Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Saturday, 10 August 2019

Letter to Congress

Filed under: Correspondence, Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 1:38 AM (01:38)

Here is the text of the email (?) that I sent to Deb Haaland via the 4-page contact form on her Congressional website —

As a tax-paying resident of the 1st District for 25 years, I am writing to you to stand firm against anti-liberty measures routinely introduced in Congress, usually calls for “gun control,” more properly called victim disarmament or civilian disarmament, such as “red flag” confiscation bills, ‘Minority Report’-style precrime measures like the TAPS Act.

This past weekend, we saw more than one evil man go to a gun-free VICTIM DISARMAMENT ZONE, and kill numerous people. The vultures whom you work with will call for various acts of tyranny, from sundry measures to restrict lawful firearms owners’ rights, to banning certain types of firearms magazines, and other accessories; even outright gun confiscation. Others will renew calls for wholly unconstitutional measures like the proposed TAPS Act.

I ask that you go another way: Push for a national Constitutional Carry Act, restoring the intent of the 2nd Amendment that law-abiding citizens be able to resist any enemy, foreign or domestic, that threatens life, liberty, and domestic tranquility. Push for a national repeal / moratorium of unconstitutional gun-free VICTIM DISARMAMENT Zones. Push for a ban on media glorification of mass killers; these psychopaths revel in gaining their 15 minutes of infamy! We MUST deny them their motive and their reward, but media companies insist on being irresponsible. They must be held accountable for their criminal negligence.

Be mindful, please. We The People own over 400 million firearms in the hands of over 110 million lawful gun owners. We will not disarm. We will not surrender essential liberty or property. America has tried gun control for over 50 years now and all it has done is bring more violence, so clearly this is not working. It’s time to go the other way: full-bore freedom! It is time to abolish all gun controls. Author Robert A. Heinlein summed it up best: “An armed society is a POLITE society”.

H/T William Flatt


Advertisements

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.


Wednesday, 19 June 2019

[TLE] Re: Excellent Article Today

Filed under: Blogging / Writing, Correspondence, Media, Politics, Principles, Resistance, Self-Defense, Technology — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 2:52 PM (14:52)

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

I hope all is well with you and yours, Neil!

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, June 16, 2019 10:16 AM, L. Neil Smith wrote:

Dear Mike —

I greatly enjoyed what you wrote for us today[1]. I love philosophy related specifically to hardware. Wish I were confident that an AR-15 drum magazine would be reliable.

I’ve read that drum magazines in general lean towards unreliability. I haven’t had any personal experience with them (yet).

I hated the Beretta. No first-hand knowledge about the P320. You know me; I’m not fond of 9mm in general, although I have some.

I’ve never fired any of Beretta’s weapons, nor any of SIG’s. I am willing to give them a tryout, though. (I am definitely in “try before I buy” mode where firearms are concerned these days.)

The 9mm of today isn’t the 9mm that Paul Mauser created in 1902. People have been killing other people with it for over 100 years now, so it’s not entirely bad.

An interesting twist is that the eco-fascists’ insistence that ammo manufacturers stop using lead (a lot of them are also victim disarmers, so this was an attempt to shut down the ammo industry) has caused some ammo companies to produce solid-copper projectiles.

Since copper is considerably lighter than lead, putting the same powder charge behind it as you would behind a slug with lead in it is going to yield significantly higher muzzle velocities.

What was the formula for kinetic energy, again? 1/2 x m x v^2

(The Soviet-era steel-core ammo was an attempt by the Soviets to save a few rubles, and also yielded higher muzzle velocities, such that the F-Troopies tried to ban it as “armor-piercing.”)

I also wanted to tell you that I believe the Glock 22 may be the finest sidearm ever in produced by Mankind. Mine is actually a G23 Gen4, and it is my constant companion.

I am also wanting to try out the Springfield XD, the Arsenal Strike One, among others.

I also share your view “Of course they’re weapons if war, you retarded dirtbag — a war against me that you started and continue to wage! What else did you think James Madison had in mind?”

Nice Coxe quote, too.

Madison in Federalist Paper #46 is good, as well as Thomas Jefferson’s stuff.

MWB


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. #1,025 : Sunday, 16 June 2019Bernalillo County DA Raul Torrez, Idiot or Liar?

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

Sunday, 26 May 2019

Cash In With “Gun Control” AND Support the Second Amendment

Filed under: Events, Humor, Media, Politics, Principles, Resistance, Self-Defense, Technology — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:20 PM (17:20)

Every gun should be a happy and wanted gun, adopted by loving owners who will care for it and feed it and make sure that there are plenty of other guns nearby to keep it company.

Still, most of the Political Classholes, along with their flunkies among law enforcement and the media, are working to part you from your firearms by hook, crook, or any other means available to them.

For example, this event in Albuquerque currently scheduled for Saturday, 13 July 2019, as advertised covered by KOB

APD to hold gun buyback event

The event in question isn’t a “buyback” at all, unless the City of Albuquerque or Bernalillo County were at some point in the business of providing firearms to private citizens — the people didn’t get them from the City or County in the first place, so the event organizers are not buying any guns back from anyone.

This is nothing more than a publicly-funded turn-in-your-guns-now-for-a-pittance-so-we-don’t-have-to-red-flag-you-and-maybe-kill-you-later scheme.

Most people don’t realize that this could be a way to make some easy cash at the expense of the victim disarmers and hoplophobes.

Simply shop the plumbing sections of Home Depot or Lowes. A hundred bucks worth of pipe and end-caps can be made into 400-500 worth of 12-gauge zip guns. I doubt that APD will be test-firing them before handing over the cash.

And making those zip guns is completely legal under New Mexico law. Selling them to anyone other than a federally-licensed dealer might put you afoul of federal victim disarmament statutes. Just remember to make sure that the barrel length is at least 18 inches (more like 26 inches, as the overall length of your hypothetical zip gun needs to be 26 inches), per the National Firearms Act of 1934.

(Will the Albuquerque Police Department or the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office be conducting background checks on anyone turning in their guns for pennies on the FRN? Signs point to “no.”)

What else does this bit of do-it-yourself “gunsmithing” do besides add some potential cash to your wallet?

It allows you to illustrate the utter futility and stupidity of victim disarmament statues.

When anyone who paid a bit of attention in high-school shop class (do they still have that in the taxpayer-subsidized, government-owned-and-operated indoctrination and daycare centers public schools any more?) can build themselves a serviceable shotgun for under 50 in about an hour, what does that do to the victim disarmament schemes of the Political Classholes?

Simple — it ensures that at least some segment of the population will almost always be armed, despite what the Classwipes want.


NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,022: Sunday, 26 May 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Facebook / Twitter
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress
    3. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

Tuesday, 9 April 2019

Second Amendment Sanctuary County Status for Bernalillo County

Filed under: Correspondence, Politics, Principles, Resistance, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:25 PM (18:25)

From: Mike Blessing
To: Debbie O’Malley <District1@bernco.gov>, Steven Michael Quezada <District2@bernco.gov>, Maggie Hart Stebbins <District3@bernco.gov>, Lonnie C. Talbert <District4@bernco.gov>, Charlene Pyskoty <District5@bernco.gov>
BCC: [7 x others]
Date: Tuesday, 9 April 2019, 6:11 PM
Subject: Second Amendment Sanctuary County Status for Bernalillo County

Dear County Commissioners,

I support the Second Amendment, but . . . .

But even if it were repealed tomorrow, by unanimous vote of the full U.S. House, the full U.S. Senate, and all fifty State Legislatures, the pre-existing, civil, human right to own and carry weapons for defense of self, family and community doesn’t go away one bit.

To those proposing restrictions upon the private-sector civilian ownership and carrying of weapons:

Look, no one is trying to take your government away. We just want to have an honest, open, adult conversation about common-sense restrictions on government. If we can save just one child from government violence, it will worth it.

I am writing in support of Bernalillo County joining the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement that is here in New Mexico, and in other states around the nation.

As for the sheriffs and county commissions that have already signed on, they aren’t the lawbreakers as they have been smeared as in the media.

Rather, the public officials who use their offices to promote and promulgate victim disarmament legislation such as SB 8[1] are the true lawbreakers.

Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico[2] reads as follows:

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, much less passing with any majority of votes cast. Nor do I remember seeing such a repeal on the ballot in any previous election.

Since Article II, Section 6 is still on the books as a valid part of the State Constitution, I encourage and implore the County Commission to “get right” with the law as it’s currently written, as opposed to doing end runs around the Constitutional bits with which they personally disagree.

Thank you for listening to my concerns.

Sincerely,

Mike Blessing,
Resident and Taxpayer of Bernalillo County since 1994

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should — you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer — what’s the question?


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. New Mexico Legislature page: “2019 Regular Session – SB 8”
  2. New Mexico Compilation Commission — Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico

NOTES

  1. Published in The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,016: Sunday, 7 April 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress

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

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

Filed under: Correspondence, Media, Resistance, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 9:29 AM (09:29)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, April 7, 2019 7:38 AM, nobody wrote:

Mike,

It’s worse than that, neither MLG nor Balderas have a bond so they are NOT governor and attorney general, respectively.

Dana Majewski

Dana —

Thank you for your input.

I fully support ejecting both Baldy and Loogie-Gruesome from their present offices, and barring them from being seated in any other office.

Still, I recommend reading Down By Law, by the late, great Victor Milán before filing any litigation.

https://ncc-1776.org/tle1997/le970301-07.html


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: