New Mexico

Popular Defiance Will Kneecap Gun Laws in New Mexico, As It Has in Other States

Following the lead of their rebellious constituents, local officials say they won't enforce despised rules.

|

Roberto E. Rosales/ZUMA Press/Newscom

New Mexico is the battleground for the latest confrontation between politicians determined to impose legal restrictions on the right to acquire and own the means of self-defense and people unwilling to obey such laws. The state's governor is publicly feuding with county-level officials who, responding to grassroots anger at the proposed gun measures, vow noncompliance if they become law.

The evidence from similar spats in other states suggests that government officials are once again poised to have their impotence demonstrated by people eager to disobey dictates from above.

Mandatory background checks for most gun transfers, court-ordered seizures of firearms, and the denial of self-defense rights to those convicted of domestic violence offenses feature in the bills moving through the state legislature. The measure requiring background checks for all gun transfers, except between close family members and cops, seems to have excited the greatest opposition.

"The gun-related measures have drawn opposition from all but a few of the state's 33 county sheriffs," the Albuquerque Journal notes. "In addition, at least 24 counties have passed 'Second Amendment sanctuary' ordinances in opposition to the legislation pending at the Roundhouse." The Quay County resolution, as an example, dedicated county officials "to support decisions by our Sheriff to not enforce any unconstitutional firearms law against any citizen."

In response, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, slapped back at what she called "rogue sheriffs throwing a childish pity party." That's probably not the sort of language likely to win over the rebellious, largely rural residents to whom county officials are catering.

Confrontations of this sort in other states—including Colorado, Washington, and even New York—resulted in the kneecapping of intrusive firearms restrictions. And comprehensive background check (CBC) laws in Colorado, Delaware, and Washington produced an increase in such checks only in Delaware, researchers from the University of California-Davis reported in a study published in 2017 in Injury Prevention.

"One plausible explanation for our findings is low compliance in our study states," the researchers wrote, continuing:

In Washington, there was a well-documented public "I will not comply" rally at the state capital, at which firearms were openly transferred between private parties without background checks. There were also gun shows where non-compliance was encouraged and public calls from profirearm organisations to not comply with the state's new CBC policy… Many county law enforcement officials in Colorado reportedly stated they would not enforce its CBC law, and some retailers were declining to process background checks for private party transfers.

In each state, noncompliance was a result of widespread local opposition to the law. Spurred by their communities, sheriffs in Washington also refused to enforce the background check requirement, and more than half have vowed to ignore new gun laws passed last year. And the rebellion among Colorado sheriffs, who are elected to office there as in most states, came in response to local sentiment of the sort that turfed-out lawmakers who supported gun restrictions.

Which is to say, the "low compliance" in both Colorado and Washington was the result of grassroots defiance, with local officials following their rebellious constituents, not leading the way.

Sheriffs in rural New York counties also responded to constituents' hostility to tightened gun laws—in their case, registration of semiautomatic rifles.

"The New York State Sheriffs Association and five individual sheriffs have joined a court effort to block enforcement of new bullet limits for magazines and firearms restrictions," the Daily Star reported in 2013. "Schoharie County Sheriff Tony Desmond said he has no intention of enforcing the law, and that his office won't do anything that would cause law-abiding citizens to turn in their weapons or arrest them for possessing firearms."

Compliance with the state's registration law topped out at about five percent, with the tiny law-abiding minority heavily concentrated in the New York City area.

Interestingly, local defiance of state and federal gun restrictions appears to reflect a desire for freedom from unpopular legislation that extends across the political spectrum. The specifics of the laws to be defied vary from place to place, but the desire to be left unmolested by other people's rules seems nearly universal.

"The 'Second Amendment sanctuary county' concept … was borrowed from activists who for several years have convinced some local governments to declare themselves 'sanctuary cities' for undocumented immigrants — meaning local law enforcement won't help federal officers arrest those whose only crime is being in the country illegally," according to the Santa Fe New Mexican.

Definitions of "sanctuary cities" vary, but "there are over 200 jurisdictions, including some of the largest in the country, that refuse to honor [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] detainers," ICE Director Sarah Saldaña told Congress in 2015.

Some of us remember, with particular fondness, Norman Vroman, who served time for failing to pay income taxes before being elected, as a Libertarian, to the office of district attorney for Mendocino County, California. Because of his hands-off policy towards marijuana and guns, Vroman "was endorsed by such disparate groups as the National Rifle Assn. and the Green Party" as reported in his Los Angeles Times obituary.

Vroman's battles with state and federal officials (the feds were planning a raid on his home at the time of his death) were made possible by a local culture contemptuous of legal restrictions imposed from above—especially those on marijuana.

Restrictive laws can be unenforceable even if sentiment isn't sufficiently monolithic to drive local officials to butt heads with officeholders further up the political food chain.

In the absence of registration lists of guns and gun owners, which don't exist in most of the United States (and failed from popular defiance in New York, as mentioned above), the background checks causing so much fuss in New Mexico depend entirely on voluntary compliance. If only two people in a jurisdiction oppose such requirements, those two can safely buy and sell guns to each other so long as they conduct their transactions out of sight of law enforcement.

Expand the population of eager scofflaws and you're bound to see widespread noncompliance, as in Colorado, New York, and Washington. New Mexicans seem poised to demonstrate, once again, just how powerless politicians are over defiant people.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

203 responses to “Popular Defiance Will Kneecap Gun Laws in New Mexico, As It Has in Other States

    1. I am making easily persistently $15k to $20k simply by doing direct work at home. Multi month again i have made $45890 from this movement. amazing and smooth to do work and standard pay from this is bewildering. i have propose each final one of you to join this progress right directly as low protection and get than full time salary through take after this association.

      Just Visit Now…… http://www.Theprocoin.Com

      1. Is that more than the sheriffs make?

    2. On what grounds could they seek to impose ‘repercussions’? The courts have been very clear that police (including sheriffs) have near-unquestionable authority in matters of prosecutorial discretion. In other words, all they have to say is ‘I had better things to do with my limited police resources’ and the case goes away.

      Now, if the sheriffs actually reported to the Governor, she might be able to fire them for insubordination, dereliction of duty or just because she didn’t like they way they part their hair. Since sheriffs are elected in NM, however, she has no supervisory authority over them.

    3. I shot the sheriff?

      1. That’s why I plan to stay a deputy. No one ever shoots him.

  1. The gun-related measures have drawn opposition from all but a few of the state’s 33 county sheriffs…

    Can one assume those few compliant counties are populous enough to drive the governor and state legislature to pass such gun regulation?

      1. He seems to have overlooked Article 1, Section 24, which states that the right to bear arms shall not be impaired
        .
        .
        .
        The law passed by 60 percent of the state vote in 2018.

        Democracy trumps the constitution. Duh.

        1. oops, that was in response to the 12:06 comment.

    1. Yes they are they are the counties around Albequeque and Taos. Same problem as with King County (Seattle) in Washington state. Of course the problem is when all the rural unwashed give them a huge middle finger and they discover there is nothing they can do in reaponse

    2. Basically the counties that include the largest cities Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Santa Fe (capital).

  2. Reason is once again championing acts that are against the Rule of Law.

    1. Time to go back to your Lawbertarian handle. Someone needs to do something…

    2. If the laws are unconstitutional, then I hope Reason will always champion against them.

      1. If the laws are unconstitutional, they are dead letters, not laws.

    3. No they are pointing out that Democrats have established a precedent that people can decide to ignore laws they do ot
      like. You cannot say you are going to ignore these laws because we dont like them but you must obey ours even if you dont like them.

    4. It would seem more plausible that Reason Magazine is noting that several sheriffs are appealing TO the law. The law that many statehouses have forgotten.

  3. What if there’s a court order requiring these sheriffs to enforce the new gun statutes?

    1. The Court is free to send out its employees to seize them, I guess. Good luck with that, though.

      1. Damn right. They can send the sheriff out to…Oh, wait…

          1. Saw Kim Davis mentioned in the header, but can’t open the site for some reason.

            1. The governor says she wasn’t doing her job so she should pay the plaintiffs’ legal fees.

              1. Not a big Kim Davis fan, but the governor is wrong on this one.

                1. There are plenty of government officials that need to pay legal fees personally for wasting citizens’ time, if that is the new standard.

                  I’m not necessarily against that, its just that this seems like a new trend.

                  The Colorado board that tried to force the baker to bake the cake, are being told that they have to personally pay legal fees.

    2. Courts cannot tell the police to enforce the law. If they could they would do so with immigration laws. Law enforcement have absolute discretion on how they enforce the law. The argument is it is impossible to verify a background check for a private transfer since you do not know it is happening. In addition they argue current federal law prohibits taking longer than three days to complete a background check. There is still the Supremacy clause to deal with and obey.

  4. If these Sheriffs and residents don’t like the new law, they should win elections so the laws can be overturned. Otherwise, they will have to deal with the Rule of Law. Remember, the Law is the Law, people.

    1. All Crusty attempts at joking aside, unconstitutional laws are not legal laws.

      Gun control laws are specifically prohibited by the 2nd Amendment, which makes them illegal.

      Not abiding by unlawful laws is not breaking the law since they never should have been laws in the first place.

      New Mexico passing a law that requires all adults cut a finger off in a show of allegiance to the government, is not constitutional and the law would not need to be followed.

      Not being able to tell the difference in what Rule of Law means, is partly the fault of the school system.

      1. Not abiding by unlawful laws is not breaking the law since they never should have been laws in the first place.

        New Mexico passing a law that requires all adults cut a finger off in a show of allegiance to the government, is not constitutional and the law would not need to be followed.

        Not being able to tell the difference in what Rule of Law means, is partly the fault of the school system.

        It’s so simple!

        1. Something certainly is simple there.

        2. It is simple.

          Crusty likes to make things more difficult than they have to be. Evidently Chipper does too.

          1. Your high school government logic is hilariously pathetic.

          2. Poor Crusty didn’t graduate Elementary School, so he has trouble with the idea that simplicity in life can be a virtue.

            “work smarter, not harder”.

            1. Fuck off, you simple-minded, collectivist cunt and your sophomoric musings.

              Go goose-step some other website.

              1. Collectivist? That’s rich, you’re a progtard and possibly a Hihnfaggot.

            2. Poor Crusty never learned the KISS principle.

      2. “All Crusty attempts at joking aside, unconstitutional laws are not legal laws.”

        No law is automatically ‘Constitutional’

        The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

        The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

        An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

        [Continued ?]

        1. [Continuing]

          Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

          A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

          An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

          Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

          No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

          ? American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

          1. I agree, the problem comes in when you have to fight the “un-law”. Plenty of people get arrested, got to jail,etc. because of unconstitutional “laws”. Most don’t have money or ability to fight it.

            1. But those people are never cops.

      3. Is this some horrible Crusty resock? I recall Crusty generally just being sort of perverted, but not obtuse. Or is my memory just flawed?

        1. Maybe syphillis is finally getting to him.

        2. Its flawed. Crusty is often statist when it protects certain leftist views.

    2. Except when the law deals with immigration, right? So the dog dont hunt.

    3. Sometimes law is wrong. An unconstitutional law is illegal and need not be followed.

  5. Many of these Left-wing controlled states are ruled from the capital city.

    The rural areas might have Lefty tendencies but they likely still use guns, do outdoor stuff, and cannot survive heavy tax burdens.

    1. By your definition of “lefty” I don’t think there is anywhere without lefty tendencies.

      1. All this time on here and all the discussions, but what makes people “Lefty” baffles you?

        I can help you again…. Libertarians in the Center of the political spectrum and Conservatives on the Right. Monarchy/Theocracy at the extreme Right. Communism at the far Left. Socialism and Nazism as Lefty too.

        1. You do realize that that is not the same meaning most people attach to those words, don’t you?

          I think your definitions are actually pretty reasonable and consistent. But they aren’t normal.

          1. I would agree that the term “Lefty” is not widely used but people get it fairly quickly, that it describes people who are politically Left of Libertarians.

            Even Welch has used it a few times.

            Left-Wing and Right-wing are relatively common. They are usually trying to push Nazism as a Right-wing political ideology but the fundamental that there is a Right-Wing is widely known.

            The more that I use the term “Lefty”, the greater the chance that it will appear in Webster’s Dictionary.

      2. He’s the opposite of a Democrat – where everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is Hitler.

        Everyone to the left of Pinochet . . .

        1. That’s not fair. LC often makes the distinction that if you propose different authoritarianism than his brand you’re a lefty. If you propose less authoritarianism than him you’re clearly an anarchist.

          He’s the Goldilocks of the political spectrum.

          1. Leo, you don’t pay attention very well.

            Monarchs that are Right-wing can be authoritarians as well as Socialists, which are Left-wing.

            IMHO, Libertarianism is the sweet spot of the political spectrum and I am there politically.

            Anarchists are Anarchists. Minarchists are Anarchists, they just dont like be ignored, so they invented a new term that does not even have an acknowledged definition. They are not Libertarians because Libertarians are okay with Rule of Law and tiny and limited government.

            Lefties are to the Left of Centrism which is pretty much Libertarianism. Democrats, Socialists, Nazis, Communists, Fascistii….

        2. Politics is a circle, not a line. Go to far either direction and you end up in the same place, totalitarianism.

  6. So refusing to enforce FEDERAL laws is OK (sanctuary cities);
    But refusing to enforce STATE laws is evil (by following the second amendment ‘not be infringed’ part).

    Or maybe, just maybe, it is bowing to socialist mandates is OK, regardless of the constitution;
    But refusing to bow to socialist mandates is evil; regardless of the constitution?

    1. The law was passed by the people. If you don’t like it then you are against democracy. Tyranny of the majority is freedom. Don’t you know anything?

      1. Except in a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

        There are restrictions to the tyranny of the majority, unlike in Anarchy-Land.

        1. Oh look. The village idiot is slaying straw men again. And tyranny of the majority is absolutely possible in a Constitutional Democratic Republic. There is nothing magical about a document that forces the government to abide by it. Legislators and voters can wipe their collective asses with the constitution. Nothing’s going to stop them.

          “No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise,” Winston Churchill observed in 1947. “Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

        2. Poor Sarcasmic.

          He does not understand why the USA is not the kind of Socialist state that Venezuela is.

          1. Yeah. Because I made that argument. Fucking dumbass.

            1. Sarc, you’re not very bright. LC and pretty much everyone else except Little Jeffy, Tony, and PB are smarter than you.

              1. lmao!

          2. I’d say it has more to do with culture and a well developed civil society than the Constitution. Don’t get me wrong, we have a fine constitution as constitutions go. But laws are only any good when most people are inclined to obey them. It’s not looking good for a lot of the Constitution.

            1. Zeb, the Constitution works as a limiting Supreme law. It grants power to the state, limits the state, and specifies statutorial rights and protections of rights.

              We The People are responsible for making sure it works as designed.

              1. We The People are responsible for making sure it works as designed.

                And that’s the rub. And most of my point.

                1. Even with Americans not holding our government strictly to constitutional principles, has still resulted in the less-than-ideal-Socialist state that Lefties want.

                  Most of the modern major Socialist policies, were implemented under FDR and many Americans considered him a God. ObamaCare was implemented during the Great Recession.

                  Otherwise, Lefties have been very successful with incrementalism to implement Socialist policies. Even some of those are being rolled back by Trump.

                  In conclusion, the Constitution itself has the effect of slowing government largess to some degree and then Americans fighting back contributes the majority effect.

                  The Constitution itself cannot prevent America from turning Socialist because it can be amended to say whatever we want it to say.

                  1. The Constitution itself cannot prevent America from turning Socialist because it can be amended to say whatever we want it to say.

                    Or it can be interpreted into meaninglessness.

                    “Congress shall levy taxes and make laws necessary and proper to promote the general welfare.”

              2. We The People are responsible for making sure it works as designed.

                The People doesn’t exist. There are only individuals. I can accurately predict the outcome of an election by taking the inverse of my ballot. Since you’re a dummy I’ll explain that. If I vote for someone, someone else will win. When I vote against bonds, the always pass. Inverse. It’s a term that smart people use.

                So I don’t live under a government that represents me, because the mob always overrules my vote. And don’t give me any anarchy shit. That’s just a straw man.

                Strawman: “an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.”

                It’s easier to defeat anarchy than what I actually say, which is why you call me an anarchist. You lack the intellectual capacity to match me in a real debate.

                1. Debate? You haven’t made any real points, other than you live somewhere that everyone votes opposite of you.

                  You’re not smart because you can use the word ‘inverse’. Really, you’re just an absurd little malcontent that doesn’t understand a damn thing. You are clown shoes, and unfunny clown shoes at that.

            2. But laws are only any good when most people are inclined to obey them.

              And people are inclined to obey them when they are just. Unjust laws invite disobedience.

            3. Look at Sarcasmic wanting to yell so bad and call it discussion.

              1. As I predicted, you didn’t address any of my points. Because you can’t. Because you’re a dumb, old farmer who lacks the intelligence to match me in a battle of ideas.

                1. Sarcasmic, your escalating pejorative ad hominen attacks and profanity reveal your increasing dearth of logic.

                  1. Indeed Penrose, a dearth of logic is Sarc’s only logic.

              2. Poor Sarcasmic hates being ignored when he says stupid shit.

          3. Poor Sarcasmic. All Bi-Polar again today.

            Must not have gotten into the homeless shelter last night, so he’s trying to stay warm at the library computer to comment.

            1. You’re one big mess of stupid.

              1. No, you just hate him because he’s right and you’re a twat.

                1. LotS – you have never once made a substantive argument. Not one single time. Just arguments against people.

                  And I don’t hate the old farmer. I pity him. As I pity you.

                  I see stupid people…

  7. Gun fetishists know public opinion is turning against them. I expect the 2020 Democratic candidate to campaign and win on a common sense gun safety platform. As longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn has noted, sensible gun laws are not only necessary, they’re perfectly constitutional.

    #LibertariansForGunSense
    #LibertariansAgainstTheNRA

    1. You just keep getting better and better at this.

      1. He’s the Detlef Schrempf of internet trolls. Sometimes red hot, sometimes can’t hit a shot.

        1. Detlef!!

          For some reason I was a Sonics fan when I was a kid.
          He was a favorite

      2. I sarcastically couldn’t fail to ironically agree with you less.

      3. That is the point of AI; the more it is used, the better it gets.
        So feed the trolls and watch them grow.

      4. I hope that’s sarcasm, Crusty.

        1. It’s getting hard to keep up with all the satire.

    2. Have you joined the AOC fan club yet? The only place public opinion is “changing” is where it has been for every. In leftist urban areas control by radicals like you. Once you leave those areas, it is a different world and that is what really pisses you off because you cannot control it.

      1. I’m waiting for an old boyfriend to leak a smartphone sex video of her to Pornhub.

        1. You’re assuming that someone had sex with her without putting a bag over her head.

    3. And who has the final authority to define “sensible”? I know plenty of people who would define “sensible gun laws” as the complete elimination of private firearms ownership. They believe it is “sensible” to ignore the Constitution when it conflicts with their definition of “sensible”.

      That’s why we have a Constitution- to prevent ideologues from forcing their definition of “sensible” on the rest of us. Those who desire to destroy the Constitution have no clue about the devastation and misery such action would initiate.

      1. In fact…

        http://nymag.com/intelligencer…..lists.html

        So much decadence

    4. “As longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn has noted, sensible gun laws are not only necessary, they’re perfectly constitutional.”

      Flies in the face of the serious caveat left us by our Founding Fathers:

      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
      (The text as ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson.)

      Emphasizing: “…Shall NOT be Infringed”.

      In law and statutes, the word ‘shall’ has the following meaning:

      “An imperative command; has a duty to or is required to. For example, the notice shall be sent within 30 days. Usually ‘shall’ used here is in the mandatory sense.”

      “When used in statutes, contracts, or the like, the word ‘shall’ is generally imperative or mandatory.”
      [Independent School District No. 561 v. Independent School District No. 35, 284 Minn. 426, 436-37, 170 N.W.2d 433, 440 (1969)]

      [Continued ?]

      1. [Continuing]

        “In common, or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term ‘shall’ is a word of command, and one which has always, or which must be given a compulsory meaning; as denoting obligation. It has a peremptory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intent appears; but the context ought to be very strongly persuasive before it is softened into a mere ‘permission’, etc.”
        [People v. O’Rourke, 124 Cal. App. 752, 759 (Cal. App. 1932)]

        The Founders use of the word “shall” removes all doubt as to its being a command not subject to any other interpretation.

        Their use of the adverb “not” is yet another command word.

        Their use of the verb “be” means “occur” or “take place.”

        And their use of the verb “infringed” cannot have any other meaning than “a intentional violation or breach of a legal right, contract, or statute.”

        [Continued ?]

        1. [Continuing]

          All the above simply means that any law, code, statute or ruling which prevents or prohibits an individual from purchasing or otherwise receiving, owning or carrying a firearm; _any_ firearm; or other “arms”; is to be considered patently unconstitutional and not to be used to deny that individual’s sacrosanct 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms: unless and until that individual’s right is individually and specifically subjected to being modified or removed by a court of law after using due process.

    5. THE 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTS MILITIA WEAPONS IN COMMON USE!

      THE AR-15 IS THE MOST COMMON GUN IN AMERICA!

      THEREFORE, ONLY THE BROWN BESS IS PROTECTED UNDER THE 2ND AMENDMENT!

      LEARN HOW TO READ A COURT CASE!
      [insert link to irrelevant SCOTUS decision]

      SORRY! YOU LOSE! NEXT!

      -Michael Hihn-

      Left – Right = 0

    6. Whatever…you say the same crap everytime the debate is about guns and every time you are wrong. I especially lovr the term “gun fetishist” because it so clearly illustrates not only your insane stance but childish inclinations.

  8. Even the lefty-rag Chron admitted this morning that the current congressional effort at a ‘sensible’ gun control measure was facing major opposition.

  9. The specifics of the laws to be defied vary from place to place, but the desire to be left unmolested by other people’s rules seems nearly universal.

    If only that desire were felt in a majority of people.

    1. “Political tags ? such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth ? are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

      ? Robert A. Heinlein

      1. “…those who want people to be controlled” such as Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Than Shwe, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Pinochet, Amin, Mussolini, Kim Jong-il, Saddam Hussein, etc., etc. What could possibly go wrong with people like this who are “idealists acting from the highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number”?

        The 200 million+ who were murdered by these “idealists” would likely disagree with Mr. Heinlein if they could speak.

        1. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Than Shwe, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Pinochet, Amin, Mussolini, Kim Jong-il, Saddam Hussein, etc. didn’t wake up every morning and ask themselves “What’s the most evil thing I can do today?”

          No.

          They actually thought they were doing good. They thought they were the good guys. And if they had won and were the ones writing the history books, they would be the good guys.

      2. One of my favorite quotes.

    2. I don’t doubt it is nearly universal. But also nearly universal is the stronger desire to tell others what to do. Some of us are bright enough to understand we have no standing to do so, but the world is full of dumbshit Tonys.

      1. Agreed, it seems far more universal to want to tell others what to do rather than be controlled yourself, even though I do agree left vs right is fundamentally a spectrum of those two worldviews.

        1. Generally agree, but I also think there’s a large percentage of those who want to control who really want to be controlled, just under the illusion that they are in control.

          Indeed, I think the majority of progressives – that is, the governed rather than governors who call themselves such – are just sheep who want nothing more than a shepherd telling them where to go.

  10. They’ll keep the law so they have one more charge to pile onto you.

    1. Hopefully, jurors acquit anyone charged with these unconstitutional ‘crimes’.

  11. In response, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, slapped back at what she called “rogue sheriffs throwing a childish pity party.” That’s probably not the sort of language likely to win over the rebellious, largely rural residents to whom county officials are catering.

    This is a potential consequence of crafting your political agenda towards pandering exclusively to the sensibilities of left-wing urbanites, because that will provide the numbers to get them elected–people in the hinterlands might just decide that you don’t actually represent them and refuse to comply with the laws you’re trying to enforce.

    New Mexico in particular, outside of those urban centers, is still kind of the wild west in a lot of areas, and these bills aren’t going to be looked on kindly by people who don’t have as many resources available to them, ranging from gun availability to legal defense. However, it is the perfect bill for the hippie residents of Santa Fe and Taos, and the crime-riddled shitholes of Albuquerque and Las Cruces.

    1. Also, that remark by Lujan-Grisham, a particularly dim harridan in the Hillary Clinton mode, perfectly encapsulates the modern progressive as a clueless nanny-scold.

    2. You ever try filing a restraining order against a mountain lion?

  12. Just because it’s the law doesn’t mean it’s right…

    1. Gun control laws are not constitutional, so they are not the law.

      Void laws are not law.

      1. So you recognize a difference between legislation and law? Law is just. It is the rules that society follows. Some of it is written down in the form of legislation, and some of it is not. Unjust legislation that people do not obey is not law.

      2. loveconstitution1789 winning the category “things a police officer doesn’t give a shit if you say” for $2000 (and 6 months).

        It’s a law. It isn’t constitutional, it isn’t moral, and it doesn’t help society, but it’s a law. If that is a problem for you, you’ll have to decide whether (and how much) you are willing to work to change the law (and abide by it until you do) or break it. Either way, you need to shed some moral superiority; you’re either a criminal or an adherent to an unjust system.

        1. I forgot secret option C, which is that Loveconstitution’s moral compass points whichever way the authors of the constitution say it should be pointed, which is an ethical system, but not a perfect one because those guys weren’t perfect, either.

        2. So all the state and local governments defying immigration laws are criminals? Those are laws as well, passed by a duly elected Congress and yet state and cities are ignoring them. What is the differrence?

          1. One huge difference is that regulation of immigrants is mentioned in the US Constitution but that gives huge leeway to Congress to regulate immigration as of 1808.

            The 2nd Amendment is clearly a protector of gun rights- All gun rights. The government is specifically prohibited from infringing on the right of the People to keep and bear Arms. Cops can read the 2A, as I can read it.

            I have no problem dying for my constitutional rights and I am not scared of police when they violate my rights. If I need to defend myself with deadly force, so be it. I am taking cops with me if they try and take my guns.

            The Constitution gives the police the powers that they have. They need to understand that fact. Their powers come from the same document that the 2A comes from.

            Freedom isn’t free.

            1. Completely correct. It’s amazing how few citizens understand this concept and are, instead choosing a path to serfdom and oppression.

              1. Completely incorrect. As has been repeatedly ad nauseum. There is no constitutional provision for regulating immigration. The article you constantly parrot deals with the slave trade but you. are. too. fucking. stupid. to. get. that. through. your. dense. skull.

                1. No, McJizz you’re dead wrong. And as you have a weak, inferior mind. You have no business impugning the intellect of others.

                  Or simply put, you’re a fucking dumbass.

                2. US Constitution, Article I, Section 9.
                  The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

                  Poor McGoop troll, hates the constitution.

                  1. If you had a brain, or were capable of reading, you’d realize that this Article deals with the slave trade and has nothing to do with immigration, as has been told to you countless times. It’s pretty obvious this has nothing to do with immigration unless the cost of immigration between states is $10. It also bars congress from banning the importation of slaves (not immigrants) prior to 1808. Maybe if you’d pull your head out of little Shitty’s ass you’d realize this, but that’s probably asking too much at this point.

                    1. I read the text of it, and it says nothing about slavery whatsoever.


                      US Constitution, Article I, Section 9.
                      The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

                      So to break it down into a flow chart:
                      1) Before the year 1808, Congress may not prohibit the migration of importation of persons admitted by the states,
                      2) … But may tax them at $10 per person.
                      3) After the year 1808, this clause ceases to have effect.
                      4) Therefore Congress may prohibit the migration of importation of persons after 1808.

              2. Yes, it might be necessary to bleed a little to protect our freedom.

  13. “The measure requiring background checks for all gun transfers, except between close family members and cops, seems to have excited the greatest opposition”

    So this is what drives gun nuts into a frenzy? Something this basic and yet the result we see is petulant rage. Well that gives lie to the oft-repeated excuse that gun nuts can’t be reasonable because everyone is trying to steal their guns. Personally, I think co-opting the reasonable is a better play long haul than massive resistance. Remember, these measure are popular as well as being limited and moderate…..

    1. I love it when people such as you pretend to be so rational and yet refer to gun owners as “gun nuts”. Maybe if you got off your moral high horse people might be willing to listen to what you have to say

    2. Remember, these measure are popular as well as being limited and moderate…..

      The siren song of all totalitarians.

    3. The people polled about Universal Background Check laws are informed about the difference between a UBC and a regular NICS check run by a FFL (gun dealer, pawn shop) selling a new or used gun. So people with no problem with NICS BG checks by gun dealers see no difference with UBCs.

      In most states a FFL NICS check can be done for $0, $3, $5, $10, or in many cases bypassed by showing a handgun carry permit that required a BG check.

      Why does a private transaction BG check or UBC cost from $30 to $65? Simply put: Universal Background Check laws are written to be sin taxes (what you can’t ban, you try to tax to death).

      What it does, by setting fees so high, is to promote used gun transactions without a BG check. $65 can be more than the value of a gun bought for parts or as a restoration project.

      1. Edit: … are NOT informed BY THE POLLSTERS about …

        1. Sin taxes to discourage gun purchase is an anti-gun tool.

          Even though the Maryland State Police said the Ballistic Fingerprint Database was useless as a crime control measure, the Maryland legislature clung to it for years, saying it impeded handgun sales by adding about $55 to the cost of buying a handgun in Maryland. The Maryland SP then ceased processing the fired casings sent them by gun dealers, just tossed them into a basement storage area, until the legislature admitted defeat and repealed it.

  14. “I’m voting the the bureaucrat with taxpayer funded armed security guards who told me I have to be defenceless or he’ll send a SWAT team to my house, for my safety”!I
    / No rational person ever

    1. Unfortunately, rationality is in short supply.

  15. Constitutional carry:

    Ok. has now gone green, Ky. soon to follow:

    https://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

    https://www.wymt.com/content/news
    l

  16. . . . and cops

    There it is.

  17. What’s this world coming to?
    You would think these cops would to as their told by their obvious betters instead of protecting the rights of the masses and the 2A.
    It makes you wonder whose side this cops are on, the enlightened ruling elites or the people their hired to protect and that damned inconvenient US Constitution?
    (Walks away in a huff.)

    1. Sheriff’s aren’t on your side either. Just like cops, they are on their own side.

      The difference is the Chief of Police is appointed by the city government – and if he doesn’t tow the Mayor’s lion he gets replaced (as happened recently in my own small town).

      Sheriffs are elected – so if they don’t suck up to the voters they get replaced.

      Stop electing Sheriffs (or give the state government an easy way to push them out) and you’ll see how fast that would turn around.

  18. Its always interesting to see the dynamic in states that are heavily polarized between a tiny number of urban cores and the rural minority in the rest of the state.

    Take New York’s registration attempts. In an attempt to address a problem that might afflict *NYC* (it actually doesn’t), they tried to put in a *statewide* law – as if the rural rump didn’t even exist. All those up-staters (hi Corey) are expected to buckle down and accept a new restriction to ‘fix’ a problem they didn’t have in the first place.

    Same thing in NM or Colorado (or my own Arizona). Fethers in the one or two large cities act as if the whole state is that way.

    And stuff like this is why, in the end, I decided the Electoral College did more good than harm. Without it, it really would allow the urban centers to bully the rest of the country.

    And hey, Tony and Kirkland, if you’ve got a gun violence problem in your cities – find a solution to it and apply it *to your cities*. Leave the rest of us, who have proven over and over that we dumb hicks can actually handle being armed without butchering our neighbors, unlike your ‘elites’, alone.

    For a bunch of ‘really smart and educated’ people, you guys sure are violent.

    1. Same dynamic is playing out with the rent control debate. That type of policy might make sense for urban enclaves with high levels of income inequality, like Portland and San Francisco–they’ve already done their best to make it difficult for middle class people to reside there, through a combination of high taxes and inflated cost of living via limits to residential development. It doesn’t make a lick of sense for people in places like Visalia or The Dalles.

      What we have are left-wing urbanites imposing one-size-fits-all policies for communities that such policies don’t fit, economically, socially, or culturally, and arrogantly presuming to tell these communities to suck it up and deal.

    2. This is what is happening across the country. In states where the majority of the population is in one area (Seattle, Portland, Albuqueque, etc.) they are attempting to impose their will and world view on entire state and much to their dismay, the rest of the state is telling them no.

  19. Come on, fellow New Jerseyans! Stand up and refuse to comply with our states draconian gun laws!!

    No?

    Sorry, J.D. I tried.

  20. When you break the law, you lose some rights.

    Capital murder, lose your life.
    Going to jail is losing your freedom.

    If you demonstrate that you abuse, threaten or assault others, you should lose your right to bear arms for a period of time.

    Enforcement requires identification which demands bureaucratic checks and balances.

    It’s about rights and how we get and lose them.

    What do you think is the criteria that makes something a right?

    1. I’ll just repeat what I said above:

      What we have are left-wing urbanites imposing one-size-fits-all policies for communities that such policies don’t fit, economically, socially, or culturally, and arrogantly presuming to tell these communities to suck it up and deal.

    2. Wrong! You think that enforcement, prosecution, and punishment are automatic and take no time at all. So wrong! How do you even tie your shoelaces with a brain that faulty?
      Enforcement, prosecution, and punishment are ALL extremely time and resource intensive. This means that they DO NOT SCALE! This also means that if a significant percentage of the people ignore a law, it’s completely UNenforceable! And that percentage need not be a lot. Perhaps 10% in violation would completely choke the enforcement to a standstill. Not to mention, when you insist on criminalizing your citizens and sentencing them to prison time, you lose out on productivity and tax base. Instead of Joe the gun nut paying $15 grand in taxes each year, you must spend $45 grand to lock Joe away!
      This situation is unworkable at any sort of scale.
      We’ve proven (unfortunately) that it’s possible to lock up 1% of our population and carry on. But I think the system would quickly break down were that number to even double.

      Unpopular laws are always unenforceable.

      1. Do you think keeping guns out of the hands of violent people is unpopular?

        If that is truly the extent of the law, I don’t think even the NRA would oppose it.

        The problem is the potential abuse of such a law, like using the data to confiscate guns from honest people, should that ever become popular. It is a valid concern.

        Thing is, until criminals are disarmed, the popularity for a law that does will only increase.

        I suggest that responsible gun owners, like me, need to encourage the NRA to work with lawmakers to draft a law that reaffirms and strengthens responsible and reasonable second amendment rights for honest people while removing those rights from criminals.

        I’d think that people who believe we’re the role models for the world could accomplish that.

        1. We’re on the clock.

          We’re one stupid government away from fascism.

          We need to prioritize the eradication of corruption.

          We have the technology to effortlessly record our personal memories and store them in the cloud. We only need the right to do so everywhere we go. Wherever justice exists and corruption is exposed, it’s vanquished.

          1. There is no more compromise possible with totalitarians. Gun control advocates must be told to “fuck off”.

            “Thing is, until criminals are disarmed, the popularity for a law that does will only increase.”

            Criminals will never be disarmed by laws, especially when those already on the books aren’t enforced (often through plea agreements, which are in need of huge reform).
            The popularity of gun control laws only grows because 2nd amendment defenders allow compromise. Allow one compromise, why not another?
            In forums where the debate occurs, 2nd amendment advocates win the argument every time, and sway true moderates (even some gun control proponents), because they don’t give ground and unapologetically prove they have the stronger argument.

            No compromise with and no apologies to totalitarians.
            Molon labe

            1. Indeed. Which is why I keep harping on the eventuality that the progtards must be dealt with if we are to keep our constitutional republic. Progtards in large numbers are incompatible with our system of govt..

            2. If you’re happy to roll the dice with popularity as your argument, when you accept when they land in favour of unjust gun control, you will have reaped what you’ve sown.

              1. If you’re happy to roll the dice with popularity as your argument

                That wasn’t what he argued, you dumbass. In fact, it was the opposite.

    3. If you demonstrate that you abuse, threaten or assault others, you should lose your right to bear arms for a period of time.

      And if you don’t, your right shouldn’t be infringed upon. Exercising a constitutional right is not contingent on government approval.

      Enforcement requires identification which demands bureaucratic checks and balances.

      identification, checks and balances, 4th and 6th Amendment…

      It’s about rights and how we get and lose them.

      you don’t “get” rights. You have them. You lose them only through due process of law after being charged with a crime.

      You get privileges.

      What do you think is the criteria that makes something a right?

      The 2nd Amendment is a good place to start.

      1. What is the criteria that makes a right one that “we just have” and distinguishes it from all the things we want that aren’t rights?

        1. What is the criteria that makes a right one that “we just have”

          and distinguishes it from all the things we want that aren’t rights?

          you answered your own question.

          1. No, I didn’t.

            What is the criteria that makes something a right?

            1. This is a generalization, but Rights are things you are born with, that are inherent in your body, your DNA, and your evolution as a creature on this planet. They encompass your biology and abilities and programming. They are things that can’t be stamped out by governments except by brutal force and slavery because they *are* you. Your thoughts = speech and spirituality, your atavistic desires for personal, safe space = privacy, the human as social animal = freedom of assembly and association, your gut-level measures of fairness = search, seizure, due process, double jeopardy. The instinct of the organism to live at all costs = self defense. These are things that are indivisible from your organism and nature. Liberty in general– most humans don’t thrive in captivity.

              If you were born with an accelerator and automobile attached to your foot, driving would be a right too.

              1. So, you don’t have a clue. Just say that.

                I appreciate your emotional outpouring, but what makes you believe it to be true?

                Put your big boy pants on. State the criteria that defines a right and accept the truth demonstrated by logic and science from the emotional blatherless discussion that ensues.

                I’ve put this out there for a few days now to proponents of the concept that rights are innate, like you, with disappointing results as you all avoid the question.

                You can run but you can’t hide.

                1. So, you don’t have a clue. Just say that

                  He answered the question, you just didn’t like the answer. Stop pretending that you know something, troon.

                  1. It said

                    Rights are;

                    “You’re born with. ”

                    What aren’t we born with? That’s no criteria.

                    “In your DNA”

                    “Your biology and abilities and programming”

                    What does that leave out?

                    “Your thoughts, speech and spirituality”

                    This isn’t criteria. Unless everything you want to do is a right. Is that what you believe is criteria for rights? Its fucking meaningless blather.

                    So people with different DNA have different rights?

                    1. If you’re going to play the rhetorical equivalent of Calvinball, the least you could do is try and not be so obvious about it.

                    2. That’s your game dipshit.

                      I asked for criteria.

                    3. I asked for criteria.

                      The criteria was given above, dumbfuck. You just didn’t like what was written and acted like the obtuse Dunning-Kruger case that you are.

                      And you’re hardly one to complain about anyone not providing proof of their assertions.

                    4. Any time rights are discussed, so will be the question of the criteria that defines them.

                      You can demonstrate your delusions as often as you like. Fill your boots.

                    5. “MUH CRAHTEREEA!!!”

                      It has to be exhausting moving the goalposts as much as you do.

  21. Seattle Times: Agree or disagree, sheriffs must enforce new state gun law

    “…as Attorney General Bob Ferguson warns in a sharply worded letter, the sheriffs would be held liable in the case of a gun sale that could have been prevented by the new background checks and then someone uses that gun in a crime. These elected officials should be accountable for doing their jobs.”

    1. Qualified immunity mother-fucker.

      1. Probably not. Prosecutorial Discretion would be a much stronger defense.

    2. Attorney General Bob Ferguson warns in a sharply worded letter the sheriffs would be held liable in the case of a gun sale that could have been prevented by the new background checks and then someone uses that gun in a crime

      How exactly will it be enforced? Which specific gun does AG Ferguson (piss be upon him) plan to point at these sheriffs if they tell him to go fuck himself? And if they tell him where to shove his lawsuit, then what?

      Maybe Ferguson needs to worry more about the Seattle metro area and less about Washington’s small towns, which rank among the safest in the state.

    3. Attorney General Bob Ferguson ignores the Trump directives that he doesn’t like.

      Upset when the shoe is on the other foot.

      Well, he opened the door.

      1. You hold office in a sanctuary city?
        Better pray no illegal immigrant commits a crime.
        There’s going to be a lot of liability going around

    4. Bob Ferguson is a communist, and likes the worst state AG in the US. Fuck him and anything he has to say.

    5. OOOH oooh, now do Immigration Law

  22. Free people don’t pay to beg for permission to exercise a enumerated Constitutional right.
    Universal background checks are a P.C. way of conditioning people to believe that your rights come from, or are up to government.

    1. +1000

  23. Tacoma News-Tribune

    “Fortunately, some moderate voices have emerged amid the commotion. One belongs to Paul Pastor, Pierce County’s sheriff of 18 years….

    “”I may have some views which agree with critics of 1639 and some views which disagree with them,” Pastor told us. “I have stated my views and have listened to the views of others. But I am not going to register objections on constitutional grounds until those grounds are established by the courts.””

  24. When Sheriffs Won’t Enforce The Law

    “Robert Wadman, a former police chief and a professor emeritus at Weber State University…thinks the Washington sheriffs’ motivations are political, and he says, “For me, questions of this nature should be answered by the courts ? not the court of public opinion.””

    1. Robert Wadman, a former police chief and a professor emeritus at Weber State University…thinks the Washington sheriffs’ motivations are political

      The personal is political, and these sheriffs wouldn’t be making this kind of stand if their own constituents weren’t raising hell about it.

    2. When you own the courts and educate the lawyers, of course you want them to decide things for you!

      What a panty waisted twit!

  25. I was a jurror on a trial of a guy whose ‘crime’ was mere possession of an so called assault rifle. He had lawfully purchased it, with taxes paid, and hadn’t even shot it in years.
    He had kept it securely stored, unloaded and dissassembled.
    He was not a felon.
    When police discovered it, along with legally owned accessories, they assembled it for what they said was “ease of transportation purposes”.
    Of course, they assembled it in the most non compliant way they could.
    The police witnesses even ‘discussed’ the case in front of us in the hallway during recess, in the middle of the trial, blatantly ignoring the judges admonishment!
    We acquitted him in about five minutes.
    Sadly, many others would have taken a plea deal.

    1. “Sadly, many others would have taken a plea deal.”

      Yep – especially if poor.
      I wonder what the conviction rate in courts would be if plea deals were no longer a thing? How many crimes can really be proven beyond reasonable doubt? How much better would our justice system be if prosecutors and police were forced to make every case? I bet they’d be less corrupt, more discerning and disciplined.

      Instead, we get people subjected to over-charging as matter of course. “You’re looking at 25 years if convicted but we’ll let you plea to 5.” So some guy, even 100% innocent, has to take the deal because he can’t depend on the public defender who has 50 other cases at the same time, and probably isn’t that great a lawyer in the first place.

      Meanwhile, we have some guy arrested for the 5th time for armed robbery – but, to move the case along and boost numbers, we’ll drop the weapons charges so you’ll be sentenced to 5 years instead of 25, and maybe get out in 2. Then that same dude is gonna do the same shit with the same weapons.

      Gun control laws don’t work, aside from being unconstitutional, because criminals don’t follow laws – and, when caught, plea to deals that drop weapons charges…

  26. I can’t wait for all the “dissent is patriotic” liberals who love the concept of civil disobedience to come out in support of these guys!

  27. I have argued for months the Democrats would regretbtheir stance on ignoring immigration laws when they attempted to pass new gun laws. It appears I was correct. US law manily built on legal precedent and when Democrats managed to get some judges to affirm their position that states could ignore Federal and state laws they do not like, the die was cast. Now these states and Congress are attempting to pass the gun restrictions they have always wanted and are finding the grass is not so green

    1. To be fair, Dem state and local officials are simply using their constitutional power to stay aloof from the enforcement of federal law. Even if a federal law is totes constitutional, state and local govts don’t have any constitutional duty to *enforce* them, though they cannot of course obstruct constitutionally *valid* laws.

  28. Some good Sheriffs protect the Constitution. Meanwhile, in kalifornia, they bend over for sacramento.

  29. All law enforcement is impossible against the wishes of the people. If the people are brave enough to defy improper coercion by those who attempt to be their overlords, they will always be free.

  30. I love the irony. Leftists/globalists created “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants, providing the idea for libertarians and conservatives to create “sanctuary counties” for 2nd Amendment rights.

    Leftists break the law by harboring criminals. Nothing in the Constitution supports that. Libertarians and conservatives want to uphold the Constitution. Restricting the right of otherwise law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms is clearly unconstitutional.

  31. I love the irony. Leftists/globalists created “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants, providing the idea for libertarians and conservatives to create “sanctuary counties” for 2nd Amendment rights.

    Leftists break the law by harboring criminals. Nothing in the Constitution supports that. Libertarians and conservatives want to uphold the Constitution. Restricting the right of otherwise law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms is clearly unconstitutional.

  32. Teach a dog to bite…

    Politicians need to be careful; once we develop a taste for breaking the law (without material consequences), it will be hard to get us on the leash again.

  33. Crusty is right. If you don’t like the law, then change it. But until then you must just follow the law. Now shut up and get into those damn ovens!.

  34. My friends and I who own non compliant firearms under the NY SAFE Act(passed in ’13) collectively told Gov. Andy Cuomo and the NY city politicians who passed this terrible law, TO GO FUCK THEMSELVES ! As did the rest of upstate NY.(roughly everything north of Westchester and Rockland counties) NYC has a political stranglehold on upstate NY, and the people who live here are sick and tired of it. Its been a deep blue state since 1984 and will be in the foreseeable future. Civil disobedience is a two way street, I’m looking at you sanctuary cities and states.

  35. It is good to see people standing up for their rights against dictatorial state governments. Through fraud Democrats have nearly taken over the states of New Mexico and Arizona, and speaking as a native-born southwesterner it grieves me mightily.

  36. “Mandatory background checks for most gun transfers, court-ordered seizures of firearms, and the denial of self-defense rights to those convicted of domestic violence offenses feature in the bills moving through the state legislature. The measure requiring background checks for all gun transfers, except between close family members and cops, seems to have excited the greatest opposition.”

    The author of this piece of ‘journalism’ is either a poorly informed idiot, or a blatant liar, intent on conflating legal gun owners with wife beaters.

    Those convicted of any sort of domestic violence are -already- prohibited persons, as per the Lautenberg Amendment. To my knowledge, no local or state legislature is attempting to write parallel law with regards to the Lautenberg Amendment.

    sixty seconds on google would have cleared this up for the author.

    So one can only infer that the author of this article is trying to sell a narrative. And that narrative is this “Gun owners are bad people who defy the law, and beat their wives.”

    I award you no points, Author.

  37. Well,,,,,, IME there has never been a law targeted at citizens, and that can be twisted in many different and often unconstitutional directions, that police didn’t like.

    They may claim, today, that they will not enforce it/them but there will very shortly come a day when they want to manufacture “probable cause” against someone and they will dive in head first into their love for these laws.

    This has been the persistent pattern of police behavior for longer than I have been alive and there is no reason to think it might change for this set of laws.

  38. ?Google pay 95$ consistently my last pay check was $8200 working 10 hours out of every week on the web. My more young kin buddy has been averaging 15k all through ongoing months and he works around 24 hours consistently. I can’t confide in how straightforward it was once I endeavored it out.This is my primary concern…GOOD LUCK .

    click here =====?? http://www.Geosalary.com

  39. A few days ago, an article on another site had a statement from a leader in Everytown who let slip the true intent of all these new gun laws. It is not about reducing crime or keeping guns from people who should not have them, but rather creating a “culture of compliance”. In short teaching people to wilingly accept the restricting of their fundemental rights. However it was obvious like so many on the left and in urban America, the spokeperson had no understanding of the people he believes will comply. This latest response proves their plan will fail. They have pushed too hard and now are getting push back, forceful pushback from many sources and locations

  40. People in this country have such short memories. In 2008, when Dems controlled the WH and Congress, there was talk about passing gun bans and more restrictive laws. At that time multiple states passed laws declaring any federal laws which restricted the 2nd amendment to be null and void within their borders. The problem with people like Crusty is if this were the 1770s he would be arguing we have to obey the British because the law is the law.

  41. Noo Mexico voters could use their vast libertarian leverage to actually ELECT people eager to defend the Second Amendment. Failing that, how about seceding from the Customs Union and rejoining Old Mexico? There are enough Kristallnacht gun laws there to thrill National Socialists and Democrats alike, looky here: http://tinyurl.com/yyfbyddr
    Their motto? “We don’ need no steenkin seconamenmen’ menh!” Think of how much more unworkable the Berlin Wall would become if it had to angle north off El Paso to Colorado, then span all the rocky arroyos along the borders from Galt’s Gulch to Arizona!

  42. I get paid over $180 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I just got paid $ 8550 in my previous month It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it.
    ?????AND GOOD LUCK????? http://WWw.Aprocoin.com

  43. Yes, the human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

  44. Our female models are most smart and skilled in all types of catalogs from modeling to visual work. Our models are highly awaited and capably meet your needs.
    call girls names and mobile number
    Call girls whatsapp number

  45. Our escorts service is fully secured for our customers and our call girls are fully trained to give you full sexual satisfaction. Please Click on the following links for more detail:

    Girls number list

    Call girl Service in Chennai

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.