national gun control confiscation
(AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

HB 193, a bill that would expand New Mexico’s current red flag law, passed its first committee hurdle on Saturday with a party-line vote. While it won’t surprise anyone to see anti-gun Democrats to pushing to expand red flag confiscations, the way they’re doing it in this case flies in the face of some of the party’s other priorities.

The bill, introduced by two Democrats representing the state’s most populous county, would expand on the current red flag law by giving more power to police.

Currently, a person requesting a red flag gun grab against a firearm owner must have some sort of personal connection with the allegedly dangerous individual. The list of eligible reporting parties was already pretty broad, allowing “a spouse, former spouse, parent, present or former stepparent, present or former parent-in-law, grandparent, grandparent-in-law, co-parent of a child, child, person with whom a respondent has or had a continuing personal relationship, employer, or public or private school administrator” to try to convince a court that a gun owner is a problem and needs to have their guns confiscated pending a hearing.

Now, however, New Mexico Democrats want to add law enforcement officers to that list. If passed, police would be able to initiate a petition to the court for a red flag confiscation order against a gun owner. In fact, the bill would allow anyone who claims to have “first hand, credible information” that a gun owner is a danger to petition the court for a confiscation order.

“The scariest thing about the new red flag amendment is that anyone can report you now,” Stefani Lord, a Republican member of the New Mexico House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee, told The Truth About Guns. “This opens the door to retaliation from a disgruntled employee, an angry ex, or even a stranger reporting you for something taken out of context.”

But other bills, like HB 4 and HB 263, Democrats are pushing for increased police accountability after the events of 2020. The idea is that police can’t be trusted with things like sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, or anything short of centralized police use-of-force reporting.

While Representatives haven’t said it publicly, plenty of Democrats have accused police of inherent racism, white supremacy, and other forms of bigotry within their ranks that affect their judgement in use-of-force situations.

New Mexico Democrats apparently believe in a sort of “Schrödinger’s Cop,” who simultaneously believe that police can’t be trusted to not violate citizens’ rights, but at the same time, can be trusted to initiate court actions against a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms without the protection of due process or the right to face one’s accuser.

Like Schrödinger’s Cat, the police in New Mexico seem to have the ability to be two things at once.

In the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. Image by Dhatfield, CC-BY-SA 3.0 License.

Next, the bill will head to the N.M. House Judiciary Committee for public comments and a vote.

Be sure to e-mail the committee members to let them know you don’t believe in Schrödinger’s Cop or reports from strangers, and watch the committee’s webpage to see when the bill is scheduled for a hearing. The more people who show up to comment on it, the longer it takes for the committee to pass it, so even if they don’t listen to us, we can at least act as a speed bump while they try to run over our rights.

35 COMMENTS

  1. No quantum mechanics needed, folks. Not even cognitive dissonance.

    To Democrats, some rights are more equal than others; clearly the 2A rights aren’t worthy of protection, so it doesn’t matter what powers the cops have in that regard.

    • Yep. Some people are more equal than others, too — and they intend themselves and their preferred in-group to be the most equal of all.

      The “defund the police” thing is intended to break the adherence of the police to the notion of people being equal under the law and put the psycho Left’s preferred people in charge, both of the police and of what gets policed. The “progressive” Democrats don’t believe in Schrodinger’s cops, they believe in cops being their cops.

      The mess of contradictory demands is an end in itself; it traps everyone in a Kafkaesque argument over reality and law, sowing doubt in their knowability and trapping everyone in the illogical assertion that the ridiculous claims being argued (that law itself is an unfair, racist creation of a racist society, only racists believe in law and order, etc., etc.) MUST be true, because nobody would spend so much time denying them otherwise.

      When it comes to the “progressive” left, you have to invert Hanlon’s Razor: never attribute to altruism that which is adequately explained by either cupidity or malice. These people are both victims and true believers of kafkatrapping: https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/editorials/wendy-mcelroy-beware-of-kafkatrapping/

    • New Mexico, where cops can get a fake k9 drug response and forcefully take you to a hospital to have your anus invaded looking for drugs. Now they’ll be looking up there for suppressors and ammo.

  2. Orwell called it “doublethink.” It is the act of holding two completely contradictory ideas in one’s mind at a time.

    This explains all cases of hypocrisy and mental illness on the left.

  3. All “Red Flag” laws are obviously and inherently unconstitutional – they violate the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments, make a mockery of “due process”, and could only be loved and supported by anti-gunners and RINOs like Marco Rubio (who should simply be honest, and change his registration to “Democrat” – he’s been one for years).

    ANYONE who supports ANY version of a “Red Flag” law is admitting that they don’t give a rip about the constitution, inherent rights, or individual liberty. What part of this is complicated, folks?????

    • Where are the court challenges? With laws in so many jurisdictions, I’d expect at least one to be overturned. The only one I know about is a Colorado woman who filed an order against a deputy that shot her son. It was overturned because she didn’t have a right to file, not because the law was unconstitutional.

      • How dare these filthy uncouth peasants challenge the Crown? They should consider themselves lucky that we allow them to pretend to vote every few years. Now go do as your told, and listen to your betters.

        • “Now go do as your told, and listen to your betters.”

          Good thing that ain’t you, son.

          Now go get your shine box… 🙂

        • It’s somewhat instructive to remember what happens to Battsie when he takes that attitude with Tommy.

          Takes a bit but… well, something about cold dishes.

  4. Careful. Keep pointing out their inconsistencies and they’ll implement a great solution to their hypocrisy like eliminating racist establishment police entirely and bringing in a more diverse BLM approved revolutionary guard to enforce their will.

    Schlicters books creep closer to reality everyday.

    • Great Solution you say? Or perhaps a Great Reset? Sounds kinda like their idea of a final solution to deal with the supposed racism in this country.
      Hmmm… Final solution… Where have I heard that before?…
      If only these schools taught history…

    • “… eliminating racist establishment police entirely and bringing in a more diverse BLM approved revolutionary guard to enforce their will.”

      Am I the only one who actually doesn’t see this as a problem and feels that they should do that? In fact, I wholeheartedly encourage it.

      I mean, that’s a nice, clear bright line there right? Makes things simpler and removes a lot of moral uncertainty. It also makes it clear, in terms of everyone else, who’s on the right side and who’s not, right?

  5. ferns law:
    democrats dont actually believe in anything they preach to you about
    if they did every single policy stance they take would be the total opposite of where they are now

  6. Used to be all you had to be is Black to have your gun confiscated or denied possession by the gun control military wing of the democRat Party known as the KKK.
    It’s a shame how many do not sense the stench of Jim Crow Gun Control that is going on in America right under their noses.

    Face it…If you voted to reelect DJT and you do not accept Jim Crow Gun Control joe as legit you are already red flagged.

  7. So any citizen can file a red flag against the police too? This should be interesting. Or a White Supremist could file against every black person he meets?

    • Hah hah, filing a red flag against the poleece probably get you locked up in the nut house.
      I’m sure “theyd” jump all over the red flag against a black person though.
      I’m still puzzled about New Mexico and Arizona’s stance on gunms. Seems to me those states would be real pro gunm?

  8. I mean if they are going to broaded the definition by this much why can’t we just turn around and report all of their pet criminals? Let’s see how they like it when their voterbase is entirely caught up in this and nobody else.

  9. I have relatives and ties to Arizona, and used to travel through New Mexico to get there. I guess I will now have to drive out of my way to go there. I sure won’t spend any of my money for gas, food or lodging in N.M. from now on. T>he original law was bad enough, but this is shades of Hitler’s Germany.

  10. “public or private school administrator”

    So, under the current law, the people responsible for a lot of the stupidity you read about in our schools can have your rights revoked based on what they claim a five year old might have said in school?

    And I thought Skeletor’s Law was bad…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here