority of conscripted soldiers didn’t die fighting for the survival of their society, but for the vein ambitions of despots. Even in cases where the war was fully justifiable (US involvement in WWII for instance), conscription distorts the market value of the soldier’s service. Perhaps if nations were forced to pay full market value for soldiers, armies would conduct war drastically different than they have in the past. Can you imagine how different WWI would have been? Blow the whistle and send the men over the top and into the machine gun fire and in the process waste billions of dollars. Maybe trillions. This distortion doesn’t save society, it needlessly wastes a generation of young men so that others in society don’t have to pay their fair share.

          Just not coming up with any situations where individual rights must be sacrificed for the greater good of society as a whole. I don’t think any exist.

          • “Playing your music loud and disturbing your neighbors is not an unalienable right.”

            It is not the music, but the assertion of the right to the pursuit of happiness. There is no restriction on the rights of a sovereign. The expression of the right is not the right. Let’s move to neighborhood property values.

            One person, in pursuit of the sovereign individual right to liberty and pursuit of happiness buys a property, then declares his right to do with it as he pleases. The property is not maintained, and the value of the surrounding properties declines. The sovereign right of the neighbors to secure that value of their homes is infringed. Again, sovereign rights in conflict. If the first property owner does not have the sovereign right to manage property regardless of the impact upon other property owners, the first property owner is not sovereign. A sovereign is sovereign, or it is not. An absolute right is absolute, or it is not. And, who, pray tell, has the authority to tell a sovereign that the sovereign is limited in any way?

            The same principles obtain as regards zoning laws that limit the sovereign right of the individual to declare exemption from those laws because zoning laws limit the natural, human and civil right to do with owned property as the sovereign individual sees fit. And the sovereign property owner is not exempt from community imposed punishment for violating community standards set forth as zoning laws.

            BTW, I find nothing persuasive that logically imposes limits on limitless power of a sovereign, based on the notion, “Your rights end where my rights begin.” That is the essence of sovereign individuals demanding limits on another sovereign. Indeed, it is a moral demand, a moral limit on the rights of a sovereign individual. Morality is determined by the majority who subscribe to it.

        • Just a side point on conscription; the UK was the only country that didn’t immediately implement conscription at the start of WWI. In fact it wasn’t until 1916, a year and a half later that they resorted to it. After they had squandered hundreds of thousands of lives, naturally the market rate for soldiers skyrocketed, even with the patriotism discount. So the British resorted to compelled service and 6 months late you had the Battle of the Somme.

          • Conscription is a good topic. I hold mutually exclusive ideas/opinions on the topic.

            In a relatively free society, whether a result of serendipity or design, a person has an obligation to serve a nation that harbors and sustains them. However, regarding individual liberty, accident of birth cannot confer unwilling service on a person.

            During the Vietnam war, much was made of people (men) who fled to Canada to avoid the draft. Significant honor was accorded those who chose to give up the benefits of living in the United States. Much scorn was also displayed. My judgement on the matter was conditional on only one thing…return. Those who fled to Canada and begged to return after the threat of military service ended were/are not honorable, only opportunists bereft of honor. Only those who stayed in Canada were, and remain, honorable.

        • Well I have my own issues with what passes as ‘land rights’ in this country. At best, land rights seem to be an extremely limited right in this country. But then do you really have a right to ‘own’ a pile of rocks that have been there for millions, maybe billions of years when you yourself will probably only be here for ~80?

          Your use of he term ‘sovereign’ rights implies (infers to me) the idea that every man is in effect his own nation. This I disagree with, but citizenship in a larger society does not mean sacrificing individual rights.

          A conscripted soldier has no more duty to his country to serve than a citizen who’s not fit for military service has a duty to sacrifice as much of his wealth as necessary to pay in his share in taxes for the full market value for the conscripted soldier’s pay. Conscription steals from the fit for military service and gives to the not fit for military service. Of course, the government has every right to make it’s sales pitch and incite the patriotism of the soldier to drive that price down, just as one might take less pay to participate in a profession that grants a sense of purpose beyond mere salary. Teachers, doctors, etc may willingly work for below market value due to the satisfaction of service, and so may the soldier. But if the government can’t make it’s case that their services are vital to the country and can’t mitigate the risk of death or grave bodily harm then the fair market value of their services will skyrocket.

          Not only does conscription violate the rights of some citizens to enrich other citizens, it’s market distortion wastes countless lives.

          • Your section on conscription is one I haven’t seen before. Thanx.

            And yes, if a person is a sovereign individual, authorized to determine which laws to obey, that person is a nation unto themselves. Once that sovereign individual becomes part of a “nation” of sovereigns, the concept of sovereign individual is crippled.

        • ‘Once that sovereign individual becomes part of a “nation” of sovereigns, the concept of sovereign individual is crippled.’

          The concept of sovereign individuality is indeed crippled but the concept of individual rights in a civil society need not be.

          One last thought on conscription; which is more heinous, ripping a man away from his home and transporting him far away from it and his family and forcing him to pick cotton for meager rations, or ripping a man away from his home and transporting him far away from it and his family and forcing him to charge into machine gun fire for meager rations?

          Probably the best case I can think of to argue that the rights of individuals should be subservient to the greater good would be the rights of those unable to provide for themselves. In today’s ‘Great Society’ the subsistence of some is guaranteed not by the willing charity of others, but by the coerced charity of others. If the results were better than they were in the old system of willing charity I could concede that this was beneficial, but I think instead the coerced charity is just as wasteful as the coerced military service. However at it’s core, you don’t have a ‘right’ to my money regardless of how dire your need. But appealing to my sense of humanity seemed to be just as effective and less wasteful of our resources than compelled charity. So I don’t see a greater societal benefit there either.

          • Way back “when”, conscription was described as a form of indentured servitude, and immoral. But…..maybe it was moral after all. The difference between conscription and slavery was/is that slavery was a lifetime, conscription had an end, certain benefits were gained by the conscripted.

            When we had conscription, it was a great leveler (yes, the privileged were privileged). That is, it leveled us individually to understand there were somethings “bigger” than ourselves, that the individual was part of something, built a lifetime of shared experiences. Conscription forced some maturity on people (men), not likely in normal life. People also were forced to understand and learn to work as a team. Maybe it is coincidental that the “me, me, me” culture only took root when conscription ended, and individuals were on a crash course to disconnect from each other.

            Government welfare is not “charity” in any form. It is destructive in almost every way imaginable. It is the political class (in conspiracy with voters) creating a never-ending dependency in exchange for political power (vote-buying).

        • Well if you’re killed in battle then conscription does last the rest of your entire life.

          Ever since the advent of the professional soldier, military service has often been a way out of poverty for those born into it. That hasn’t changed in thousands of years. Yes, conscription may force a handful of the privileged to serve, but at the same time it distorts the market for soldiers and drastically reduces the pay received by the underprivileged – it actually blocks their way out of poverty. And because there’s such a glut of men fit for and compelled to serve you get things like World War I. If not for conscription there wouldn’t have been a single major offensive on the Western Front once the trenches were dug. But after the Somme they had Passchendaele, and the Germans had Verdun, and they just kept blowing the whistle and sending men to their deaths. Until so many men died that the survivors became known as the ‘Lost Generation’. That simply doesn’t happen if you have to convince young men to join willingly.

          • Conscription is the one government program that can actually bring people out of poverty. (yes, the dead, conscripted or not, are in a forever state) Conscripted military members do earn the benefits they might not find anywhere else. They make better employees (more sought after), they can have better education, they can have better skills (only one in six are actually combat infantry). If they take advantage of the military experience, they can improve the nation overall (we are no longer in the 1970s).

            But the important question remains: do citizens “owe” any service to the nation at all?

        • You don’t lift people out of poverty by grossly underpaying them for their services. Without conscription the poor would join, be well paid AND gain the same experiences they get under conscription.

          As far as owing your country anything, personally I don’t think so. However, the society you live in may be far better than the alternative, so the preservation of that society may be a compelling argument for service. But did Stalin’s conscripts OWE anything to Stalin? Hitler’s conscripts to Hitler? If anything you OWE service to your neighbors, but do you OWE it to your neighbor to run into his burning house and save his dog? No.

          • “You don’t lift people out of poverty by grossly underpaying them for their services.”

            Perhaps you missed it when the social injustice pimps were complaining that too many minorities were career military, creating a demographic in the military that was inconsistent with minority percentage in the general population. The claim was that the military offered unfair advantage to minorities because of more opportunity, more money, more skills, more education than minorities had available in the civilian world.

            As to “underpayment”, that is a totally subjective claim. I had a career transition client who wanted to leave a job with a major telecom because he (and all the rest) had not received a raise in five years. The client was making $100k, and believed he was worth at least $130. Found him a position in NC Research Triangle. The salary was $100,000. The accession benefit was total moving package, employment in the area for his wife (that benefit was $50,000). Once on site, there was free day care, free education at local universities, gym, heavily subsidized cafeteria, 401k, free healthcare program, employee stock purchase at a discount. Those benefits were at least another $50k. And on top of it all, the cost of living was calculated at 30% less than his current location. The client said he wouldn’t move just to be underpaid in another state. After a few weeks, the client called to accept the offer (which was still available). Said his wife went into a rage when he, the client, couldn’t understand that top dollar salary was only good for bragging rights, but the take home would be higher, and the benefits nearly incalculable.

            Fact was that the military offered a better option than what could be had by minorities elsewhere. The military was paying better than the civilian world. But somehow, providing the opportunity to move out of poverty was racist.

        • Now it sounds like you’re talking about voluntary service, not compelled service. Under conscription you take what they give you or go to jail and make nothing. And once you’re out you’re a felon and nobody will hire you.

          Like I said, for thousands of years the professional army has been a way out of poverty for the poor, so unless whites are just as poor as minorities I would expect them to be over represented in our military. There’s nothing wrong with that. Conscription would just deny many of the underprivileged of the opportunity to serve.

          • I was describing the condition where conscripted military were remaining in the military, after their initial enlistment/acquisition, because of the array of opportunities. The “over representation” of minorities became more pronounced after conscription ended (with conscription ended, I am not quite sure why the numbers increased…the military career was always an option).

    • Laws like this usually have some provision mandating reporting lost or stolen firearms within a certain (usually 24hrs) time period. So if the cops show up and want to see a particular gun, your two options are to tell them you sold privately and get arrested, or you lost/had it stolen without reporting it….and get arrested. Or option three. Tell em to fuck off, aaaand get arrested. See how these laws work now?
      As the cops say. If we have to come out there, somebody’s getting arrested.

      • If the cops show up without a warrant and want to see a particular weapon, I go with option 3. Now how are they going to get a warrant to find a random weapon that might or might not have been illegally transferred? AND, if nothing else, how are they going to disprove it when you say that you were robbed the night before?

    • Governor Le Petomane,

      If law enforcement wants to trace a firearm, they start with the manufacturer which is obviously marked on every firearm. ATF goes to the manufacturer with the make, model, and serial number. The manufacturer and all downstream federal firearm licensees record their manufacture/receipt and delivery of that firearm in their “bound books”. And the last federal firearms licensee who ultimately delivered that firearm to a private person records that private person’s identity in their bound book. Thus, ATF quickly and easily identifies the first private person who purchased the firearm. Any subsequent sales after that point can be very murky, though, since there are no mandatory record keeping requirements.

      Therefore, people who purchased a firearm BEFORE the date of a universal background check law can claim that they sold their firearm to an unidentified person before the law and that sale, along with any subsequent sales after that (as long as all subsequent sales were before the universal background check law) are not necessarily traceable.

      First significant point: a firearm that the original owner acquired 15 years before a universal background check law could claim to have sold that firearm 13 years ago which means several people could have, in turn, bought and sold that firearm. Thus, it could be significantly harder for law enforcement to convince a jury that the original owner sold a firearm after the universal background check law. However, a firearm that the original owner acquired three months before a universal background check law might have a much harder time convincing a jury that he/she sold it just a few days after purchasing it.

      Second significant point: even if the original owner did purchase a firearm 15 years before a background check law, law enforcement might be able to fairly easily connect the current owner to the original owner AFTER the background check law with simple evidence such as cell phone metadata showing that the original owner and current owner were in the same place at the same time AFTER the law went into effect. Or, as Sam I Am stated, law enforcement entices the current owner to finger the seller.

      Now, any firearms that the original owner acquires from the manufacturer (or whatever downstream federal firearm licensee) AFTER a universal background check law could be sold without tracing. However, and this is a BIG however, such activity would be risky if you are selling to an untrusted buyer. First of all, an untrusted buyer could be an undercover cop running a private sales sting. Second, any subsequent untrusted buyers could break the chain. And if they can provide any evidence who sold them the firearm, the seller is in grave legal jeopardy.

      To be sure, a significant number of unchecked private sales could take place after a universal background check law without law enforcement ever knowing or being able to prosecute anyone. Nevertheless, there is fairly substantial risk in unchecked sales to buyers who the seller does not trust with their life. In other words, unless selling to a family member or very close friend, there is quite a bit of risk involved, especially with respect to any firearms that the original purchaser acquired from the original selling federal firearm licensee AFTER the effective date of a background check law.

      • Just from my own experiences; I have bought and sold firearms online. Under current (Iowa and federal) law I can sell and ship a firearm directly to an intra-state buyer without a background check. However if I sell the firearm to a buyer in another state I must send the firearm to a FFL dealer so that he can do the background check, 4473 and fill in the info in his book. I can ship directly to the out of state FFL, although handguns have to be sent overnight air and the cost is $100+, so I have always shipped handguns through my FFL who can send it Priority Mail – my cost with his fee ~$35. When I ship through the FFL he has to fill in the info in his book, as does the receiving FFL. Rifles I can ship at a reasonable cost myself, but they must be shipped to an FFL.

        So, ‘yeah I sold that to someone out of state.’ How in the hell does a LEO figure out who? I don’t have to recall the FFL I sent the firearm to. Now if the firearm was used in a murder or something, they might get a search warrant to seize my computer and search my emails, which would lead them to the appropriate FFL (of course the warrant wouldn’t be necessary because I’d cooperate with the authorities in such a matter). But outside of that, how could they pursue the case if you simply say, ‘yeah, I sold that a couple years ago. I think the guy was in Oregon, or maybe Idaho…’ There’s no other link between me and the FFL in Oregon (or Idaho, whichever). Short of getting a search warrant for my computer, that’s a dead end. And unless the weapon is involved in a serious crime or a felon is caught with that weapon, and probably not even with the latter, that investigation is simply not even going to happen.

    • Kudos to your moniker!! It is a hoot!!

      You also hit the nail on the head; one can keep a pistol or other piece that was purchased under a 4473 and use it for home defence. All others are kept in secret. As the Cajun Chef might have said, I gair-on-tee that if you need to use a gun in personal or home defence you ***will*** be asked by police as to how you got your piece. And where you got it (yes, I am using British spelling). Keep one for “business” and the rest as collector pieces.

  4. The point of the Constitution is to keep government in check and to make clear that there are human rights which NO GOVERNMENT either gives or can take away. “Experiment” all you want, so long as you DONT. TREAD. ON. ME.

    • Texan trapped and Rick- There are no illegal drug dealers. They’re “street pharmacists”. And if they’re lucky enough to be non-citizens, in a sanctuary state, they don’t even have to pay income taxes.

      • “There are no illegal drug dealers. They’re “street pharmacists”.”

        I’m kinda partial to “Undocumented pharmacists”, but you and I are on the same wavelength… 😉

  5. Hasn’t been said here in awhile, but it’s as apropos as ever: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” –H.L. Mencken

  6. “New Mexico Governor Signs Bill That Outlaws Private Gun Sales”

    Someone is going to recall, election that is…IF the people of NM stand for this, then they deserve what they get/got…

    • WI Patriot- Sadly, there are fewer and fewer states that we can move to. I wanted to move to Wisconsin, but looks like things are turning blue there too….even in the country areas.

  7. Notice the cop in the back is not clapping. He knows if this BS starts and there is house to house “red flags” confiscation on the horizon, his life expectancy just dropped 50%

    • That’s an NMSP officer. If anyone is going to get forced to enforce the gun laws, it’s him.

      I’d assume this signing was in Santa Fe. You can be damn well assured that the SFPD and SFCSO have no political issues with this law, but they won’t be on the front lines of enforcing it either.

      Especially since the SFCSO has limited body armor thanks to the last sheriff’s corruption.

  8. People who do frequent straw sales to criminals will simply start milling out the serial numbers and/or restamping. Criminals don’t care if their heat is legal or not. This law will make things worse, not better. The harder it is to obtain something illegal, the more vicious the seekers of the contraband become.

    • “People who do frequent straw sales to criminals will simply start milling out the serial numbers and/or restamping.”

      That’s a *Federal* felony. With mandatory prison time. Even if you were the original legal purchaser.

      Start investing in 80 percent lowers with no numbers on them in the first place…

  9. I love the picture of the little boy clapping in the background . He smiling ignorantly, and does not have a damned clue as to what he is clapping for, but it sure does make for good a propaganda photograph.

    • Wait until he discovers guns as a teen and wants to go buy a handgun at 18. Or most likely, wants to buy any gun at 18, but the commies made it so he can’t buy a gun until he is 21.

      I had some stupid ideas as a kid because I didn’t understand the world. This is why it would be a travesty to the people that actually contribute to society to have 16 year old kids voting. They have nothing to lose to vote other people’s rights away because they have not really been able to exercise their rights as a minor.

  10. Ya let’s make criminals out of law abiding citizens, dumb arses,,,, you really think stopping private sales are going to stop now? I got a idea, why not put some teeth in your sentencing guidelines & actually use them on the real criminals? You know like USE the death penalty, when required, measure 40 type sentences that politicians can’t cut short,,.

  11. Next week, the sanctuary state proclamation welcoming illegal aliens committing fraud and crime.

    Killing, raping and maiming the Americans that Americans won’t kill, rape or maim.

  12. Accomplished nothing at all in Colorado but I’m sure that New Mexico will be very different.

  13. Just announced on of all places the BBC that 30 sheriff’s in New Mexico will refuse to enforce this new firearms legislation.

  14. Ingest this, there are hundreds of thousands of 80% guns out there. There’s nothing the totalitarian government can do about it.
    I certainly will never comply. That is what our forefathers instructed us to do.

  15. [In the voice of Bruce Buffer]

    Annnnnnnndddddd now…. I’ll be OCing in The City Different all next week. For the lulz. Those sweet, sweet lulz.

  16. Useless. All it did was prove Lujan-Grisham is indeed merely Governor of Santa Fe. The rest of New Mexico is what Kurt Schlichter might sardonically call “Indian Country”. Much like our frontier past, the Governor may sit in her Santa Fe fortress and rubber stamp every whimsy her fellow communists submit to her desk, but that won’t make it so in the rest of the state.

    By the way, New Mexico has become extremely dangerous to visit, or even travel through. Stopping for the night in Albuquerque will put your property at extreme risk, and perhaps your life as well. The criminal element operates completely unfettered in the urban areas of the state. Best to just keep driving. Sadly many people who have grown up in New Mexico or had a pleasant experience in the past come here again not expecting the out of control crime that has metastasized in the last decade. The case of Chuck de Caro and Lynne Russell was only publicized because of their marginal celebrity, but it happens constantly to normal folks whose local misfortunes immediately slip beneath the waves of the next news cycle. The murder of tourist Richard Milan in Santa Fe while he was out walking his dog is just an example. A teen gang banger was held for the crime but due to a strict time limit on juvenile prosecutions, the charges were dropped because the DA couldn’t get organized in time. All too typical. Democrat proposals to combat this crime wave include allowing felons to vote from prison, restricting public access to criminal record information, preventing employers from asking job applicants about any criminal past, reducing all property crime to a traffic ticket style penalty, and of course a plethora of useless gun control laws as noted above.

  17. UBC is step 1. Step 2 will be registration because as mentioned UBC can not be enforced as is.

  18. What does New Mexico’s law say about the following:
    (1) Guns without transfer documentation. “I bought this long ago in the parking lot at a gun show. I gave the seller cash, he gave me the gun and we went our separate ways. I never got his name.”
    (2) Gifts between members of one’s immediate family. (You’re expected to know if your relative is a prohibited person.)
    (3) Sales to holders of CCW permits. (In my state, it substitutes for the NICS check by an FFL.)
    (4) Loan during a hunt or at the range. (Legal in my state if you remain within view of each other.)
    (5) Rentals at shooting ranges. (Legal in my state as long as the customer remains on the premises.)

    Other than whine, what can the state do to a sheriff who turns a blind eye to private sales? The state could subpoena records but only if it knew they existed. Don’t ask, don’t tell would leave the state with no handle to grab.

    In my opinion, the practical effect will be to give prosecutors more leverage during plea deal negotiations with criminals. It will fall hardest on citizens who are law abiding except for this detail.

  19. I voluntarily submit to background checks and urge every gun owner to do the same.

    • Why? I already own quite a few guns. Why do I keep having to go through the process over, and over, and over again?

      • Because a few abuse the law, many others will pay. It’s not really about public safety and never was.

    • Our current, gun sale, FFL system works just fine! We don’t need new checks it’s redundant!

  20. i would like to thank the comrade governor in new mexico for passing the new gun law, i hope you love all the illegals, here’s an idea why not just change the name of your state to mexico.

  21. The progressives have been at gun control/gun confiscation for so long I have lost track. However, if anyone is paying attention, I think they now have a long-term strategy, of which this is the first step. Are they aware this won’t work? Most likely the smarter ones are.

    So what is the strategy? Start with requiring all gun transfers to be through a background check. When that doesn’t work, the next step is registration,

    And then the horse is out of the barn, as they can start with confiscation; semi automatic anythings are their first round (they have been after them for a long time). Once they have registration, the next step is a knock on your door when you don’t turn in the weapon and get a clear record of “no possession”; they have established probable cause for a search warrant.

    Think I am kidding? I’m not. They are setting it up, one step at a time. Soros and Bloomberg did not get wealthy being short on smarts, and they both oppose guns – with their own money, of which they each have more than some small nations.

    20 states? That is 40% of the total.

  22. Parkland shooting never would have happened if the police chief had been doing his job
    Instead of worrying about how the county looked on paper. None of the new laws they’re screaming to implement would have stopped the little a##hole shooter. Wouldn’t have stopped any of the school shootings! But it seems to nake politicians feel good about themselves!

    • The Parkland Shooting was done by corrupt ATF, FBI, and billionaire, gun grabbers to get citizens behind gun confiscation! There was more than one, shooter there! Obama’s Corrupt law enforcement agencies, do the shootings, then they investigate, just like Vegas!

  23. So where is the outrage in NM about the 2nd Amendment being infringed upon….Problably got a “RED FLAG LAW” to law will allow the Police-state to take root….So you can add other constitutional infringements to the mix besides the 2nd Amendment…When are the citizens going to start to demand the imprisonment of the politcal architects if such “bulldozer laws…”

  24. You stupid fucking Democrats just don’t get it, criminals, buy their guns from criminals, they don’t go to gun shows, they don’t buy from law abiding citizens! This unconstitutional law will not change anything!

    • I used to think of New Mexico as a place with backbone, true grit. Now just yellow belly. New Mexico is losing their freedoms and everyone just keeps their head down. Spineless now.

  25. Don’t worry the same elected officials that voted for gun control, they will also be voting for legal Pot. They may even vote for “free government pot” in the future for those who can’t afford it. So it’s ok. You will be able to get legally intoxicated on weed.

    Seems like an equal trade from a Libertarian point of view. Marijuana intoxication “civil rights” in exchange for your Right to Keep And Bear Arms. In states that have legal recreational pot, they also have some of the most restrictive gun civil right laws on the books. Drug addicts have taken control control over most of these states.

    The District of Columbia

    Growing up in california in the1970s, the weed legalization crowd was NEVER supportive of the Second Amendment. And they still aren’t.

    “New Mexico Just Took a Major Step Toward Legalizing Recreational Pot”

    • If MJ remains a federally controlled substance, I am quite happy pot users are barred from legally owning a gun. But that happy condition is unlikely to survive many more years.

  26. This is yet another example of what The Founding Fathers of this Constitutional Republic called ( Pretended Legislation ) Any law that is contrary or in conflict with our Bill of Rights and or Constitution is our duty to ignore or disregard

    • “Any law that is contrary or in conflict with our Bill of Rights and or Constitution is our duty to ignore or disregard”

      I for one would be quite interested in any court cases where that statement provided a successful defense. It could change my mind about the future of the Republic.

  27. As I have served under the present Governor at the Dept of Health I can attest to her ambition which knows no bounds. She will trample all laws that impede her progress to ever-higher positions in the Liberal Democrat ranks.

    • We will be voting this typrant governor who disregards the U.S. Constitution and our rights to keep and bear arms out of office as she makes her own dictatorial laws. This woman is out of control!

Comments are closed.