Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: NM SHERIFFS REFUSING TO ENFORCE NEW GUN LAWS

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0

    NM SHERIFFS REFUSING TO ENFORCE NEW GUN LAWS

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...-control-bills

    As of the time of this writing, six bills have been filed.

    Here’s a summary of each of the six bills.

    House Bill 8: This “universal background check” legislation, sponsored by Representative Debra Sarinana, would ban all private firearms sales between law-abiding individuals.

    The state House approved HB 8 last week, which aims to make it a misdemeanor crime to sell or transfer a gun in a private transaction without a background check performed by a third party. A Senate committee has passed their own version of the bill, slammed by gun rights groups, in a party-line vote. (source)

    House Bill 35: This bill, sponsored by Representative Miguel Garcia, would require gun dealers to pay a $200 fee so that the New Mexico could screen every gun coming into their inventory for “potential theft.”

    House Bill 40: Also sponsored by Representative Miguel Garcia, this legislation would require criminal records checks on private firearms sales at gun shows. Gun grabbers tend to see gun shows as a particular threat, even though studies show that they are not a source of guns used by criminals. This bill – and HB 8 – would ban many or all private gun sales, and set the stage for a registry of gun owners.

    Perhaps the most disturbing of the six bills is House Bill 83.
    Have you heard of “red flag” gun confiscation laws?

    Officially called Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), “red flag” laws permit police, healthcare providers, or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. To date, fourteen states and the District of Columbia have red flag laws.

    Here’s a chilling explanation of what House Bill 83 would allow.

    Under section 5, any law enforcement personnel can ask a court to issue an order stripping any New Mexican of his Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. It wouldn’t even take an “ex parte” secret court proceeding; the request could be made by E-MAIL.

    Under section 6, an angry ex-girlfriend can convene a “secret court” (ex parte proceeding) to strip a gun owner of his Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights — without giving the gun owner the opportunity to tell his side of the story to the “secret court.” (source)

    In October 2018, Maryland’s red flag law went into effect. Less than a month later, the law claimed its first victim.

    Gary J. Willis, a 61-year-old Maryland resident, was killed by police when they showed up at his home at 5 am to serve him with a court order requiring that he surrender his guns.

    Anne Arundel County Police said Willis answered the door with a gun in his hand. He initially put the gun down by the door, but “became irate” when officers began to serve him with the order and picked up the gun again, police said.

    Sgt. Jacklyn Davis, a police spokeswoman, said “A fight ensued over the gun.” Police claim that as one of the officers struggled to take the gun from Willis, the gun fired but did not strike anyone. Then, the other officer fatally shot Willis, who died at the scene. Neither officer was injured.

    Davis said she did not know who had sought the protective order against Willis.

    But Michele Willis, the victim’s niece, said this was a case of “family being family.” (source)

    From October 1 to December 31, 302 petitions were filed across the state. A majority of the red flag orders were filed by family members or household members, primarily about mental health concerns, with others being placed by law enforcement officials or health professionals, according to the Associated Press. Less than half reached a final stage in which the accused was not allowed to have a gun for at least a year.

    House Bill 87: This legislation would impose a gun ban on persons committing crimes as minor as damage to property. It expands the state’s “prohibited person” firearm law by incorporating federal firearm disqualifications. For example, it 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. But, the bill goes beyond the prohibited categories in federal law in significant ways, as the NRA explains:

    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. (source)

    House Bill 130: This bill would potentially make criminals of people who keep loaded firearms for self-defense. Sponsored by Representative Linda Trujillo, if signed into law, gun owners would be held criminally and civilly liable if a child gains unsupervised access to an unsecured firearm. But as the NRA points out, “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.”

    These bills are facing opposition from a powerful force: the Sheriffs.
    Thankfully, most of New Mexico’s sheriffs are opposed to these gun control bills. Of the 33 sheriffs in the state, 29 have voiced disapproval of the package of anti-gun legislation by issuing a declaration through the state sheriffs’ association, stating that the “rush to react to the violence by proposing controls on guns is ill-conceived and is truly a distraction to the real problems proliferating violence in our counties and our state.”

    CBS 7 spoke with Lea County Sheriff Corey Helton, who explained why he objects to the proposed legislation.

    “You’re just taking guns out of law-abiding citizen’s hands. This is not going to affect the criminals out there. They’re going to be able to get guns and they do not follow the law.” Helton added that there are enough effective laws on the books and these new measures are either redundant or unconstitutional.

    “I’m proud to say I’m a constitutional sheriff and I’m just not going to enforce an unconstitutional law,” Helton said.

    “My oath prevents me from doing that.”

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    2,984
    Feedback Score
    0
    I heard this from our sheriff here in San Miguel County, as well as the new Sheriff in San Juan County. They're just not going to enforce any off it, and that includes any kind of magazine restrictions or AWB in the future.
    Maj. USAR (Ret) 160th SOAR, 2/17 CAV
    NRA Life Member
    Black Mesa Ranch. Raising Fine Cattle and Horses in San Miguel County since 1879

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,144
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    All politics is local.
    The truth can only offend those who live a lie.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    XXX
    Posts
    1,944
    Feedback Score
    0
    Or until their pay and retirement are compromised.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    2,984
    Feedback Score
    0
    More Counties joining in. Some have to wait until the County Commissioners meet. San Juan County I know is next week.

    From the Las Cruces Sun News this evening 2/15:

    "New Mexico sheriffs fight gun bills with ‘sanctuary county’ resolutions"

    https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/new...ns/2886741002/
    Maj. USAR (Ret) 160th SOAR, 2/17 CAV
    NRA Life Member
    Black Mesa Ranch. Raising Fine Cattle and Horses in San Miguel County since 1879

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    2,984
    Feedback Score
    0
    Yesterday, two more Counties became 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries: Lincoln County (of Billy the Kid fame) and San Juan County. Today Valencia County joined as well. Right now out of New Mexico's 33 counties, 29 seem to be heading towards 2nd Amendment Sanctuary protection.

    From KOAT TV in Albuquerque:

    Gun proposals causing sheriffs to take action-29 counties in favor of becoming Second Amendment Sanctuary counties.

    https://www.koat.com/article/gun-pro...ction/26438196
    Maj. USAR (Ret) 160th SOAR, 2/17 CAV
    NRA Life Member
    Black Mesa Ranch. Raising Fine Cattle and Horses in San Miguel County since 1879

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,995
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Funny that the State AG is all bent about county Sheriffs not enforcing State law, but then the State turns around and proudly refuses to even cooperate with federal LEA let alone enforce federal law.
    It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! ... Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry in an address at St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, on March 23, 1775.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    945
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by NWPilgrim View Post
    Funny that the State AG is all bent about county Sheriffs not enforcing State law, but then the State turns around and proudly refuses to even cooperate with federal LEA let alone enforce federal law.
    Liberal hypocrysy runs deep.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0
    https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/new...ys/3245650002/

    Artesia State Rep. Jim Townsend (R-54) vowed a legal fight against Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver and her rejection of a petition to overturn New Mexico’s expanded background check law.

    Toulouse Oliver determined Friday that the proposed petition referendum did not satisfy the necessary technical and legal requirements of New Mexico law, read a news release from the New Mexico Office of the Secretary of State.

    “We understand our options and are prepared to pursue remedies through the courts if necessary,” Townsend said.

    On March 7, Townsend and Farmington House Minority Whip Rep. Rod Montoya (R-1) sent a letter to Toulouse Oliver of their desire to initiate a referendum petition to overturn Senate Bill 8, signed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham days before the 2019 New Mexico Legislative session ended March 16.
    Toulouse Oliver received a draft petition referendum from Townsend on March 11, per the release.

    “Her rejecting the draft petition was not surprising or unexpected,” Townsend said. “She is politically charged, and I expected her response to be along those lines.”

    In Friday’s letter to Townsend, Toulouse Oliver determined the legal deficiencies of the draft petition and listed why she was unable to approve and certify the petition for circulation, read the release.
    “The Secretary of State noted five items that she believed kept her from approving the draft petition,” Townsend said. “Our attorneys believe four of those are easily curable and we are in the process of addressing those issues.”

    One of the key deficiencies noted in the release are that laws providing for the public peace, health and safety are not subject to referendum.

    “New Mexico courts have consistently ruled that legislation is exempt from referendum under the New Mexico Constitution if the legislation ‘bears a valid reasonable relationship of public peace, health or safety,’" per the release.

    Townsend is confident the courts will side with New Mexico House Republicans.

    “Yes, I do believe we will prevail because this isn’t a political party issue,” he said. “It's not about Democrats or Republicans, it is about freedom and rights.

    "We have had hundreds of people contact us from both parties and ask us to continue to represent them and we will. So yes, I believe voters still have a chance of having their voices and votes heard, even in New Mexico.”
    My take: Keep up the fight. Maybe it will dampen their enthusiasm for passing any more stupid gun laws.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •