Gun purchase at gun shop
Buzz Hayes Photo
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

New Mexico gun owners already find themselves under plenty of attack with Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham recently instituting a 30-day ban on concealed and open carry of firearms in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County. Now anti-gun state legislators are piling on, pre-filing two measures that would further infringe on New Mexico Citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

State Sen. Linda Lopez, a Democrat representing Albuquerque, has pre-filed a bill that would place a new 11% excise tax on guns, firearm precursor parts, suppressors and ammo. While the text of the measure is not yet available, it’s clear that implementation of the idea would be unconstitutional under the Bruen standard.

Funds raised from the tax would be earmarked for the crime victims reparation fund and a fund for services to children and families involved in abuse or neglect situations. Ironically, lawful gun owners would be footing the bill to help solve problems they didn’t cause.

As most Truth About Guns readers likely already know, what such a measure does is make it more expensive for citizens to practice their constitutional rights. Consequently, it would hurt lower income New Mexicans the worst, many of whom live in dangerous areas where a self-defense firearm is needed most.

Additionally, lawmakers have pre-filed a measure that would put a 14-day waiting period on all firearm purchases. According to NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action: “This measure will add nothing to the existing FBI background check process and will only delay your ability to exercise your Second Amendment right to purchase firearms to defend yourself, your family and your property.”

The measure was pre-filed by state Sen. Joseph Cervantes, a Las Cruces Democrat. Unfortunately for New Mexico gun owners and future gun owners, if passed the 14-day waiting period would be the longest firearms purchase waiting period in the country.

What anti-gun lawmakers apparently don’t care about in this case is that there is absolutely no evidence that waiting periods reduce violent crime. What they do accomplish, however, is making it impossible for someone in an urgent situation—a battered spouse, for example—to be able to quickly acquire a firearm for self-defense.

John Lott, head of the Crime Prevention Research Center, explains it best. In a brief filed a few years back in a case involving California’s waiting period, Lott wrote: “Despite assertions that the benefits from waiting periods and background checks are obvious, the complete lack of empirical studies to support those claims is stark. No evidence is offered that either of these laws reduce violent crime, nor that they reduce overall suicide rates.”

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

30 COMMENTS

  2. MYTH: Most studies show that more guns mean less crime
    Summary:

    Researcher John Lott falsely claims that two-thirds of peer-reviewed literature shows concealed carry laws reduce crime.
    Lott’s false claim relies on obsolete work and studies in which right-to-carry (RTC) laws are not the variables of interest.
    Most studies with a national scope published since 2005 find that RTC laws increase crime, particularly aggravated assaults. In short, more guns in public means more crime.

    https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/more-guns-mean-less-crime/

  3. “Crime victims reparation fund:” here and others of its types in theory and in operation pass the costs of the failures of the State to law abiding citizens who had nothing to do with those failures, and in most circumstances voted against those policies and/or the politicians who instituted those policies that resulted in those failures.

    As bad as that may be (and its really morally bad) they further entrench a culture of victimhood that empowers the proponents of the destructive policies.

    Sometimes “stuff” happens and no one’s really at fault; sometimes negligence happens and people should be sued out of existence and sometimes intentional harm is caused and people need to be incarcerated and removed from society so no further harm should ensue.

    Unfortunately criminals and politicians are co-actors in the later two of the above and the politicians have managed to removed themselves from both criminal and civil liability. In decades past they’ve drawn attention away from this perk by nominally policing society and putting criminals away; but now they have become so used to their immunity they dont even think about it anymore and have allowed themselves to become infected by the woke social contagion.

    I could go on and on and on and on and on.

    • Why isn’t seized proceeds of crime used for the fund?

      But that could lead to administrative corruption.

  5. “What anti-gun lawmakers apparently don’t care about in this case is that there is absolutely no evidence that waiting periods reduce violent crime.”

    I wish our side understood that the other side doesn’t give a shit about what works. All they care about is control, and they will do whatever it takes to get it. We discuss John Lott while they take a baseball bat to your face.

    There are two irreconcilable Americas living in one country. One day, something will give.

    • True, but there are also ignorant dem voters out there that don’t understand the reality of many of these situations. As untrustworthy as the media has become, when you hear the same thing everywhere you turn, you often accept it as reality. Keep in mind, that many people just live their lives without researching or thinking about these issues.

      Many of those people aren’t susceptible to the truth because long ago, they accepted the “fact” that Democrats are the nice ones. As smart as Elon Musk is, a few years ago, he said you vote for Democrats because they’re the nice ones. He was busy doing his thing, so he didn’t think about it too deeply until they came for him.

    • They only care about what works to further the cause of civilian disarmament. Every inch they can move the ball towards that goal is a “win” for them. They will always try again tomorrow to move it another inch.

      There are no losses because they never face any consequences for violating the human rights of The People and until we can create real and effective punishment for these Traitors they will continue to prey upon our Human Rights.

      There is only one punishment which is applicable here and someday hopefully such punishment will be meted out to those gun-grabbers for their high crimes against our Human Rights.

      • Yet you cheer them on when they go after Trump. You think it’s okay to break a few rules as long as they’re going after someone you don’t like. People like that helped to create this monster. You either have law and order or you don’t. Picking and choosing when to apply it makes you as bad or worse than them.

    • At some point, tensions will boil over and a second civil war will erupt. We already know for a fact that democratic nations always eat them selves from within. The US is on the same path to self destruction as liberals think we should have “minimum income” to certain demographics, so they just give away taxpayer money to these people. As they continue to create and expand these type programs the people will grow tired of the tax burden for unreasonable programs and at some point revolt. The US was built on a revolt, and in many estimations, will likely die under one as well.

  6. “Funds raised from the tax would be earmarked for the crime victims reparation fund and a fund for services to children and families involved in abuse or neglect situations.”

    So this is confirmation that New Mexico’s current programs are ineffectual and that “accountability” from perpetrators is not a priority.

  7. An 11% additional tax to buy firearms, ammunition and accessories, you say? I wonder where they got that idea from. What’s that you say? California? Oh, oh yeah….Leading the country in stupid laws while pretending that it is not about banning guns and gun ownership.

  8. Forget Bruen, what about Murdock v Pennsylvania? “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” Seems clear enough to me.

  9. a 14-day waiting period … because nobody can hold a grudge longer than two weeks. *eyeroll*

    • Surely you’re joking. This would’ve obviously remedied the infamous feud between The Hatfields and McCoys, right?
      I never joke. And don’t call me Shirley.

  10. “What anti-gun lawmakers apparently don’t care about in this case is that there is absolutely no evidence that waiting periods reduce violent crime.”

    They care, they care very deeply. Just in the opposite way that you’re thinking.

    Doing things you know won’t work ensures that your feel-good policy fails and that the failure becomes the pretext for the next thing you’ve always wanted to do.

    • Does this mean they are following the science, or they are not following the science? Are they pretending to follow one science, while secretly following another one? Does this mean I should no longer sarcastically refer to them as the Party of Science?

  11. Unconstitutional under the Bruen standard.
    Bwhahahaaha
    Judges, Judges? We don listen to no steenking judges.

    • They want them on the plantation. Gathering cotton or votes.

      In the past they wanted “colored” people on their plantation but now they are equal-opportunity enslavers.

  13. Tax the violates the 2nd/Bruen is a good point (see also “Firearms/Ammunition Excise Tax” and the BS sbr/suppressor excise tax). What demtard/swampie slush fund to those $ go to?

Comments are closed.