A dangerous proposal in Congress

[lrrifleman]

Keeping in mind Bruen, the antis have to negate: 10 US code subsection 246, plus the legislation that created the NBPRP, the DCM, and the CMP. Plus, the antis appear to be banking on the loyalty of the military.

[biku324]

Originally Posted by steelslaver

Restricting, gun rights, free speech and assembly is exactly the subject of the bill in question,

Your willingness to accept it is only your opinion which flies in the face of the Bill of Rights

I'd mildly disagree. The 34 year-old New Mexico law infringed no one's rights under the First or Second Amendment, both of which exist in stronger form in the NM Constitution. The only thing that happened is that folks who were training with firearms to commit crimes could no longer do so legally.

Do recall that the Founders knew they were committing treason against the King when they signed the Declaration of Independence. It's attributed to Benjamin Franklin that they were explicitly aware that, "...we must all hang together, or ... we shall all hang separately."

NM Constitution:

Sec. 17. [Freedom of speech and press; libel.]
Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted.

Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
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. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by biku324

The only thing that happened is that folks who were training with firearms to commit crimes could no longer do so legally.

ROTFL. I have a feeling that this is going to be used like the cash confiscation thing except instead of "prove that you aren't a drug kingpin" it will be "prove you aren't planning a crime!"

[biku324]

It hasn't in 34 years. And there is no confiscation (civil forfeiture) clause. Beyond that, the 'burden of proof' to show you are training for an illegal purpose is on the state. This is criminal, not civil, law.

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by biku324

It hasn't in 34 years.

Times change. Didn't your the governor of your freedom loving state try to ban carry by executive order?

And there is no confiscation (civil forfeiture) clause.

Never said there was.

Beyond that, the 'burden of proof' to show you are training for an illegal purpose is on the state.

LOL. That's the claim but not always the reality.

[biku324]

1. Yes. The courts quickly stopped her.
2. You clearly expressed your "...feeling..." about this becoming a subterfuge for confiscation.
3. That is always the reality. Don't like it? Find a more just system Anywhere.

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by biku324

3. That is always the reality.

The reality is that the state and its agents will abuse any power that they manage to seize and despise any limitations on their power.

[biku324]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by biku324

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

"Thank God that we need a search warrant," said no cop ever.
"Thank God we have to tell arrestees their rights," said no cop ever.

[biku324]

Ah, that's right - I forgot your bias. No biggie.

[Rodan]

Originally Posted by biku324

Ah, that's right - I forgot your bias. No biggie.

What about yours?

I can't recall a discussion here of a gun control regulation, increase in federal power, or reduction of personal freedoms that you weren't OK with.

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by biku324

Ah, that's right - I forgot your bias. No biggie.

Hmmmm . . . I notice that you don't refute my assertions.

[Sistema1927]

“No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
― Gideon J. Tucker (often wrongly attributed to Mark Twain)

We just barely survived another stellar performance by the NM legislature as they adjourned yesterday, where they only infringed on our freedom just a little bit (by their estimation). However, that has not deterred our grand poobah Governess from wanting to call a special session to enact all the infringements that she desired.

[biku324]

Originally Posted by Rodan

What about yours?

I can't recall a discussion here of a gun control regulation, increase in federal power, or reduction of personal freedoms that you weren't OK with.

Memory can certainly be confusing and inaccurate. Do you have a specific example in mind?

[biku324]

Originally Posted by Sistema1927

“No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
― Gideon J. Tucker (often wrongly attributed to Mark Twain)

We just barely survived another stellar performance by the NM legislature as they adjourned yesterday, where they only infringed on our freedom just a little bit (by their estimation). However, that has not deterred our grand poobah Governess from wanting to call a special session to enact all the infringements that she desired.

The Legislators certainly are worth their salaries (they get none)!

She's out in two more years. Thank God and the voters for constitutionally required gubernatorial term limits.

[moosedog]

Gee, I wonder which side of the isle he's on.
Elections have consequences.

[britbike1]

On page 6 line 16 for exceptions from the law are organizations that are authorized to engage in paramilitary, law enforcement, or security services authorized under control of a governmental authority. Can you say a couple million illegal military age young men in this country?

[delcrossv]

Originally Posted by britbike1

On page 6 line 16 for exceptions from the law are organizations that are authorized to engage in paramilitary, law enforcement, or security services authorized under control of a governmental authority. Can you say a couple million illegal military age young men in this country?

I think we have a winner.

[Beemerguy53]

Instead of bickering amongst ourselves over S.3589, may I suggest we all step back and take a cold, hard look at what's really going on here?

Legislators constantly introduce legislation they know will never become law, and that's certainly the case here. S.3589 has just one co-sponsor, and since being introduced on January 16, it's been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has scheduled no hearings at this point.

An identical House bill, H.R. 6981, was actually filed first, on January 11, with 11 co-sponsors (out of 435 House members), and it's been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, again with no hearings scheduled.

Neither bill apparently has the support of House or Senate leadership, and neither one has been the subject of major news stories or press releases announcing the support of various anti-2A groups. The sponsors and co-sponsors are all from the same party...no bi-partisanship at all. I'll betcha $100 to a bag of stale donuts these bills will never even come close to becoming law. So why would their sponsors introduce them?

Politicians need to raise campaign money, and they do that by appealing to donors. Some of those donors want to see pet ideas introduced as legislation, so the elected officials oblige, even though those pet ideas have no chance of becoming law. Other elected officials want to demonstrate that they're working for a favorite cause, something they've campaigned on or something that matters to their constituents, so they introduce bills like this.

I'm not saying the sponsors of these bills don't actually support the proposals...just that reading between the lines tells us there are far greater threats out there to the Second Amendment than S.3589 and H.R.6981.

Just a moment...

Just a moment...

[biku324]

^^^^^^What he said.

And the dire predictions about New Mexico's similar law have proven utterly false. The only thing it cost us was the presence of anti-government group training camps. No loss.

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by biku324

The only thing it cost us was the presence of anti-government group training camps. No loss.

How many "anti-government group training camps" existed before the law?

If any "camps" existed, how much of an impact did they have on the local economy?

Considering the events of 250 years ago, is not an ant-government group a patriotic group in the finest American tradition? After all, didn't one of the founding fathers say something about rising in open and armed rebellion when the government becomes tyrannical?

[biku324]

Originally Posted by Yaworski

How many "anti-government group training camps" existed before the law?

If any "camps" existed, how much of an impact did they have on the local economy?

Considering the events of 250 years ago, is not an ant-government group a patriotic group in the finest American tradition? After all, didn't one of the founding fathers say something about rising in open and armed rebellion when the government becomes tyrannical?

There were three to my personal knowledge - one near Bluewater, one near Fence Lake, one north of Datil. All disappeared after the law was passed and publicized. One more supposed to have existed near Farmington, but that was more of an anti-Indian racist group.

Damifikno, but locals were the ones who told us about these because of the creepiness of full-auto fire day and night, and BDU-clad non-local folks creeping around day and night.

No. Treason is treason. We have representation and self-determination now, which is what the rebels of the 18th century demanded and would die to get.

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by biku324

No. Treason is treason.

Yep, GW and TJ were traitors.

We have representation and self-determination now

Do we? And even if we do, the executive branch becomes more tyrannical every year.

[biku324]

Nonsense. In a really good presidential election year, just over 60% of registered voters cast a ballot. It's usually well under 40% in off-year elections. Hardly a groundswell of voter discontent over anything, let alone 'tyranny."

To be clear, if you train to tactically oppose the US military or law enforcement while armed, you get no symparhy from me, and none from the courts.

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by biku324

you get no symparhy from me, and none from the courts.

Hardly unexpected.

[Beemerguy53]

Originally Posted by Yaworski

Hardly unexpected.

Why the personal shot at another member?

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by Beemerguy53

Why the personal shot at another member?

Shot? His response was as expected.

[Magnum_PI]

My true feelings are the majority of the gubbermint hates us...

It is another step towards banning firearms is the real motive.

The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves at what this country has turned into.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by biku324

I had to laugh...you just don't hear these conspiracy theories outside the US!

Or more to the point - BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A RECOGNIZED RIGHT TO BE ARMED FOR SELF DEFENSE (a.k.a. RECOGNIZED 2nd Amendment rights).

[BC38]

Originally Posted by biku324

Which parts? Unrestricted concealed carry in your car or on your property? Simple purchase with no permits and no waiting period? Open carry except where prohibited by local irdinance? Unrestricted purchase of ammo and reloading components online? 'Shall issue' CCL? 'Stand your ground' for criminal liability since 1912?

How about an elected governor who thinks she can suspend EVERYONE'S 2nd Amendment rights by the waive of an executive pen?

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Yaworski

The reality is that the state and its agents will abuse any power that they manage to seize and despise any limitations on their power.

The pandemic restrictions, lockdowns, and mandates imposed by state governments should be sufficient proof that Yaworski's statements are reality - not just someone's opinion.

[biku324]

As already posted, the courts slapped her down immediately. As they were specifically designed to do when keeping overreach in check.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Rodan

What about yours?

I can't recall a discussion here of a gun control regulation, increase in federal power, or reduction of personal freedoms that you weren't OK with.

We have met the enemy, and He is US - or at least SOME of us...

[BC38]

Originally Posted by biku324

Nonsense. In a really good presidential election year, just over 60% of registered voters cast a ballot. It's usually well under 40% in off-year elections. Hardly a groundswell of voter discontent over anything, let alone 'tyranny."

To be clear, if you train to tactically oppose the US military or law enforcement while armed, you get no symparhy from me, and none from the courts.

Your position is duly noted. Again.

The very idea that armed citizens might rise in opposition to totalitarian government - no matter how corrupt or oppressive - is treason, according to totalitarians.

Got it.

If they represent the "government" we all need to bow to their authority. No matter how corrupt or oppressive.

Gotcha' man!

Anybody else remember who the "Tories" were?

[biku324]

Well, we've all got opinions.

To be clear, I've served my country against criminals of all kinds at city, county, and state levels, and helped develop more just police agencies in 7 countries. Nowhere is there a better, more just system than we Americans have; the rest of the world knows it, even if lots of folks domestically have a peculiar view about a system wherein every person, rich or poor, can successfully challenge real or even imaginary abuse of power. If a person is too lazy or paranoid to use the political or court systems in our country, they shouldn't wonder why they don't get everything the demand, which is far, far different than everything to which they are Constitutionally entitled.

If you don't train to use firearms in unlawful civil disorder, these laws are no threat to you nor to anyone else.

I'm reminded of paranoid ravings by some on the below law when being debated for passage nearly 30 years ago:


30-22-27. Disarming a peace officer.

A. Disarming a peace officer consists of knowingly:

(1) removing a firearm or weapon from the person of a
peace officer when the officer is acting within the scope
of his duties; or

(2) depriving a peace officer of the use of a firearm or
weapon when the officer is acting within the scope of his
duties.

B. The provisions of Subsection A of this act shall not apply when a peace officer is engaged in criminal conduct.

C. Whoever commits disarming a peace officer is guilty of a third degree felony.

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by biku324

If you don't train to use firearms in unlawful civil disorder, these laws are no threat to you nor to anyone else.

I remember stories about a king who didn't like people practicing with guns. Now those very same people are considered heroes.

[biku324]

Childhood stories are surely the very best way to inform one's thought processes.

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by biku324

Blah blah blah.

Yeah, great stories about traitors like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Stories about vandals who destroyed private property to protest government actions.

Oh, I know that you'll tell me that they were protesting a situation in which they had no representation. So? The Law, the law that you consider so precious, didn't allow for them to have representation.

Laws are decided by the elite whose primary desire is to maintain their position of power. Those elite then use their minions to enforce their will. As Penn Jillette said, they are willing to use deadly force to get you to pay for the new library.

[biku324]

The 'quote' function so you can accurately maintain a conversation in a thread. It's best used to quote folks.

Like I mentioned, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by biku324

Like I mentioned, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

No opinions, just facts.

[Engineer1911]

Originally Posted by Yaworski

..................................
Just think, if we had stayed with England, the health care issue would be moot and we'd be drinking warm beer.

The rest of the story. We would be speaking German east of the Mississippi River and eating sauerkraut with bratwurst. The western side would be speaking Japanese and eating gas station sushi.

We saved England twice from becoming a German colony.

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by Engineer1911

The rest of the story. We would be speaking German east of the Mississippi River and eating sauerkraut with bratwurst. The western side would be speaking Japanese and eating gas station sushi.

The Man in the High Castle?

If the American colonies had remained with the UK, it is equally likely that neither of the World Wars would have happened and that area west of the Mississippi would have been Spanish or French.

BTW, Japanese convenience store sushi is supposed to be quite good and fresh.

[biku324]

You will always find me on the side of law and order. Always.

[Rick H.]

Originally Posted by Yaworski

"Thank God that we need a search warrant," said no cop ever.
"Thank God we have to tell arrestees their rights," said no cop ever.

And what is a "criminals rights"? The answer is they have the same "rights" as anyone else. What they actually receive are several WARNINGS, not rights! Miranda is Not and has NEVER been a right! Why this ever became a commonly used term for Miranda I will never know because it is a warning to them, to keep their mouths shut and if they don't, anything they say can/will be used against them. Just another one of those terms that people continually misuse and no one ever corrects. You can spend years searching the Constitution and Bill of Rights and you will never see the term "Miranda" anywhere in them. And don't kid yourself for a second, the bad guys know Miranda better than most cops, prosecutors and lawyers and when to ask for a lawyer. In 30 years of doing cop work Miranda never bothered me at all. In most cases when an suspect invokes his Miranda Warnings I knew I had him by the short hairs and had the right person. It is all nothing more than a big game made more complex by.....(Surprise!) lawyers looking for a loophole for their client. Remember too that Miranda Warnings don't have to be given if a suspect isn't asked questions about his/her involvement in a specific event. It's all really quite simple.

As for obtaining a search warrant, this too is no big deal and in fact made my job easier. It was just another hurdle to get over and now search warrants in most jurisdictions can be obtained in minutes instead of hours or days. Once a warrant is in hand little can be done by a suspect to stave off the inevitable.

Rick H.

[biku324]

Originally Posted by Rick H.

Remember too that Miranda Warnings don't have to be given if a suspect isn't asked questions about his/her involvement in a specific event. It's all really quite simple.

As for obtaining a search warrant, this too is no big deal and in fact made my job easier. It was just another hurdle to get over and now search warrants in most jurisdictions can be obtained in minutes instead of hours or days. Once a warrant is in hand little can be done by a suspect to stave off the inevitable.

Rick H.

Right and right. If possible (circumstances dictate this) getting a warrant saves time in court later arguing about probable cause (after warrantless arrest or search/seizure).

[Yaworski]

Originally Posted by Rick H.

And what is a "criminals rights"? The answer is they have the same "rights" as anyone else. What they actually receive are several WARNINGS, not rights!

Weeeeel, akshully . . . . you're telling them their rights.

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

[biku324]

I'd add on Miranda that it makes no sense to provide Miranda warnings to people that are drunk, high, or crazy. For them to waive 5th and 6th Amendment rights they have to do so knowingly and intelligently - that's not possible in those circumstances.

[Rodan]

Originally Posted by biku324

You will always find me on the side of law and order. Always.

Exactly.

Unfortunately "law and order" isn't always the same as "right" or moral. Many folks have done terrible things throughout history in the name of 'law and order'.

When the difference is unclear, especially to those wearing badges, people suffer.

[mikerjf]

They can try to push "some animals are more equal than other animals"... while they try to arrange for survival of the fattest.

[moosedog]

Sure, you can propose the most ridiculous anti-gun bills, knowing that it will get shot down now, but over time when it's proposed enough times the media will warm up to it and it will become a catch phrase with the masses. Then at some point in the near future it finally is accepted and becomes law. Remember the first time you heard the word "assault weapons' used by a politician.? Wake up.