Apparently there will again be more background check bills brought up next session.

Everytown claims to have a majority now (link to newspaper article)

Fuck these assholes. We are going to be fighting here for a long time. We're one D governor away from being CO.

Shit....

Expect increasing push from the left on every front now.

They are truly pissed and enraged.....

You are one D governor away from becoming California!

I don't think California, but I could definitely see Colorado. Hell Suzana said she would sign that bullshit had it passed last time.

NO, just NO.  I live in CA for 20 years and they are so fucked.  I have bought more guns in the last 3 months since my move and I will be starting my SBR on Monday.  I could not do any of that in CA.  I have already become active to prevent a Californication at all costs.

I hate this states demographics.   Damn hippies up north and in the mountains screw us.  

I hate to say it, but we need to make sure anyone running for governer after rino martinez needs a hispanic last name.   Sad that we have to use a hispanic last name to get votes.  

Good news is alot of the dems in the south that I know have all went hardcore repub after Obama.

You mean a fine hispanic name like, maybe, Johnson?

That was a ways back.  We werent as blue back then.  Gringo repub governer will be no more unless we cut off the northern half.  

Laugh all you want but there is enough hispanic folks that will vote soley on name to sway this state left or right in major elections.  Its not a large percentage overall, but its enough to make a difference.  

Put Susana up for POTUS or VPOTUS and watch this state go red.  It is what it is.  

With the dems controlling both houses now we might be fucked.  Susanna is no friend to gun rights.  At least she isn't a dem though...

Okay, just got word on the two bills that have been prefiled that are BAD.  We definitely need to oppose SB48 and HB50.  These are Michael Bloomberg specials aimed at halting all gun transfers except through an FFL.  Note I said "transfers" not just "sales."  These are very broad bills that are aimed at turning us into Colorado, or at least taking a first stab at doing so.  If these pass, HICAP mag bans are next, mark my words.  If you value your Second Amendment rights, you need to write/email your legislators and tell them to oppose these bills.  I guess since Bloomberg's anti-gun group saw NM along with Colorado as the only two "blue" states out here in a sea of red, they thought they'd take another run at us since they already conquered Colorado and they saw where the Dems took back control of both houses here.

I agree, but I would doubt they don't pass. We need to start emailing the governor as well. Start the opposition to signing them.

My two reps are solid pro-gun republicans.  There is not much else I can do on that front.

Talked to one of my Reps today, he was not very optimistic we can stop this.  He was also not very optimistic about Susanna, said she has a very good chance of signing anything that gets to her desk.  Not sure what else to do, but keep calling your reps guys.

Wrote mine today.  Easy way to find your reps...

https://www.nmlegis.gov/Members/Find_By_Address

I wrote mine using the NRA-ila form. Thinking about starting to write the governor.

Talked to a guy on the antidrug coalition.  Sounds like Pot on the ballot is coming.  I'd imagine they are gonna shoot for some anti 2a stuff since they'll get the dem voters out.

The dope thing should've been settled long ago.  All it does now is create opportunities for more leftist shit to pass when they inevitably bring out the stoners to vote on it. The guy in AZ had it right, let the legislature legalize or risk the voters doing it and voting in the next Obama or worse at the same time.

I just wrote Dow and Morales. Is it worth the effort to write the committee members as well? None are in my district.

Really sad to see this happening in New Mexico.  I'm a refuge from Colorado where Bloomberg and the liberals ruined that state with that same B.S. legislation.  I've still got relatives in New Mexico and had even considered NM before retiring to Arizona so I hate to see the state turn into another Colorado. You can bet the mag limits will be next on their agenda if they get this pushed through.

Next Tuesday, January 31, the New Mexico Senate Public Affairs Committee will meet at 1:30pm in Room 321 of the State Capitol in Santa Fe to hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 48.

Any updates from today's hearing?

Heard it got out of committee.  I wrote to the governor just now.

Is there any sense on how the legislature looks on this?

I just wrote a letter to Governor Susanna . I will also be calling the Governor and my state legislators to voice my opposition. It is sad that if we don't get another republican Governor in 2018 we will quickly become the next Colorado or worse.

I talked to NRA rep. Michael Horanburg at the Capitan Rifle annual meeting.

He said Susana would likely sign this (SB 48 and HB 50)

A cliff note of the bills, as I understand, it would be illegal to loan (for any amount of time) a firearm to another person with out a back ground check.

Shooting with friends, a no no,  wife or family member picks up your  firearm to defend themselves, a no no.

I know it doesn't make since, but the bills are written so poorly (on purpose) to cover damn near anything they want.

write Susana NOW!!

Apparently SB 48 has been passed by it's committee and HB 50 will be heard by it committee, don't know when.

I did a quick read of SB48 and here's some interesting points:

Transfer restrictions do not apply to family members.
restrictions do not apply to loaning a firearm while target shooting
restrictions do no apply if such a transfer is to a non-prohibited person, if such a transfer is necessary to prevent grave bodily harm
restrictions do not apply while hunting
And finally, they do not apply if the owner is physically present.

It looks like the libs are learning from their criticism on previous bills in other states. While it is, at least, not as onerous as other state's bills, it wouldn't be as easy to challenge the law as 'unreasonable' as it would Co or Wa's UBC laws. Keep up writing to your state reps and to Gov Martinez and let's nip this.

Here's a link to the SB 48 bill text for 2017:
SB 48 text

Edit for typo

As jvm mentioned,  HB 50 is scheduled for committee. House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee,  on 2/4. Eliseo Alcon is committee chair. Write your reps and urge committee members to defeat this bill!

A friend at the roundhouse said we need to be calling Governor RINO if we want this blocked as she will sign it unless we make noise.
505-476-2200

I just emailed. Copy of what I sent below.

Posted in GD

link

Thanks, MrHiggs.  Email sent to Governor.  

I love my home state....but Santa Fe is a hive of scum and villainy.  

New Mexico's own constitution, article 2 section 6, states "....No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms".

The state is doing it.  Loophole.  All depends on how the courts wish to define it.  With the progressive liberal State Supreme Court, we're all fooked.

Do we have any members attending the committee hearing who can give us an update?

Update

From a member present at the committee meeting. Not really surprising, we need to keep hammering state reps and the governor.

Here's the copy pasta from what I just posted over in GD:

I went up to Santa Fe today to testify against these bills. This morning, it was specifically HB50. This was a committee hearing, not a full vote, but it did pass the committee this morning, right down partisan lines. They are both virtually identical, and both would require that you go through an NICS background check not only for private sales, but also if you just wanted to let a buddy borrow a firearm. Even worse, you would have to go through a background check just to get your own firearm back after lending it to your buddy. It is absurd. The bills are also internally contradictory and they have some moot sections based on the way it is written.

Here is the text of the bill:
NM SB48

One of the groups that is pushing this bill is funded by Bloomberg, which means that NY money is coming into influence NM politics, which as a native of this state, really pisses me off. The specific organization is Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America, which is part of Everytown For Gun Safety, which is a Bloomberg creation. I was told this morning that some of the people getting up to testify to the legislature (they were wearing red shirts) were from out of state. I don't know if it was true or not, but when I got up to speak, I introduced myself with "My grandfather was born in the United States Territory of New Mexico, I'm a New Mexican." I pointed out that this will create a new class of criminal who is more heavily armed than the entire LEO apparatus of the State of New Mexico, which will in turn erode their authority and erode the rule of law.

There were several hours of testimony from both sides, and after that was done, the committee voted 3-1 to pass the bill on to the next step, which is another committee hearing.

I am currently working on an in depth analysis of the bill, and then will use that to produce a 1 page (or less) bullet point document about the bill for quick reference. I am going to spam the entire legislature with it. My senator is against this bill, and she is also my neighbour, so that helps. I also want to target the senators and representatives who introduced this legislation the next time they are up for reelection. I was on a campaign several years ago where a NOT hated incumbent was ousted where our candidate won ~65-35 in the primaries. That is unheard of in politics, but I know how that campaign was run, and it was run very different than a typical campaign. I will offer up my services at the next election to get these people out of there. Ideally, at least one or two should be ousted in the primaries by pro gun dems (yes, we have those here,) just to send a message: DON'T FUCK WITH OUR GUNS!

For fellow New Mexicans on here, I will keep you updated as this progresses, but it looks like we're headed to this passing the house and the senate, but that it will likely be vetoed by the governor.

How sure are you that Martinez will veto? I've not heard good things on that front. Also, I'm not acutely aware of the numbers in the legislature this year. Do they have numbers for a veto override?

So seeing how Garcia Richard is about to be my rep (moving soon) I'm debating sending this email. What do you guys think? Worth it?

I'm not positive, but in the conversation I had with my state Senator, she agreed that it was likely.  


Also, in the GD thread, a poster said that the FBI refused to do NICS background checks in NV for temporary transfers, which had passed a similar law because it was too much for the system.  I am going to hound the FBI for an official statement on this, and if true, I will torpedo these bills.  Hard.

If you want, you can add something like this (but in your own words):  This bill has onerous provisions that will not be followed, which will in turn create a new criminal class which collectively is more heavily armed than the entire law enforcement apparatus in the State of New Mexico.  If you want to erode your authority and erode the rule of law, you should see to it that this bill is passed.

All the more reason to make sure Martinez is hearing us, in addition to pressure from NRA-ILA.

OK, I found the NV AG's opinion on the NV law.  The FBI's policy that applied there is not directly applicable to our situation.  However, I think I figured out who to contact at the FBI specifically about temporary transfers, and will be on this.  It may be a dead end, but I won't know until I ask.

The thing about telling a shithead you think they are a shithead, is that shitheads don't give a damn.

Update:

https://www.abqjournal.com/942910/firearms-legislation-to-face-amendments-in-nm-house.html



It sounds like somebody got taken in by Bloomberg or his minions and found out that gun owners are a grassroots machine.  I have asked around and am told that in person, she is reasonable.  If you want to do the politically prudent thing here, outreach is what you want to do.  We want to convert her to our side.  It won't happen this session, and I will still be opposed to this bill, even if severely altered, but we can be far more reasonable than the regressive left.  We should prove that.  A lot of anti-gun people are that way because they are simply ignorant.  I'm up for a fight, but teaching somebody is much more pleasant in the long run.

There is another meeting over HB50 tomorrow at 1:30 PM.  It is in room 309 at the Roundhouse.  If you want to get in, you'll probably need to show up 2+ hours early.  My suspicion is that it is going to be amended to only deal with private sales, and then pass the committee.  From there, it will either have to go to another house committee, or it will be bound for the floor.  I haven't checked today, but one or two days ago, the senate bill wasn't going anywhere.  This means that if (when) it passes the house, it will have to go into the Senate, where it will probably have to go through 2-3 committee hearings before going to the floor.  

As I stated before, I think it would be a good idea to try to flip Garcia-Richards to our side before the next session, and pick a senator who introduced the SB48 for a grass roots opposition next time one of them is up for re-election.  We would want to have a pro-gun Dem beat him in the primary to send a real message.  It is possible to do.

Summary: The bill was amended, some of the exceptions were removed and now, so long as the loan of a firearm (black powder included) is 5 days or less, no background check is required. There was a lot of discussion, and in the end, the amended bill passed out of committee, 6-7.

Details:

I have yet to find an electronic copy of the amended bill (just the old bill,) but here is some of the new/changed stuff (sorry about any typos, this is coming from a hard copy:)



So, basically, if you want to lend your rifle to a friend for a 5 day elk hunt, where he is going to get there the day before, and possibly leave the day after the hunt is over, your buddy needs to get a NICS background check done because the total time of the trip is 7 days for the 5 day elk hunt, and it ain't going to be free. But it gets better, because here are some definitions that DID NOT change:



So, after lending a firearm to a buddy for a single day, no background check is required. However, there is nothing in the bill that says that the owner of a firearm cannot be be a transferee, nor is there anything in the bill that would exempt owner-transferees from this requirement. This means that, if I loan out a firearm to a buddy for a day, he does not need a background check, but by those definitions above, returning the firearm to me is a transfer and I am the transferee. Since I'm going to keep it for more than 5 days, because, you know, I fucking own it, I have to go through a background check. This is some of the sloppiest legislation that I have ever read, and I have read a lot.

After that, some of the exceptions to when people would have to get a background check were removed, because they are supposedly covered in the 5 day thing.

Another point: Several Sheriff's showed up. I can name the counties that 7 or 8 are from, and I was told that 12 or 13 in total showed up. IIRC, there are a total of 33 in my state, and every single one of them is against this legislation. Some of them would have had ~6 hour drives to make it there. All of them say that it is unenforceable, and it is.

Thanks for the update Garand555.

Thanks for the summary! Fox News ran an article a couple days ago that 32/33 sheriffs signed a letter to the Governor against this bill. Hopefully that's enough to get some attention.

A few comments based on what I have read.
First, I opposed this legislation and wrote every member of the last committee an email that was very specific as to some of the problems I see in the proposed legislation.  The amendments appears to have addressed some of my concerns but not all of them.  I pointed out in my email that I could not lend my rifle to my buddy to take on a hunt out of state or on an elk hunt in this state.  I agree the proposed amended 5-day limitation is ludicrous and needs to be lengthened to at least 7 but 10 days would be better.  
My main point of contention deals with firearms held by me in a gun trust designed for both NFA and non-NFA items.  Every trustee or beneficiary has an equal right to possess those guns.  How can that be a prohibited transfer?  The legislation exempted transfer to trustees but only upon death.  So if any of you have guns or NFA firearms in a trust, you need to be aware that as originally written, the bill would make it illegal for one trustee to take possession of a firearm in the trust.  Stupid!!
Second, this is Bloomberg's attempt to get the camel's nose into the tent.  If this passes, as I said earlier in this thread and someone else said the same thing, HICAP mag bans will be here NEXT YEAR!!  Ammo background checks will follow after that!! 10-day waiting periods...and more.  I just came from visiting two of my children in California.  It's a shame what has happened there.  This bill won't prevent crime as we all know. It's just another attempt by Bloomberg's group to rid the country of all privately owned firearms. 
#WAKEUPNEWMEXICO!!  We need to stand up to save our right to keep and bear arms.