Posted: 2/4/2025 8:47:03 PM EDT
|
10+ round magazine feeding devices BAN Semi Auto BAN Machine Gun BAN Rapid fire device BAN Certification of existing ( registration ) Certified semiautos can be used on private property only https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?Chamber=S&LegType=B&LegNo=279&year=25 I am so sick of this shit. |
|
This is more or less what I put to my new senator in district 2... Lanier was my HS social studies teacher. Quite frankly, he was an imbecile there. Students submitted book reports that were based on books that didn't exist and he gave them 90-100% marks. Not a lot of faith in the guy. NM Senator Steve Lanier, Steve Lanier: I write to you today as a constituent who is absent from the State of New Mexico in service of our country. My day to day life is not, necessarily, impacted by most of the laws of the State of New Mexico. I am slated to return to the State of New Mexico in July of this year to assume duties at White Sands Missile Range. Soon, I will no longer be absent. Soon, New Mexico's laws will directly impact my small family. The effects of proposed legislation in New Mexico is no longer an intellectual exercise for me. Senate Bill (SB) 279 - GAS-OPERATED SEMI-AUTO FIREARMS EXCLUSION ACT is a piece of legislation drafted by national anti-civil-liberty organizations such as "Everytown For Gun Safety". It has been introduced verbatim in multiple states by lawmakers who, apparently, cannot conceive of legislation on their own. SB 279's purpose is to prohibit the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, receipt or possession of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms. Additionally, it would prohibit so-called "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" and devices that "increase the rate of fire of a firearm or approximate the action or rate of a machine gun". Nationally, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has re-listed Snope v. Brown and Ocean State v. Rhode Island to consider bans of so-called "assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices". If SCOTUS chooses to take those cases for review, it will help define the scope of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. While interesting and instructive, it is, I believe, precluded here by the New Mexico State Constitution (NMSC). NMSC Article II, Section 6 states: 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. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.) The term "arms" is legally taken by SCOTUS to mean "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or use[s] in wrath to cast at or strike another, including weapons not specifically designed for military use". Gas-operated firearms are clearly arms. They existed and were prominent at the last amendment of NMSC A II S 6 in 1986. It is trivial to show that "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" are clearly arms, being a thing that is used in wrath to strike another. Similarly, devices that "increase the rate of fire of a firearm or approximate the action or rate of a machine gun" are also arms. These too existed and were prominent at the last amendment of NMSC A II S 6 in 1986. Consequently, since the State constitution bars any State law that would abridge the right to keep such arms, SB 279 is in clear violation of NMSC A II S 6. I understand that our own home-town was impacted by the acts of a violent man with ill intent. He did not represent the good citizens of the State, and this legislation would not have prevented his actions. Even if you disagree with me on this point, if the State wishes to have the authority to enact this legislation, it should first propose an amendment to the State Constitution. I hope this message finds you well and believe whole-heartedly that you will serve your constituents by opposing this travesty of justice being pushed by organizations that do not represent the State of New Mexico. [PDSmith505] Aztec, NM |
|
In Reference to: Senate Bill (SB) 279 To Whom It May Concern: As a law-abiding, productive resident of New Mexico for over 40 years, I want to express my concerns about SB 279. This arbitrary bill proposals are unjust, unconstitutional, and radically harsh in nature and intent. How is it judiciously prudent that legal, law-abiding gun owners instantly become fourth-degree felonies under the determined penalties written within these bills? As a tax-paying constituent, I strongly urge you to vote against this erroneous bill. By passing of this bill, New Mexico residents will immediately suffer criminal consequences for previous federal and state lawful ownership that will permanently impact their future endeavors i.e., employment. Furthermore, there is no non-bias burden of proof that banning large capacity magazines and/or assault rifles reduces the number of violent crimes committed. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation , in 2019, New Mexico only had one recorded violent crime with a rifle. How would banning large capacity magazines and assault rifles further decrease this statistic when most of the violent crimes committed in New Mexico occurred by other means, not the items emphasized within these bills? I understand the reduction of violent crimes is a cause of concern. Still, these unconstitutional bills revoke qualifying citizens’ inalienable rights, which would invoke feelings of betrayal and contentment and quite possibly cause more violent crimes and illegal ownership of firearms. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics , with data acquired in 2004, most gun crimes were committed by those who illegally possess a gun. It is highly self-evident that legal, law-abiding citizens are not the ones committing crimes with firearms. To reiterate, this arbitrarily proposed bill is unjust, unconstitutional, and radically harsh in nature and intent. According to these unreasonably written bill, lawful taxpayers of New Mexico will be irrationally punished with lifelong repercussions that will significantly impact their productivity within society. Moreover, this bill violates honorable New Mexico citizens’ inalienable rights and supply no concrete evidence of being efficacious. So, again, I strongly urge you to vote against this bill for a successful, sustainable, beautiful future for New Mexico. Sincerely, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, “2019 Crime in the United States,” Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2019, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-20. Planty, M. and Truman, J, “Firearm Violence, 1993-2011,” U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2013, https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf. |
| If you haven't watched the committee hearings on some of these gun bills you should. I've watched most over the last few years and the majority of the anti-gun or "gun safety" bills pass along party lines. The senate judiciary committee is currently 6 dems and 3 republicans. This bill will pass the committee if it is heard this session. Every year the same arguments are made on both sides and yet the bills pass committee on party lines. I don't know how it would fair on a full floor vote, but the sad truth is these bills will eventually become law here in NM - it is only a matter of time. As the old school dems die off they'll be replaced with more and more leftist progressives who will ensure these bills pass. I've written over the years and voiced my concerns - they fall on deaf ears. |
|
SB279 is being heard this afternoon in the SJC. NRA has some info. NMSSA Has some additional info. Edit- A substitute bill (modeled from the ban in Illinois) was offered and debated but due to it being last minute, and seemingly rushed, they are planning to rehear this bill on Wednesday after sponsors can clean up the submission and decide which bill they want to be voted on. |
|
Originally Posted By ARUDD: In Reference to: Senate Bill (SB) 279 To Whom It May Concern: As a law-abiding, productive resident of New Mexico for over 40 years, I want to express my concerns about SB 279. This arbitrary bill proposals are unjust, unconstitutional, and radically harsh in nature and intent. How is it judiciously prudent that legal, law-abiding gun owners instantly become fourth-degree felonies under the determined penalties written within these bills? As a tax-paying constituent, I strongly urge you to vote against this erroneous bill. By passing of this bill, New Mexico residents will immediately suffer criminal consequences for previous federal and state lawful ownership that will permanently impact their future endeavors i.e., employment. Furthermore, there is no non-bias burden of proof that banning large capacity magazines and/or assault rifles reduces the number of violent crimes committed. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation , in 2019, New Mexico only had one recorded violent crime with a rifle. How would banning large capacity magazines and assault rifles further decrease this statistic when most of the violent crimes committed in New Mexico occurred by other means, not the items emphasized within these bills? I understand the reduction of violent crimes is a cause of concern. Still, these unconstitutional bills revoke qualifying citizens’ inalienable rights, which would invoke feelings of betrayal and contentment and quite possibly cause more violent crimes and illegal ownership of firearms. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics , with data acquired in 2004, most gun crimes were committed by those who illegally possess a gun. It is highly self-evident that legal, law-abiding citizens are not the ones committing crimes with firearms. To reiterate, this arbitrarily proposed bill is unjust, unconstitutional, and radically harsh in nature and intent. According to these unreasonably written bill, lawful taxpayers of New Mexico will be irrationally punished with lifelong repercussions that will significantly impact their productivity within society. Moreover, this bill violates honorable New Mexico citizens’ inalienable rights and supply no concrete evidence of being efficacious. So, again, I strongly urge you to vote against this bill for a successful, sustainable, beautiful future for New Mexico. Sincerely, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, “2019 Crime in the United States,” Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2019, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-20. Planty, M. and Truman, J, “Firearm Violence, 1993-2011,” U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2013, https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf. Probably won’t do much since our state is fucked but I copied and pasted and edited a little what you typed and sent it to all of these on the list today. 
|
| I couldn't hear all the votes, but I don't think this passed committee - Cervantes had issue that no other state had a similar law in the aspect of "gas operation" and he didn't think it would hold up in court. Was that the take away? |
| The bill has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on mostly a party line vote 5-4. My feed made it difficult to hear all the votes but the chair Joseph Cervantes (Democrat) did vote against due to Heller ruling. This committee was probably the committee most likely to table it. With nearly 2 weeks to go in session this bill has a very good chance of getting through. |
|
Today is 2A lobby day in Santa Fe bros. I really wish I could get there, but I just can’t get away. Hard to do a lobby day here as the state is so rural. It’s a long ass drive for people. But I hope it all goes well. Good luck & Godspeed to you all. |
Official ARFCOM nickname, The Germ!
|
WOW!!!! thats a huge win, if chair Joseph Cervantes (Democrat) voted against! Joseph Cervantes (D) has lots influence in Santa FE. (Ran for Governor) I wrote every one of the New Mexico senators, no-one responded back I knew that would happen. I'm going to write everyone in the house now, keep the fight up! |
|
Originally Posted By Dangermouse78: Today is 2A lobby day in Santa Fe bros. I really wish I could get there, but I just can’t get away. Hard to do a lobby day here as the state is so rural. It’s a long ass drive for people. But I hope it all goes well. Good luck & Godspeed to you all. Nuts, wish I'd heard that earlier. All I was doing was random chores around the house. The worst part for me is that it's just so damned logical. Leave me the fuck alone, and whatever gun I have won't matter. Don't leave me alone, and it still doesn't matter as long as it's effective. |
|
Also, don't count on the NM supreme court. https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/new-mexico-supreme-court-makes-ruling-on-governors-ban-on-guns-in-some-albuquerque-areas/ |
|
From what it sounded like on X last night. Dims tried ramming through SB318 late last night, the legal lawfare bill. The bill that says you can sue a gun shop for any reason bill. It’s really bad, it would essentially make owning a gun shop in NM impossible. Be calling & writing these shit heads. It sounds like rural dims are not down for this. Blue city extremists are the ones trying to get this over the finish line. If this bill passes, they won’t need the other bills, hence the focus on getting it through. Edit: SB318 didn’t get voted on last night. They’re on break till 1100 this am. Edit 2: SB318 |
Official ARFCOM nickname, The Germ!
|
Originally Posted By haveTwo: Also, don't count on the NM supreme court. https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/new-mexico-supreme-court-makes-ruling-on-governors-ban-on-guns-in-some-albuquerque-areas/ The New Mexico Constitution is pretty damn clear on the subject. How this pos bill can be pushed is beyond me. "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." |
|
Originally Posted By 1969GTX: The New Mexico Constitution is pretty damn clear on the subject. How this pos bill can be pushed is beyond me. "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." Originally Posted By 1969GTX: Originally Posted By haveTwo: Also, don't count on the NM supreme court. https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/new-mexico-supreme-court-makes-ruling-on-governors-ban-on-guns-in-some-albuquerque-areas/ The New Mexico Constitution is pretty damn clear on the subject. How this pos bill can be pushed is beyond me. "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." Doesn't matter, how long does it take to challenge things in court? Lawfare is tried and true. Hence needing to raise hell whenever they try it, and remind those you deal with on the regular to do the same. |
| Raising hell doesn't work. This state is ran by the shittiest of democrats that have little regret in stepping all over us. I've sent plenty of emails to our senators without response. In the end, I'm not going to comply. I live in a country where our sheriff will not enforce anti 2nd Amendment laws. |
| The Queen is already ranting about calling a special session for gun bans and justice reform. |
|
Originally Posted By LocalGunEnthusiast: The Queen is already ranting about calling a special session for gun bans and justice reform. Of course she is. I can't get out of this fucking state fast enough. |
|
Originally Posted By ARUDD: She done! This is her last year! She out in November! If only. The next gubernatorial election is in 2026. She still gets one (hopefully not more) more swing at this nonsense. However, New Mexico is as the kids say: cooked. It'll be a hard blue state for years to come imo. |
|
I'd been trying to find out what happened to this bill. Looks like it died in the fiscal committee. Is that right.? All I can say is I think there are enough Dems silently opposed to this bill that they may keep it out forever (unless the Supreme Court changes direction on 2A). The bill clearly violated New Mexico's Constitution Article II, Sec 6: "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 ." SB279 did not recognize hunting, recreational use or other lawful purposes. In fact, it said in effect you could keep your firearm at home or transport it to a range or sell it, that's all. My fear is if something like this ever passes our liberal courts may ignore the plain, clear language in our Constitution that allows hunting and recreational uses. The drafters of these bills think there are no legitimate uses for these types of firearms. If this bill comes back, we need to flood the legislators with real world examples of their use in hunting and recreation. |
|
Originally Posted By tinman44: I'd been trying to find out what happened to this bill. Looks like it died in the fiscal committee. Is that right.? All I can say is I think there are enough Dems silently opposed to this bill that they may keep it out forever (unless the Supreme Court changes direction on 2A). The bill clearly violated New Mexico's Constitution Article II, Sec 6: "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 ." SB279 did not recognize hunting, recreational use or other lawful purposes. In fact, it said in effect you could keep your firearm at home or transport it to a range or sell it, that's all. My fear is if something like this ever passes our liberal courts may ignore the plain, clear language in our Constitution that allows hunting and recreational uses. The drafters of these bills think there are no legitimate uses for these types of firearms. If this bill comes back, we need to flood the legislators with real world examples of their use in hunting and recreation. It was never heard by the senate finance committee, so you are correct it died there. In previous years like bills were never brought to either chamber for a floor vote as the chambers likely knew there was not support for bans, but support for other "common sense" measures as you've seen pass - red flag laws, waiting periods, etc. As NM becomes more and more progressive....as the older dems die off, bills like this will become easier to pass. We're just behind Colorado in that area, maybe another 5-10 years? To your point - "real world examples of their use in hunting and recreation" in previous sessions there have been ranchers articulating their use of the firearms to control coyotes and other vermin from their livestock. The committees simply did not care and the bills almost always passed on party lines out of committee. Maybe that argument will pursade some in the unfortunate future of a floor vote, but I will not be optimistic about anything here in NM. |
|
Originally Posted By krecon1: It was never heard by the senate finance committee, so you are correct it died there. In previous years like bills were never brought to either chamber for a floor vote as the chambers likely know there isn't support for bans, but support for other "common sense" measures as you've seen pass - red flag laws, waiting periods, etc. As NM becomes more and more progressive....as the older dems die off, bills like this will become easier to pass. We're just behind Colorado in that area, maybe another 5-10 years? To your point - "real world examples of their use in hunting and recreation" in previous sessions there have been ranchers articulating their use of the firearms to control coyotes and other vermin from their livestock. The committees simply did not care and the bills almost always passed on party lines out of committee. About the state becoming more progressive as the older democrats retire, the legislators who take their place are less receptive to testimony from hunters, ranchers, sheriff's departments, etc. We're witnessing that same issue in Colorado where no amount of good-faith arguing will bring about change on these hardline gun bills. They want these laws passed now, and to leave the rest up to the courts. In that sense, I think NM is only a couple of years behind our neighbors up north despite a clear state constitution. Many New Mexicans are already apathetic constituents who have settled for mediocrity for decades, and are often too poor to care about what the state government does. |