One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
New Mexico sheriffs take defiant stand against state's new gun control legislation
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Feb 10, 2019 14:13:25   #
SinnieK
 
https://www.theblaze.com/new-mexico-sheriffs-gun-control?

Plans described as ineffective, unconstitutional

Teri Webster
Twenty-nine sheriffs in New Mexico oppose new gun law proposals under consideration by the state legislature, KOAT-TV reports.

What are they saying?

"You're just taking guns out of law-abiding citizen's hands," Lea County Sheriff Corey Helton told the TV station. "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 is one of the sheriffs who signed a statement by the New Mexico Sheriff's Association that says that four proposed and related gun bills would be ineffective.

They include:

House Bill 83, which would allow law enforcement to temporarily take away guns from people who are considered an imminent threat.
House Bill 87, a plan to prohibit people under a protective order from buying guns.
House Bill 130, a mandate for gun owners to store guns safely around children or face penalties.
Senate Bill 8, which would require background checks for private firearms sales.
State Rep. Joy Garratt (D) believes HB83 could have prevented, for example, the Parkland, Florida, high school massacre.

Although Garratt believes the bills do not violate the Second Amendment, Helton disagrees. He told media the laws are either redundant or unconstitutional. Existing laws already provide enough protection, he said.

"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."

How many counties are in the state?

New Mexico has just 33 counties, so that means just four counties are not represented by the group, the website BearingArms.com reported.

The state legislature's proposal and others like it in other states simply penalizes people who were not responsible for a law enforcement failure in one county in Florida, BearingArms.com stated.

An editorial on the website praised the New Mexico sheriffs for taking a stand and stated that more people need to do the same.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 14:42:13   #
Kevyn (a regular here)
 
SinnieK wrote:
https://www.theblaze.com/new-mexico-sheriffs-gun-control?

Plans described as ineffective, unconstitutional

Teri Webster
Twenty-nine sheriffs in New Mexico oppose new gun law proposals under consideration by the state legislature, KOAT-TV reports.

What are they saying?

"You're just taking guns out of law-abiding citizen's hands," Lea County Sheriff Corey Helton told the TV station. "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 is one of the sheriffs who signed a statement by the New Mexico Sheriff's Association that says that four proposed and related gun bills would be ineffective.

They include:

House Bill 83, which would allow law enforcement to temporarily take away guns from people who are considered an imminent threat.
House Bill 87, a plan to prohibit people under a protective order from buying guns.
House Bill 130, a mandate for gun owners to store guns safely around children or face penalties.
Senate Bill 8, which would require background checks for private firearms sales.
State Rep. Joy Garratt (D) believes HB83 could have prevented, for example, the Parkland, Florida, high school massacre.

Although Garratt believes the bills do not violate the Second Amendment, Helton disagrees. He told media the laws are either redundant or unconstitutional. Existing laws already provide enough protection, he said.

"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."

How many counties are in the state?

New Mexico has just 33 counties, so that means just four counties are not represented by the group, the website BearingArms.com reported.

The state legislature's proposal and others like it in other states simply penalizes people who were not responsible for a law enforcement failure in one county in Florida, BearingArms.com stated.

An editorial on the website praised the New Mexico sheriffs for taking a stand and stated that more people need to do the same.
https://www.theblaze.com/new-mexico-sheriffs-gun-c... (show quote)

So according to these clowns a dangerous nut threatening his family, neighbors or self should not be disarmed. People leaving loaded weapons laying around for kids to find should be absolved of responsibility if a child playing with one shoots themselves or others. And wife beaters under restraining orders should also not be disarmed. Evidently the best thing is wait until the next school or church shooting or domestic homicide and then just catch the guy and try him. Except in the case of the kid blasting his sister in the face as this is just an unavoidable accident.

| Reply
Feb 10, 2019 16:20:34   #
padremike (a regular here)
 
Kevyn wrote:
So according to these clowns a dangerous nut threatening his family, neighbors or self should not be disarmed. People leaving loaded weapons laying around for kids to find should be absolved of responsibility if a child playing with one shoots themselves or others. And wife beaters under restraining orders should also not be disarmed. Evidently the best thing is wait until the next school or church shooting or domestic homicide and then just catch the guy and try him. Except in the case of the kid blasting his sister in the face as this is just an unavoidable accident.
So according to these clowns a dangerous nut threa... (show quote)


There are no clowns as threatening or as dangerous a nut as are Progressives. Guns aren't nearly as dangerous as those who murder their unborn children huh?

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 14:40:52   #
Larry the Legend (a regular here)
 
Kevyn wrote:
So according to these clowns a dangerous nut threatening his family, neighbors or self should not be disarmed. People leaving loaded weapons laying around for kids to find should be absolved of responsibility if a child playing with one shoots themselves or others. And wife beaters under restraining orders should also not be disarmed. Evidently the best thing is wait until the next school or church shooting or domestic homicide and then just catch the guy and try him. Except in the case of the kid blasting his sister in the face as this is just an unavoidable accident.
So according to these clowns a dangerous nut threa... (show quote)

Didyou see this part or were you too busy being outraged?

"Helton disagrees. He told media the laws are either redundant or unconstitutional. Existing laws already provide enough protection, he said."

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 17:20:54   #
SinnieK
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
Didyou see this part or were you too busy being outraged?

"Helton disagrees. He told media the laws are either redundant or unconstitutional. Existing laws already provide enough protection, he said."


This is how the liberals do they don't take the whole thing into account they just select thing out of context and run with it. This is their MO.

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 17:31:55   #
Larry the Legend (a regular here)
 
SinnieK wrote:
This is how the liberals do they don't take the whole thing into account they just select thing out of context and run with it. This is their MO.

Here in Florida we call it 'selective hearing'. Like the song, he only 'hears' what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Put more directly, he rejects our reality outright and substitutes his own, truth or fact be damned. I used to look at the replies with my mouth open, having no idea how to respond. Now I break it down to 'bite-sized' pieces and respond piecemeal, usually with a light sprinkling of relevant questions. That generally does the trick but occasionally it doesn't matter how I respond, the message does not get through. Like the man says, stupid is as stupid does.

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 18:35:19   #
SinnieK
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
Here in Florida we call it 'selective hearing'. Like the song, he only 'hears' what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Put more directly, he rejects our reality outright and substitutes his own, truth or fact be damned. I used to look at the replies with my mouth open, having no idea how to respond. Now I break it down to 'bite-sized' pieces and respond piecemeal, usually with a light sprinkling of relevant questions. That generally does the trick but occasionally it doesn't matter how I respond, the message does not get through. Like the man says, stupid is as stupid does.
Here in Florida we call it 'selective hearing'. L... (show quote)


Or like the other man says "Don't argue with 'STUPID'."

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 18:39:08   #
Rose42 (a regular here)
 
Kevyn wrote:
So according to these clowns a dangerous nut threatening his family, neighbors or self should not be disarmed. People leaving loaded weapons laying around for kids to find should be absolved of responsibility if a child playing with one shoots themselves or others. And wife beaters under restraining orders should also not be disarmed. Evidently the best thing is wait until the next school or church shooting or domestic homicide and then just catch the guy and try him. Except in the case of the kid blasting his sister in the face as this is just an unavoidable accident.
So according to these clowns a dangerous nut threa... (show quote)


According to people who are far more knowledgeable and experienced than you are they don't think this legislation is needed. The rest is just the usual hoplophobic talking points and projecting your insecurities and fears onto others.

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 18:53:02   #
padremike (a regular here)
 
Rose42 wrote:
According to people who are far more knowledgeable and experienced than you are they don't think this legislation is needed. The rest you're is just the usual hoplophobic talking points and projecting your insecurities and fears onto others.


Hoplophobic? You sent me scampering to the online Funk & Wagnells for that one.

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 18:54:38   #
Rose42 (a regular here)
 
padremike wrote:
Holophobic? You sent me scampering to the online Funk & Wagnells for that one.


Spellcheck is my enema....

| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 19:44:35   #
Larry the Legend (a regular here)
 
Rose42 wrote:
According to people who are far more knowledgeable and experienced than you are they don't think this legislation is needed. The rest is just the usual hoplophobic talking points and projecting your insecurities and fears onto others.

Telling it like it is! You nailed it. They're all terrified of an armed citizen and that's what keeps them awake at night trying to figure out how to get those guns away. This is what really messes with their heads:



| Reply
Feb 11, 2019 20:27:10   #
padremike (a regular here)
 
Rose42 wrote:
Spellcheck is my enema....


Your word was good. Three times my spell check changed it. I posted the word and spell check changed it one more time. I went in and edited it and after I updated it, bam! Spell check won't accept it. Anyhow, it was an interesting word that I'll never be able to use with my kindle tablet.

| Reply
Feb 14, 2019 03:00:15   #
redpill
 
I have not looked up the statutes of New Mexico but will venture a guess that laws are already on the books for much of this...

"House Bill 83, which would allow law enforcement to temporarily take away guns from people who are considered an imminent threat." Like when a person is robbing a store? Already on the books. Couple of key words that can turn this bill into Nazi brown shirt actions. "temporarily" and "imminent". Define those and if its done conscientiously, the existing laws most assuredly work. Pass this and now who determines the imminent threat? During a store robbery its been defined. What about the gal who sits at home with her 38 in her lap because she is afraid of a home invasion?

"House Bill 87, a plan to prohibit people under a protective order from buying guns." Perhaps this one has some merit. Curious of the purpose of this one. Basically I don't know what a "protective order" is or why it is issued. I also don't trust that it will not be abused.

"House Bill 130, a mandate for gun owners to store guns safely around children or face penalties." Do they mean that a provision against child endangerment is not part of an existing law? This law seems redundant or if not, totalitarian. How would it be enforced? Would every gun owner need to buy a gun safe, with a combination lock? Wow, to my thinking, not being able to prevent a home intrusion is child endangerment. I think a better version of this law would be to require every household to have readily available hand gun secured in the home. Ask the NRA or other conscientious gun owners what that would look like.

"Senate Bill 8, which would require background checks for private firearms sales." Preps will get 'em with or without this law. Just a tactic to generate a register of gun owners for future control.

| Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.