Sheriffs in New Mexico Vow Not to Enforce 6 Absolutely OUTRAGEOUS New Gun Control Bills

(Psst: The FTC wants me to remind you that this website contains affiliate links. That means if you make a purchase from a link you click on, I might receive a small commission. This does not increase the price you'll pay for that item nor does it decrease the awesomeness of the item. ~ Daisy)

By Dagny Taggart

New Mexico has a new governor, and she really doesn’t like guns.

Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, was sworn into office on January 1, replacing pro-gun Republican Susana Martinez.

In early December, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned the citizens of New Mexico to expect “unprecedented attacks” on their Constitutional rights.

While the New Mexico Legislature will not convene for its 60-day Regular Session until January 15, lawmakers can start prefiling bills on December 17.  You will see unprecedented attacks on your Second Amendment rights from the word go.  Your NRA-ILA will alert you to bill numbers and provide links to the content of legislation as it becomes available.  But in the meantime, we want to share with you what we already know is coming.

Expect anti-gun politicians to introduce a slew of so-called “common-sense gun measures” — a misleading phrase that gun control activists use in hopes that the public and the media will avoid questioning the bills’ enforceability, efficacy, intrusiveness or necessity. (source)

Unfortunately, the NRA’s prediction was correct.

Democrats in New Mexico’s state legislature are already rushing to expand gun control.

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.”

Big 2 News also spoke with Sheriff Helton about the proposed laws:

Similar gun control measures are going to spread like wildfire across America.

Did you catch what Caleb Califano, the reporter, says at the end of that video? He mentions that Helton said, “these introduced gun control bills are a trend that will continue, not just in New Mexico, but all around the country.”

Speaking of that, in Texas – of all places – red flag gun confiscation legislation may be coming, according to a February 6 alert posted by Gun Owners of America.

Governor Abbott announced his “emergency” agenda items Tuesday and included school safety with an emphasis on “mental health.” While no bills have been specified yet, this could easily include items such as “red flag” type legislation that we have been fighting all across the country that allows for gun confiscation simply because a judge decides that you might misuse them in the future. (source)

Recently, Washington state introduced bills for some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and a few law enforcement officers there publicly vowed not to enforce the new unconstitutional gun laws. In The REAL Resistance: Sheriffs in Washington State REFUSE to Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws, Daisy Luther made a powerful point:

Legally speaking, our county sheriffs are the last line of defense in the battle for gun rights.

As we have stated before, unconstitutional gun law ideas seem to spread from one state to another like some kind of insidious virus.

This is just the beginning.

H/T to Guns.com

About the Author

Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of an experienced journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.

Dagny Taggart

Dagny Taggart

Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of an experienced journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

12 Responses

  1. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment.
    There has never been a government that banned it’s own ARMED FORCES from “Keeping and Bearing” ARMS.
    Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.
    Oppressive Governments are ALWAYS banning the People’S RIGHTS to arms.
    The claim that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a “right” to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.
    The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS.
    The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS’ GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
    Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it’s “rights” up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?! (Rome, Egypt, Israel,etc)
    Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Politician. But THEY would LOVE to shut YOU up, hence the FIRST Amendment.
    Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
    There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it’s army’s/soldier’s “RIGHT” to “Keep and BEAR ARMS” because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It’s own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!
    The Second Amendment was written for the People, like the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS in the DC vs Heller decision, where they stated that the “People” in the Second Amendment were the same “People” that are mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendment.
    The 2nd Amendment clearly codifies the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, and certainly not “the Militia”.
    Why would “the Militia”, a type of army manned by citizen-soldiers as opposed to full-time “regulars”, need a constitutional amendment to guarantee they have the right “to keep and bear arms”?
    Is there any specific statement anywhere in the Constitution that the army Congress is empowered to raise has the “right to keep and bear arms”? Of course not. …………. That is assumed.

  2. Why explode in outrage at their “red flag”? Simply DEMAND they do the exact same thing-PLUS.
    Politicians, Police, Judges, Government Workers make Life & Death deadly decisions every day.
    Public Servants are also expected to be held to Higher Standards due to their positions and maintaining the Public Trust.
    Therefore when they come out with such demands of their EMPLOYERS, their EMPLOYERS have the Right and Duty to make the same demand of THEM.
    WE demand THEY provide ALL their social media and computer searches, their e-mail accounts, Bank accounts and financial records for examination. Also Mental Screening, physical records, testing for steroids and illicit drugs. They must also wear GPS trackers so we can evaluate where they are spending their time. Screening for pedophilia and any other sickness.
    If it is good enough for US it is certainly good enough for Our EMPLOYEES.

  3. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that “Where rights (liberty) secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate (abolish) them.” (Miranda v Arizona) What’s that mean? Well, it means that in order to lawfully effect a Right/Liberty protected by our Constitution (nullify it, limit it, license it or restrict it) the powers that be (state or federal) are required to comply with the Constitution’s Article V Amendment process before they expediently make an end-run around our Constitution to take away (or “infringe” upon) your Right of self defense protected by the Second Amendment.

    A few elected bozos and the stroke of an executive’s pen doesn’t cut it my friends. Telling you they have the “authority” to by-pass the Constitution by passing some goofy law because ‘they’ voted on it is what’s known as acting under “the color of law.” The color of law is defined as the actions of an ‘official’, be it law enforcement or legislative, purported to be in the conduct of their official duties when, in fact, they have no lawful authority to actually ‘act’ or conduct themselves. An example might be law enforcement making arrests of peaceful protestors or phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue. Another example would be a legislature passing laws effecting areas where they have no lawful authority to legislate.

    “Shall not be infringed” means that if they want to “infringe” and expand the government’s authority to nullify, limit, license or restrict that doesn’t exist, they must go through the Article V Amendment process in order to ‘acquire’ the lawful authority to legislate limits, licenses or to nullify your Rights. If they have no authority to pass such a law or ordinance (haven’t complied with the the lawful Amendment process) then the aforementioned Supreme Court stated in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama that the individuals should “engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Without said lawful Amendment the Supreme Court’s Marbury vs Madison comes into play: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

    If the Supreme Court’s declarations mean nothing, Hamilton made clear in Federalist 78 that “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Jefferson said much the same thing in 1798 when he said “Whenever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.” The Supremacy Clause (Article 6 clause 2) codifies this very principle;  that any law made by Congress that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution, is no law at all.

    You can certainly choose to allow a government, acting unlawfully, to strip you of your Rights like they were a cheap prom dress or you can/should become a bit more literate. If politicians, judges and law enforcement don’t care to comply with our Constitution (the ‘highest’ law of the land) which they’ve sworn an Oath to, then the People shouldn’t worry about complying with their ‘gun laws’.

    https://resistancetononsense.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/our-preexisting-irrevolkable-right-of-self-defense/

  4. “Legally speaking, our county sheriffs are the last line of defense in the battle for gun rights.”
    Since foreigners and traitors are in control of the laws, legal defenses are pretty meaningless.

  5. Everyone gets so upset about all of the new gun control bills being introduced across the country. I don’t. I could care less. I fight them thru my donations to various lobby groups, but there is nothing else I can do except this.

    I WILL NOT COMPLY. IF YOU WANT MINE, COME TAKE THEM. BRING HELP, YOU’RE GOING TO NEED IT.

  6. The New Mexico state constitution actually reads: “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. ” So, these laws violate the state constitution.

    1. Excerpt from the Soviet Constitution

      Article 39 [Freedom]
      (1) Citizens of the USSR enjoy in full the social, economic, political and personal rights and freedoms proclaimed and guaranteed by the Constitution of the USSR and by Soviet laws. The socialist system ensures enlargement of the rights and freedoms of citizens and continuous improvement of their living standards as social, economic, and cultural development programs are fulfilled.


      Take away;
      You can write and darn thing you want on a piece of paper.

      Reminds me of the old 67′ Star Trek episode. “Words can be lies as days can be centuries”

  7. 13 sheriffs here 6 there won’t enforce this won’t enforce that. You have to realize that they will be eliminated through attrition. Pinning your hopes on security forces not implementing The Parties(D) directives is foolishness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You Need More Than Food to Survive
50-nonfood-stockpile-necessities

In the event of a long-term disaster, there are non-food essentials that can be vital to your survival and well-being. Make certain you have these 50 non-food stockpile essentials. Sign up for your FREE report and get prepared.

We respect your privacy.
Malcare WordPress Security