Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Wednesday, 4 September 2019

“Working for Workers” is Really Working AGAINST Workers

Filed under: Economics, Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 1:36 AM (01:36)

From: Representative Debra Haaland <NM01DH@mail.house.gov>
Date: Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Working for Workers

News from Representative Haaland

August 29, 2019

Dear Mr. Blessing,

Happy Labor Day! Every year we celebrate the contribution of unions and the labor movement to our country. Unions built the American middle class. We owe the 40-hour work week, minimum wage, and child labor laws all to the work of organized labor and unions. They are a force against income inequality and we need them now more than ever.

As a member of the Labor and Working Families Caucus and a former member of the Teamsters Union, I am fighting for you every day. I am proud to be a cosponsor of The Protecting the Right to Organize Act to expand protections for workers who exercise their right to unionize. I also voted to pass the Raise the Wage Act, which would increase the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade.

Sincerely,
Image
Member of Congress

Of course, here’s my answer to her “survey” —


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Facebook / Twitter
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress

Advertisements

Friday, 9 August 2019

Who Wants Trump to be Assassinated?

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:45 PM (17:45)

For starters, apparently Roger Demetrius Kaschak does, that’s who —

Digression here — I’m not a fan of Trump, considering his vocal support for the victim disarmament cause, but the “baby Trump” balloons are quite simply moronic, in my opinion.

For what it’s worth, Kaschak is a Biden supporter —

https://facebook.com/KASHMIR82/posts/2832382266777365

https://facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2812116758803916&set=a.199974353351516&type=3


Thursday, 8 August 2019

Wes Milliken, “Libertarian” Victim Disarmer and Hoplophobe

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:50 PM (23:50)

While scrolling through my “News Feed” on Facebook, I found this little “gem” attached as a “comment” to a post by Danny Bedwell —

https://facebook.com/danny.bedwell.587/posts/10211219478122893?comment_id=10211219639566929

Following the post back to Milliken’s profile, I found that Milliken says he’s in the business of “. . . spreading libertarian ideals of peace, freedom, and prosperity . . . .” :

  

A casual scroll-through of Milliken’s “Timeline” reveals even more such “goodness” of the kind that Milliken posted to Mr. Bedwell’s Facebook post —

https://facebook.com/wes.milliken/posts/2471548212902041

https://facebook.com/wes.milliken/posts/2470721239651405

https://facebook.com/wes.milliken/posts/2470518809671648

https://facebook.com/wes.milliken/posts/2470339666356229

https://facebook.com/wes.milliken/posts/2470078179715711

https://facebook.com/wes.milliken/posts/2469999329723596

I was going to add a comment or two under each of the above pictures, but that would be superfluous, in my opinion.

Also in my opinion, libertarianism without a healthy, expanding gun culture to back it up isn’t much more than an intellectual exercise at best, and wishful fantasizing at worst.

This sort of thing is what you get when a movement’s advocates value “diversity” and “inclusiveness” over principles.

For those of you in the “Libertarian” Party of New Mexico who in 2017 signed off on the notion that everyone before the Johnson / Weld 2016 exercise in serial treason against both the organization and its professed principles was “good on the Second Amendment, but not much else,” I cordially invite you to anally self-fornicate with a plugged-in curling iron, or a lit stick of dynamite. My sincere regret is that I am unable to supply the latter for any of you.


Saturday, 3 August 2019

Taking Pictures or Video at TV or Movie Sets on Public Property is NOT a Crime

Filed under: Principles — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 9:16 PM (21:16)

I saw this post on Craigslist about a month ago —

https://albuquerque.craigslist.org/vnn/d/albuquerque-pics-vids-at-movie-shoots/6921286643.html

Here’s the text of the post (Craigslist normally deletes posts 45 days after they’re put up) —

It is not illegal to take video or pics of movie shoots as long as you are doing from public property. Don’t let them try and tell you youre violating copyright laws because you cannot copyright real life. PINAC Photography Is NOT A Crime[1]. That is Robert Duh Niro in The Comeback Trail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBsJVTCBTRc

Here’s the embedded video from the post —

Someone that looks like De Niro can seen standing to the left of the older orange car on the left side of the video.

It should be noted that not only was the photographer taking the picture from public property (somewhere in the Downtown area of Albuquerque), but that the set itself also seems to have been located on public property.

Someone needs to tell the producers and locations managers that if they don’t want the general public taking pictures or video of their stars or the set, then they should not use public streets as their set.

Just because you flash some cash in front of some Political Classholes, that doesn’t mean that you get to have exclusive use of public property.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Photography is Not a Crime [PINAC] — site / Facebook page

NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Friendica / Gab / Liberty.Me / Minds / Twitter / VK
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    4. KCUF Media Facebook page
    5. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
    6. Resist Marxism New Mexico Facebook page
    7. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    8. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voter remorse) Facebook group
    9. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

Friday, 21 June 2019

Yet Another Phisher?!

Filed under: Technology — Tags: — mikewb1971 @ 2:49 AM (02:49)

Oh, joy, another phisher trying to get my ProtonMail password —

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, June 16, 2019 4:35 PM, ProtonMail <vhost72692f0@accountaxxxx244.ee> wrote:

Dear Mikewb1971

Your mikewb1971@protonmail.com will be removed in the next 24 hours as your device has been sending a shut down request to our internal server.

Take a verification if you think it’s just an error..

VERIFICATION NEEDED

Kind regards,your ProtonMail TeamImprove ProtonMail in your language by joining our open source translation project. We are particularly looking for native speakers of Bulgarian, Persian, Hebrew, Hindi, Korean, Serbian, Traditional Chinese and Vietnamese.

Follow us for updates:
ProtonMail on LinkedIn
ProtonMail on Mastodon
ProtonMail on Twitter
ProtonMail on Facebook

First, I tried to go to accountaxxxx244.ee

Going to the actual phishing site’s domain name (https://bonga.go.in.ua), I first had to navigate through Google’s Safe Browsing warnings AND let Google know that I am aware of the “danger” —

Which eventually took me to this —

These phishers never seem to improve their bag of tricks. Instead, they rely on their (potential) marks to be stupid.


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Fediway / Friendica / Gab / Minds / Twitter / VK

Sunday, 16 June 2019

Bernalillo County DA Raul Torrez, Idiot or Liar?

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 3:50 PM (15:50)

In light of the past six months, I think that it’s rather obvious that Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez is functioning as a rhetorical sock puppet for the Big Victim Disarmament machine, with the hands of George Soros and Michael Bloomberg up his rear making his lips move —

Sock puppets — which one is Raúl Torrez?

On Monday, 10 June 2019, the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office posted a bit of idiocy or fearmongering on Facebook —

Monday, 10 June 2019 at 1:16 PM

An Albuquerque teen arrested for selling the deadly drug fentanyl and military grade weapons on social media now being prosecuted federally.

Here are some photos from that post, with my own commentary in red.

Kid with FRNs fanned

Here El Chapo Jr shows off the fruits of his alleged business activities.

Oh, my — pills!

Beretta 92 type pistol with magazines

Yes, the M9 was and is patterned after the Beretta 92 series of pistols. That’s because Fabbrica d’Armi Pietro Beretta introduced it into the U.S. Armed Forces’ trials to replace the M1911, and the M9 was selected in 1985 as the winner of those trials.

Never mind that the Beretta 92 series has been available on the American civilian market since it was first made available by Beretta in 1975. And also disregard the non-Beretta clones of the Model 92 series available to American civilians — the Taurus PT-92, for example.

Similarly, there have been numerous civilian clones of the M1911 available on the American market for decades.

And recently, the SIG Sauer P320 was adopted as the U.S. military’s M17, with a civilian version of the M17 (“SIG Sauer P320 M17”) being offered by SIG Sauer.

And of course there’s the Glock, which gained notoriety after being adopted by the Austrian military and police as their service pistol in 1982, and has been subsequently adopted by quite a few other military and law enforcement agencies. (Disclaimer — I own two (2) Glocks myself, a G17 and a G22)

But wait, there’s more! (Apologies to Billy Mays and Anthony Sullivan) — Torrez & Co. want us to follow them deeper down their taxpayer-subsidized, Bloomberg- and Soros-directed rathole and swim with them in their sewer of hoplophobic insanity and idiocy: here’s more “evidence” of “military grade” “assault weapons” “on the street” —

Pic from behind AR-15 pistol (blurry)

My request for clear, in-focus pictures, of course, appears to have gone unheeded.

AR-15 pistol with drum mag in car (dated Wednesday, 5 June)

Here’s a picture from the related press conference, dated Wednesday, 5 June 2019 at 12:28 PM

Of course, the Albuquerque Journal added its no-charge PR help reporting (the KRQE “News” “team” was also complicit) of Torrez’s rhetorical regurgitation —

“Make no mistake about it, this young man had in his possession a weapon of war,” Torrez stated. The AR-15 pistol is small enough to be concealed on a person’s body and can be fired with just one hand.

But “seriously” (as if these idiots and liars should actually be taken seriously?!) — “weapon of war” ?

Maybe Torrez mistook the AR-15 pistol pictured here for an M231 Firing Point Weapon[1] . . . ?

Maybe the next item on El Chapo Jr’s shopping list was a Bradley Fighting Vehicle of some sort?

But seriously (for real, this time) —

What military or law-enforcement agency actually uses AR-15 pistols as pictured above?

Why would they use such neutered knock-offs when they can get AR-15-pattern weapons with similar-length barrels (this one appears to be about 10 inches) AND attached shoulder stocks (suppressors, too!) without having to fill out any Form 4s or pay the 200-per-weapon transfer tax.

That’s what the AR-15 pistols with exposed buffer tubes like that are — neutered knock-offs.

They’re marketed to those who want an AR-15 with a barrel shorter than 16 inches without having to complete a Form 4, pay the transfer tax, get fingerprinted and photographed, then wait six months to a year wondering if their federal weapon permit will be approved.

What Torrez and his fellow Political Classholes need is a reminder that the Founders wanted America’s private-sector civilians to have actual weapons of war in their personal possession, as opposed to neutered knock-offs —

The power of the sword, say the minority . . . , is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
Tench Coxe, Letter to the Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788

What Torrez and others of his ilk either forget or willfully disregard is that the Founders wanted America’s civilian population to have at least military parity with, if not supremacy over, the federal government, and probably the state governments, as well.

What is the specific war that we need such military weapons for, exactly?

Why, it’s the perpetual war for human freedom, of course.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Ian McCollum at Forgotten Weapons on the M231 Firing Point Weapon — Website / YouTube

    Wikipedia — M231 Firing Point Weapon

    Soldier Systems — “M231 Firing Port Weapon”

NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,025: 16 June 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Facebook / Twitter
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    4. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

Sunday, 9 June 2019

Operation Choke Point Moves (Back) to the Private Sector

Filed under: Politics, Resistance, Self-Defense, Technology — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:00 AM (06:00)

First, Big Finance tried to shut down the firearms industry in the 1990s when Bank of America, among others, decided that they would no longer provide financial services to federally-licensed unregulated firearms dealers and manufacturers —

https://startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=banks+refusing+firearms+business

Then in 2013, Barack Obama decided to make this sort of thing official federal policy with Operation Choke Point.

Trump, to his credit, shut down Operation Choke Point in 2017.

Now the Silicon Valley victim disarmers are getting into the game. Recently, Salesforce head Marc Benioff decided to have his company join the act by cutting off his company’s services to firearms dealers and manufacturers.

Here’s the boilerplate legalese that comprises Salesforce’s terms of service —

https://c1.sfdcstatic.com/content/dam/web/en_us/www/documents/legal/Agreements/policies/ExternalFacing_Services_Policy.pdf

The last paragraph of Section 6, Prohibited Actions (on page 3), is where Salesforce puts Benioff’s victim disarmament fetish into Salesforce’s terms of service —

Worldwide, customers may not use a Service to transact online sales of any of the following firearms and/or related accessories to private citizens. Firearms: automatic firearms; semi-automatic firearms that have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any of the following: thumbhole stock, folding or telescoping stock, grenade launcher or flare launcher, flash or sound suppressor, forward pistol grip, pistol grip (in the case of a rifle) or second pistol grip (in the case of a pistol), barrel shroud; semi-automatic firearms with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds; ghost guns; 3D printed guns; firearms without serial numbers; .50 BMG rifles; firearms that use .50 BMG ammunition. Firearm Parts: magazines capable of accepting more than 10 rounds; flash or sound suppressors; multi-burst trigger devices; grenade or rocket launchers; 80% or unfinished lower receivers; blueprints for ghost guns; blueprints for 3D printed guns; barrel shrouds; thumbhole stocks; threaded barrels capable of accepting a flash suppressor or sound suppressor.

Still, there ARE alternatives to Salesforce (H/T the Jews Can Shoot FB page) —

https://selecthub.com/customer-relationship-management/salesforce-alternatives/


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Facebook / Twitter
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress
    3. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

Why Not Simply Quit Recycling for Free?

Filed under: Media, Politics, Resistance — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:44 AM (05:44)

Recently, the Albuquerque Journal, performing its de facto function as a public-relations branch for Reichsmayor Keller and his eco-fascist buddies, parroted reported the City of Albuquerque’s press release about the plan of having the Solid Waste Department go through residents’ blue recycling bins looking for wrongtrash

Monday, 3 June 2019, p. A1 —

City crews may dive into your recycling bin

by Jessica Dyer, Journal Staff Writer

Apparently, the plan will entail having people from the Solid Waste Department moving ahead of the collection trucks going through residents’ blue recycling bins looking for “non-recyclable materials,” then tagging the blue bins of the “wrongdoers.”

With that in mind, AND considering the City’s recent move to outlaw “single-use” plastic shopping bags such as those found at the checkout lines of Walmart and Home Depot, AND the stated desires of those same eco-fascists on the City Council and the Bernalillo County Commission to outlaw the polystyrene foam “to-go” boxes and plastic straws given to you at most restaurants, why not simply stop ALL recycling?

Does the City give you ANY sort of tax break for your cleaning and sorting of certain kinds of trash gratis for them?

If they do, I certainly haven’t heard of it.

What they DO give you instead is an endless stream of nonsensical platitudes about how you’re “saving the Earth” by buying into their mind-rot and its attendant rituals.

OK, maybe keep recycling if you can get the trash in question to a private-sector recycler who will — ready for this crazy idea of mine? — PAY YOU FOR IT (in Albuquerque, Town Recycling seems to be the best bet), but why give it with no compensation whatsoever to some crony mercantilist who wangled some back-room deal with the eco-fascists if you don’t have to?

What is the Keller Mafia going to do, issue fines and jail time against you for refusing to fill up the blue bin on a semi-periodic basis?

Still, let’s not give them any ideas — just like they behave towards gun owners and tobacco smokers, once one of these cretins denies their wanting to enact such a scheme, it won’t be long before their successors propose the exact same sort of plan.


NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,024: Sunday, 9 June 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Facebook / Twitter
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress
    3. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

Sunday, 7 April 2019

Balderas and Lujan-Grisham, Not Sheriffs, the True Lawbreakers

Filed under: Politics, Principles, Resistance, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:30 PM (18:30)

Recently, Attorney General Hector Balderas sent a letter to 26 county sheriffs stating that, “As law enforcement officials . . . we do not have the freedom to pick and choose which state laws we enforce,” in reference to the “universal background checks” mandated by the newly-passed Senate Bill 8.[1],[2]

So why is that Balderas is himself choosing to ignore existing State law, specifically Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico:[3]

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.

Maybe I missed the amendment to the State Constitution that repealed Article II, Section 6? I don’t remember seeing such an amendment on the ballot during the 2018 election.

Never mind that actual criminals and terrorists won’t bother at all to go through a background check through a federally-licensed dealer, as mandated by SB 8. They’ll steal them, or get someone else to buy them, or whatever. You see, they have discovered this massive loophole in SB 8 (and other such laws) called “breaking the law.”

Balderas also said that “the taxpayers of your city or county assume the financial risk of your decision to impose your personal views over the law.”

How much liability will Balderas, Lujan-Grisham, or the legislators who pushed SB 8 assume should someone denied a firearm under color of SB 8 be injured or killed after the fact, say by a deranged ex-spouse?

Most likely they will assume zero liability (don’t bother trying to sue them on this — they will invoke “sovereign immunity”[4]) and skate away from any responsibility. After all, it wasn’t one of the Political Class that was killed or maimed, so who cares, right?


As published in the Albuquerque Journal

Gun law ignores Constitution

RECENTLY, ATTORNEY General Hector Balderas sent a letter to 26 county sheriffs stating that, “As law enforcement officials . . . we do not have the freedom to pick and choose which state laws we enforce,” in reference to the “universal background checks” mandated by the newly-passed Senate Bill 8.

So why is that Balderas is himself choosing to ignore existing State law, specifically Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico: 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.

I don’t remember seeing amendment to the State Constitution that repealed Article II, Section 6 such an amendment on the ballot during the 2018 election. Maybe I missed it?

Never mind that actual criminals and terrorists won’t bother at all to go through a background check through a federally-licensed dealer, as mandated by SB 8. They’ll steal them, or get someone else to buy them, or whatever. You see, they have discovered this massive loophole in SB 8 (and other such laws) called “breaking the law.”

Balderas also said that “the taxpayers of your city or county assume the financial risk of your decision to impose your personal views over the law.”

How much liability will Balderas, (Gov. Michelle) Lujan-Grisham, or the legislators who pushed SB 8 assume should someone denied a firearm under color of SB 8 be injured or killed after the fact, say by a deranged ex-spouse?

Most likely they will assume zero liability — If you sue them on this as they deserve, they’ll invoke “sovereign immunity” — and avoid any responsibility. After all, it wasn’t one of the political class that was killed or maimed, so who cares, right?

MIKE BLESSING
Albuquerque


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Albuquerque Journal — Friday, 5 April 2019: AG directs sheriffs, chiefs to enforce gun law by Dan McKay and Dan Boyd, Journal Capitol Bureau
  2. New Mexico Legislature page: “2019 Regular Session – SB 8” [“SB” = “Senate Bill” MWB]
  3. New Mexico Compilation Commission — Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico
  4. The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 23, 1 March 1997 – Down By Law by Victor Milán

NOTES

  1. Published in
    1. The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,015 – 7 April 2019
    2. Albuquerque JournalSaturday, 13 April 2019, p.A13, Opinion – Letters to the Editor: “Gun law ignores Constitution”
  2. Reposted –
    1. The Weekly SeditionWordPress

Thursday, 24 January 2019

Comments on the “Rocket Docket” of Victim Disarmament Legislation

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:47 PM (18:47)

From: Mike Blessing
To: Elizabeth “Liz” Thomson (D-24), Representative Andrea Romero (D-46), Representative Candy Spence Ezzell (R-58), Representative Angelica Rubio (D-35), Representative Gregg Schmedes (R-22) [1]
CC: Representative Antonio Maestas (D-16) [2], Representative Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-13), Representative Debra M. Sariñana (D-21), Representative Miguel P. Garcia (D-14), Representative Joy Garratt (D-29), Representative Daymon Ely (D-23), Representative Deborah A. Armstrong (D-17), Representative Linda M. Trujillo (D-48)
Date: Thursday, January 24, 2019, 12:00 PM MST
Subject: Comments on the “Rocket Docket” of Victim Disarmament Legislation

Honored Members of the Committee:

First, I am writing to say that some of the legislation under consideration by the committee is not properly labelled as “gun control.” Gun control constitutes the safe, proficient, and proper use of a firearm — the four safety rules, stance, grip, sight alignment and picture, breathing, trigger operation, target selection, etc.

Rather, the legislation in question (HB 8, HB 40, HB 83, HB 87, HB 130) is more properly called “victim disarmament,” in that the people most likely to be affected by it are the people who have the most reason to own and carry firearms for self-defense — the little old lady or the paraplegic who lives alone in a bad neighborhood, the five-foot-nothing 100-pound woman being stalked by a six-foot 200-pound deranged ex-boyfriend.

The bad people (the criminals, terrorists, and violence-inclined mental defectives) whom the proponents of this legislation say will be disarmed by it most likely will not be affected in the least. If they want access to a firearm, they will have it, by hook or by crook.

You see, the bad guys have found this massive loophole in the existing restrictions on private civilians’ rights to own and carry weapons called “breaking the law.”

There are already 20,000 to 25,000 existing restrictions upon the pre-existing individual, civil, Constitutional, human right to own and carry weapons, which are supposed to be guaranteed against State infringement by the Second Amendment and Article 2, Section 6 of the State Constitution. None of these anti-liberty statutes has stopped a bad guy from obtaining a firearm when they want it.

Laws already exist that prohibit felons, domestic abusers, foreign terrorists, incurable drug abusers and alcoholics, and mental defectives from obtaining, owning or carrying firearms.

Laws already exist that prohibit the use of firearms (and other objects) to harm other people (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.).

I think it’s safe to say that all these laws have done is keep honest people honest, the same way locks on doors do.

Those who propose further infringements upon individual liberty aren’t truly looking to improve the human condition at all, but seeking more power over others for whatever reasons. No good will come from these infringements — no good has ever come from these sorts of laws, and no good ever will.

Specifically —

House Bill 8[3], so-called “universal background check” legislation sponsored by Representative Debra Sarinana, would ban all private firearms sales between law-abiding individuals. Gun owners will be forced to pay undetermined fees and obtain government approval before selling firearms to family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers, or fellow hunters, competitive shooters and gun club members. This proposal will have no impact on crime and is unenforceable without gun registration. [4]

House Bill 40[5], by Representative Miguel Garcia, would require criminal records checks on private firearms sales at gun shows — a perennial target of the gun control crowd, even though studies show that these events are not a source of crime guns.[6]

House Bill 83[7], extreme risk protection order or “red flag” legislation sponsored by Representative Damon Ely, would authorize the seizure of firearms and ammunition from individuals without due process. Unchallenged statements made by a petitioner before a judge, alleging that someone is a danger to themselves or others in an ex parte proceeding — prior to any formal court hearing at which the respondent can be represented by counsel and present counter evidence — would be sufficient for law enforcement to enter that person’s home and confiscate their private property.[8]

House Bill 87[9] by Representative Deborah Armstrong expands the state’s “prohibited person” firearm law by purportedly incorporating federal firearm disqualifications. The bill would prohibit individuals convicted of certain domestic violence misdemeanor crimes or who are subject to a domestic violence protective order from purchasing or possessing a firearm, with violations being a criminal offense. However, the bill goes beyond the prohibited categories in federal law in several significant ways. The state law definition of “household member” — unlike federal law — specifically includes a person who is or has been a continuing personal relationship, which applies to dating or intimate partners who have never lived together. The bill would include, as firearm-prohibiting offenses, nonviolent misdemeanors with no physical contact between the parties (like harassment by telephone or email, or criminal damage to the property or jointly owned property of a “household member”). Unlike federal law, this bill would require anyone subject to a protective order to surrender any firearms they own, possess, or control to law enforcement within 48 hours of the order. Not only does this bill impose a mandatory surrender, it authorizes law enforcement to seize any guns that are in plain sight or are discovered pursuant to a lawful search. Similar legislation had passed the Legislature in 2017 but was vetoed by Gov. Susana Martinez. Significantly, the 2017 legislation contained other options for affected parties to comply with the firearm surrender requirement, including storing their guns with licensed firearm dealers, or transferring the guns to a qualified third party. These key alternatives are not contained in this bill.[10]

House Bill 130[11], sponsored by Representative Linda Trujillo, would make gun owners criminally and civilly liable if a child gains unsupervised access to an unsecured firearm. New Mexico already has a first degree felony child abuse statute on the books to hold adults accountable for putting children’s lives or health at risk in any manner. The tools exist to charge and prosecute parents or guardians in appropriate cases. Education is the key to protecting gun owners and their kids, not a state mandate on how one stores a firearm in his or her home.[12]

If you truly want to stop violent crime and terrorism, find out what motivates criminals and terrorists to hurt others, and address those concerns.

Thank you for listening to my concerns.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee — The committee in which this legislation is sitting at present.
  2. I presently reside in House District 16, of which Antonio “Moe” Maestas is the present State Representative.
  3. HB 8 BACKGROUND CHECK FOR FIREARM SALES, sponsored by Debra M. Sariñana and Patricia Roybal Caballero
  4. NMSSA commentary about HB 8
  5. HB 40 BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS, sponsored by Miguel P. Garcia
  6. NMSSA commentary about HB 40
  7. HB 83 EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT, sponsored by Daymon Ely and Joy Garratt
  8. NMSSA commentary about HB 83
  9. HB 87 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & FIREARM POSSESSION, sponsored by Deborah A. Armstrong
  10. NMSSA commentary about HB 87
  11. HB 130 ADDITIONAL FIREARM CRIMES & PENALTIES, sponsored by Linda M. Trujillo
  12. NMSSA commentary about HB 130

NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,005, 27 January 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Freedom Vine / Friendica / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / Minds / Oneway / Twitter / VK
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com
    3. Absurdist Discordian Party of New Mexico Facebook page
    4. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    5. KCUF Media Facebook page
    6. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
    7. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    8. Vote the Air Facebook page
    9. Wood Chipper Facebook page
    10. A Bias Toward Liberty Facebook group
    11. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    12. Gun Owners of New Mexico Facebook group
    13. Independent Insights Facebook group
    14. New Mexico Gun Rights Facebook group
    15. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voters remorse) Facebook group
    16. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    17. Pink Pistols – Albuquerque Facebook group
    18. Sons and Daughters of Liberty New Mexico Facebook group

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: