Breaking: NM Gun Control Measure Stalls on 8-8 Vote (House Judiciary committee)

After nearly five hours of heated testimony and debate, a measure that would have required mandatory background checks for firearm purchases from gun shows or private vendors failed to advance in the New Mexico’s House of Representatives.

However, the 8-8 vote in the House Judiciary Committee means the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Miguel P. Garcia, D-Albuquerque, could be brought back up for additional discussion.

One Democratic legislator, Rep. Eliseo Alcon, D-Milan, joined with the committee’s Republican members in voting against the legislation. The other Democratic committee members voted in favor it.

The committee Dems are mostly lawyer libs, a couple are BIG government and/or enviro-nuts. The breakdown is that except for the Dem who voted against it, all the Dems are from ABQ except one in Santa Fe. Occupations other than lawyers include two educators, a fire fighter and a community development organizer.

I think this is the high water mark for gun control in this legislature. Rural legislators (including a lot of Dems) are not going to support it as their constituents are rural and depend on their weapons for home defense, hunting and general security. When only one or two officers are on duty during nighttime hours in areas larger than the state of Rhode Island, you have to depend on yourself at home or if your car breaks down 25-30 miles from the nearest town. Also, in northern NM there are folks high on drugs that would like nothing other than to know who has a gun and who doesn't (there are no provisions in the bill to keep information and registrations confidential).

New today is the bill's fiscal impact report and comments from the DPS, AG and other agencies. They have so many concerns that those alone could very likely sink the bill if it advances out of this committee. For example:

The Department of Public Safety (DPS) maintains that HB 77, if enacted, would have an undetermined but possibly major fiscal impact on DPS. DPS estimates the bill will require $720.3.0K in recurring costs and $125.0K in one-time costs to perform the functional requirements of the bill. Personal services costs are estimated at $18.47/hr plus 44 percent benefits and inclusive of shift differential and holiday pay. In addition, the Department does not have office space available to house this staff.
The AGO maintains the bill is not clear with regard to what would constitute “relevant databases and information sources” which must be checked by the DPS to approve a private firearm transfer. AGO adds that the bill would criminalize many common transactions that occur with firearms, in particular the purchasing curio and relic firearms, civilian marksmanship program firearms, and the like would be impossible as the sellers or sources of those firearms would be unable to comply with the provisions of this bill. Additionally, simple transfers of firearms within a family would become a burdensome and expensive practice. Another example AGO identifies is a situation where an adult child would have to be vetted by the system before receiving a firearm from a parent or grandparent.
The AGO indicates HB 77 would require the DPS and transferors of firearms to keep records of transactions for a period of five years. This does not seem tailored to achieve the objective of the legislation – to ensure that purchasers or firearms in the private realm are legally authorized to possess them. It also creates the potential for identity theft by way of a simple Inspection of Public Records Act request.

Fiscal Impact Report

Its pretty obvious that the Dems that introduced the bill did so to take advantage of Obama's national effort to undermine the second amendment and also are taking advantage of the deaths of five family members by a 15-year old boy ten days ago in ABQ. BTW, four of the five were killed by a .22 cal rifle; the dad was killed by an "assault weapon." The guns were kept in a closet in the home and not in a gun safe.

NM list PING!

I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics

To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keywords

To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages

(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
(For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the article for free after answering a question or watching a short video commercial.)

Post the Names and Home addresses of those on both sides ... see which side would worry the most.

“Shall Not Be Infringed” is in plain English, does it mean something different in Spanish, Swahili, German, Japanese?

In what language are they debating in? Obamanese? MainStreamMediaese? Communismese? Fascismese? (I’m thinking all 4)

Extremely unlikely. But she won’t get that chance.

If it gets out of this committee, it goes to Appropriations and Finance where its fate is pretty certain (thumbs down due to nearly $720,000 to administer beyond $125,000 to set the program up.) The fiscal analysis shows the bill has more holes in it than a sieve. It’s all for show this year, but Dems have a habit of bringing it up again and again and again in the legislature until they get their way, especially with a Dem governor.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.