New Mexico Democrats Undertake Last Ditch Effort to Ban Private Gun Sales

by Awr hawkins | Breitbart  |  published on March 13, 2017

New MexicoNew Mexico Democrats are assigning a new bill number to failed gun control legislation in hopes of reviving an effort to ban private gun sales.

The failed bill–HB 50–and will likely be renumbered HB 548 and taken up by the NM House Judiciary Committee on Monday.

HB 50 was sponsored by State Representative Stephanie Garcia Richard (D-Los Alamos). It mandates that New Mexico residents seek out an agent of the state–a Federal Firearms License holder (FFL)–and undergo a background check on every gun sale, whether retail or private. In other words, HB 50 is about universal background checks.

  • I Seigel

    I thought it was Obama coming for the guns. Wait! It was supposed to be Hillary coming for the guns! Now you’re telling me there are actual citizens, residents of a state that want gun control!! Amazing!!

    • votedemout

      Yeah, they’re called Dim-O-Rats and they can’t keep their nose out of other folks business.

      • I Seigel

        You mean like how conservatives want to tell others who they can’t marry? Or women how to control their own bodies? Or companies who they can and can’t hire, or move their operations somewhere where they can seek bigger profits for their shareholders? Now you’re even telling entire states what they can and can’t do – like legal pot businesses and air pollution rules.
        You hypocritical wanker.

        • votedemout

          Just for the record, this country was founded by deists, predominately Christians therefore the culture set forth was one guided by the bible, which states that homosexual acts are an abomination and those committing those acts are referred to as sodomites, thus laws and attitudes against sodomy. Most conservatives could care less what others do behind closed doors they just don’t want to have their long standing biblical beliefs of marriage being a state achieved only between a man and a woman changed to suit the wants and needs of a very small minority.

          On the subject of women controlling their own bodies, I assume you are referring to abortion. In this case sometime in the middle of the first trimester a heart beat can be heard from the new being developing in the woman’s womb. This being is blessed with its own DNA, its own sex, its own human systems, and at this time the woman is only supplying nourishment for the new little being. We have long standing laws against murdering people that have served us pretty well, so the only question is at what point we recognize this new little human system as a being. Not quite as easy as you seem to believe.

          On the matter of who you can and can’t hire, yes certainly business owners should have the right to determine who best fits the needs of the job position and should not be forced to employ a person who does not fit the profile determined by the owner that best fits the needs of the position.

          On the subject of moving the company for the quest to seek greater returns for the shareholder, you obviously don’t understand the fiduciary responsibilities demanded on shareholder positioned CEO’s. The CEO’s main task is to produce the highest possible legal returns for the shareholder base. Certainly some companies have agreed to forgo some of their earnings to benefit certain outside projects, but this is with the blessings of the board of directors who are hired by the shareholders to help guide the CEO. It is the Dims who have changed the rules that have caused some businesses to flee the absurd regulations that make their business unable to compete without those changes you demean.

          On the matter of illegal drugs, there are federal laws that have been developed by representatives of the states that were put into place to keep general order in the country. If the states want to change those laws they have the right to assemble enough like minded representatives from other states to repeal those laws. Once the courts ruled those federal laws constitutional anything the states decide to
          change on their own in defiance of federal law is unconstitutional and not allowed.

          As to air pollution, no one wants to breath polluted air, but it is your Dims who have taken the pollution issue to a draconian state, mostly to punish fossil fuel suppliers in their quest to support some fairy tale known as “Global warming”. Oh, that’s right they changed that term to “Climate change” something that no one disagrees happens daily. It’s when they add anthropogenic in front of the term that vast differences of opinions appear.

          Now take your alien disparagements and go back where you came from, for we have plenty of home bred and raised morons already here.

          • I Seigel

            Show me where “Christian” or “bible” is written into the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Yes, the founders believed in God, but they made sure their personal beliefs didn’t become the law of the land. I’m surprised you don’t realize that. Scalia realized it.

            Once a “being” can survive outside the womb it should be protected. If it can’t survive without extraordinary and unnatural medical technology, then it’s not yet a human.

            I obviously understand the fiduciary rights and responsibilities of the CEO of a public company. We seem to agree on this. But Dems didn’t chase anyone away. Taxes and competition and the labor pool make companies go where they can make the most money. If you want the American labor pool to work for $7.95/hour and no benefits, I’m sure that the companies will stay here rather than go to Mexico and Malaysia. Fortunately, labor unions have allowed and protected a middle class for several generations here.

          • votedemout

            Are you really as stupid as you appear?

            Our entire system is based on “Judeo-Christian” values and until fairly recently those values have served us pretty well. I’m not sure how Justice Scalia’s rulings entered into your screed, but I would invite you to page 69 of the enclosed PDF to see just what he thought about the issue of gay marriage.
            http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

            “Once a “being” can survive outside the womb it should be protected.” Well at least you appear to have some sense of morality, but doesn’t that directly conflict with your earlier stated point that a woman should control her own body?

            “Dems didn’t chase anyone away. Taxes and competition and the labor pool make companies go where they can make the most money”

            Wow, you really don’t get it. It is the Dims who have raised the taxes and stacked on ridiculous regulations that have made companies in the US uncompetitive with the world suppliers. We don’t need cheap labor pools to compete, as we have some of the most productive workers in the world and our automated factories can easily compete if they are unshackled from the policies put forth by the Dims. Witness all of the companies flocking to the US as soon as they heard that President Trump would roll back the Dim policies and restructure the corporate tax code.

            Unions are no longer needed as labor laws offer all the protections needed by individual workers. Proof is all around you as the right to work states bordering Union paralyzed states thrive, while forced union states wallow in despair. The only unions that are growing are the public sector unions and they should be ruled illegal, as they fleece the taxpayer and serve as slush funds for the Dim politicians who are their lap dogs in the public fleecing debacle.

          • I Seigel

            Sorry, I missed the part where you pointed out the words “Christian” or “bible” in the founding documents. Values are one thing. Forcing them down the throats of others is something completely different.

          • votedemout

            Yeah, I understand, you have missed on most things.

          • I Seigel

            Still nothing. You got nothing! Admit it. No, you can’t. You’re incapable of seeing the truth.

          • votedemout

            Obviously, English is your second language, so this may be a bit over your head.

            Dr. Cherry is far more eloquent than I could hope to be, but I’m sure you will have another pedestrian comment if you can read the article. Maybe get someone to read and explain it to you.
            http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cherry/110705

          • I Seigel

            I was able to read Dr. Cherry’ bio. And the part where he quotes the Declaration of Independence . Did you notice that he quoted the part that says “endowed by their Creator”? Notice that the Founders didn’t use the word “God” or “Lord” or “Christ” or make any reference to WHICH creator. They used a more generic, all-inclusive name. That’s an important distinction , don’t you think? Oh, but you’re probably not capable of analytical thinking. Yes, go ahead and swallow the pablum you’re spoon fed every day. Don’t actually THINK about what you’re consuming.

          • votedemout

            That’s why you need a broader education. You would then understand “intent”, rather than groping around about “what the meaning of is, is”.

          • I Seigel

            Oh, so now you’re throwing out the word “intent”!!! WOW! look at you. I’ll bet you HATE it when the Supremes try to read the “intent” of the Founders, rather than just interpreting the law AS WRITTEN! You hypocrite!! Ranting on about “liberal judges” and “revisionist judges” and bemoaning that they should stick to the words and not try to intuit the Founders’ intent. You know, it’s funny. Every time you try to add something to this discussion, you keep showing more and more of what a hypocrite you are. But that’s pretty typical of all you tea partiers – you can’t make a logical, coherent argument because your ideology is completely incoherent!

          • votedemout

            Actually the Supremes are supposed to interpret the law according to the original intent, or to simplify it for you, what it meant when it was written, rather than twisting it to some new meaning based upon their ideology. That is why constitutional jurists are known as originalists.. It is amazing how stupid you are and what is even more frightening is that cretins like you actually vote.

      • Lindacsunderland

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !dy33c:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !dy33c:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs323TopFinancialGetPaid$97/Hour ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!dy33c:….,….

Google Analytics Alternative