Please continue to contact your representative and urge them to oppose HB114, lawfare against gun stores, HB27, Red Flag expansion, HB129, the House waiting period law, HB127, “under 21 no gun,” and HB137, banning most semiautomatic firearms. Also contact your senator and urge them to oppose SB69. Drafts are below.
On Saturday, February 3rd, at 10:00 AM, outside the Roundhouse, NMSSA will be holding a rally to support our rights. We encourage you to take a day trip up to Santa Fe and show up to advocate for your rights! There is free underground parking at the Roundhouse and plentiful cheap parking at the REI underground garage, which is under a 10 minute walk away. If you have any questions about the rally, please refer to their website here.
HB27 would expand the state “Red Flag” or ERPO law in several troubling ways. Additions to the list of reporting parties mean law enforcement and any health care professional would be able to file for an ERPO. Courts are limited by a mandatory minimum order. Search warrants are issuable on an ongoing and repeatable basis to enforce orders. Law enforcement gains the authority to dispose of seized property in a manner similar to other asset forfeiture laws. Pending a vote on the House floor.

HB114 is intended as lawfare to drive gun stores out of the state, much the same way changes to medical malpractice in recent years law ran off doctors. The definitions are so broad that anyone building a firearm at home is defined as a “firearm industry member” and the firearm they make as a “firearms product” under the bill. A private and public cause of action would be created against “firearms industry members” that created real harm or a very broadly defined “public nuisance” through their business or manufacturing practices. The idea seems to be able to file endless lawsuits that businesses would need to defend or to simply render them uninsurable. Pending a vote on the House floor.

HB127 would ban anyone under the age of 21 from owning or possessing almost all semiautomatic firearms – no grandfather clause, no recourse. Exceptions exist for law enforcement, the military, security guards, and guides – ordinary citizens can pound sand. Pending a vote on the House floor.

HB129 would create a 14 day waiting period on all firearms sales, with no exceptions for ordinary citizens. Pending a vote on the House floor.

HB137 is an “Assault Weapons Ban” even more onerous than that in Illinois, modeled on Sen. Heinrich’s failed GOSAFE act. The bill would ban and/or require registration of almost every semiautomatic rifle, many semiautomatic shotguns, and many semiautomatic handguns, including all striker fired handguns as currently written. Restricted firearms couldn’t be carried for self defense and, if registered, would be merely range toys. Pending a vote on the House floor.

HB144 would create a formal state Office of Gun Violence Prevention – a government agency to turn tax dollars into antigun propaganda. It allows collaboration with NGOs, creating the ability to funnel state money directly to antigun groups. Pending in its second committee in the House.

SB5 would create new gun-free zones and would expand the list of places carry is not allowed to include polling places. There is no exception for concealed carry licensees. Passed the Senate, pending committee assignment in the House.

SB69 would create a 14 day waiting period on all firearms sales, with an exception for concealed carry licensees. Pending a vote on the Senate floor.

SB90 would create an 11% excise tax on everything firearms related. Pending committee assignment in the Senate.

SB204 would mirror parts of the Governor’s failed public health order and would ban the carry of firearms in parks and playgrounds. Pending in its first committee in the Senate.

SJR12 would amend the state constitution to remove preemption, allowing a patchwork of municipal and county gun control laws to come into effect. Pending in its first committee in the Senate.

---

HB114 – OPPOSE

Representative,

This bill seeks to drive gun stores out of the state much the same way changes to medical malpractice laws ran off doctors.

The definitions, first, are so broad that anyone building a firearm at home, which is perfectly legal, is defined as a “firearm industry member” and the firearm they make as a “firearms product” under the bill. The sponsor should at a minimum amend the bill so that an ordinary citizen who has a firearm stolen out of their vehicle cannot be sued under this bill.

The $5,000 penalty is immaterial in the face of the likely costs created by the private cause of action this bill intends to manifest. In fact, actual harm is not required to sue – only “likely harm!” While I’m not sure that this is a first in American jurisprudence, it would certainly be at least an extreme outlier, and would open up firearms retailers in the state to a flood of lawsuits. The penalty in and of itself will not be the blunt policy implement used to drive those retailers out of business. The cost of defending the suits, one far in excess of $5,000 per occurrence, will do the job.

The sponsor misunderstood in the previous committee the legality of what she called “ghost guns,” commonly referred to as privately made firearms. Privately made and unserialized firearms are perfectly legal to possess in New Mexico and, indeed, in the vast majority of the country.

This bill is a pernicious attempt at lawfare to gut the access of New Mexicans to the tools they need to exercise their right to self defense. I hope you will recognize it for what it is and prevent it from advancing.

HB27 – OPPOSE

Representative,

The solution to a mistake is never to double down on it. I was deeply troubled by the initial passage of the law creating Extreme Risk Protection Orders (the “Red Flag” law) in our state, and its attempted expansion this session revives and strengthens my concerns. The impact of the bill on civil liberties generally would be enough to give me pause, but more worrying is the precedent set then and now possibly enlarged for the use of the full power of the government against an individual not because of any alleged crime they committed but because of someone’s belief that they may, perhaps, commit one in future.

I won’t go into the many issues with the existing law here, and, instead, will focus on the new ones HB27 would create.

With an order being issued, police would gain sweeping and repeatable authority to search the person’s property. The acquisition of a search warrant in this case would be a minor obstacle at best. The potential for abuse, either by law enforcement seeking a legally dubious shortcut to a search warrant that might otherwise elude them or by a bad actor using the justice system to harass another person through repeated police invasions into their home and life, cannot be overstated.

The removal of discretion from courts is likewise inexcusable. Section 4B(3), mandating that a court will order the person to relinquish firearms, cannot be complied with in the case of a mistake – one all too easy to make in a game of probable cause telephone where the respondent may or may not actually have a gun. If they cannot produce a gun to relinquish, the next step for a court will, necessarily, be to hold the person in contempt and throw them in jail until they produce one. A Kafkatrap of this nature being built into a law already so disrespectful of civil liberties is at odds with our shared notions of justice.

Finally, the additions in this bill entice law enforcement into misconduct by incentivizing the nonreturn of any seized firearms. Asset forfeiture laws like the one this bill intends to create, where police at all stages have the presumption of rectitude and force of the state behind them, are notoriously misused across the country. The presence of such a temptation to corruption in HB27 is an insult atop the injury to due process rights the existing law creates.

HB 129 – OPPOSE

Representative,

HB129 will endanger victims of domestic violence and do nothing to prevent criminal access to firearms.

A waiting period delays the ability of those who have a sudden need for a defensive firearm, such as women fleeing an abusive relationship, to protect themselves. The thought of an abused person counting down the days until they can have an effective tool to protect themselves hoping their abuser or stalker doesn’t attack in the meantime is horrifying.

A waiting period will similarly fail to prevent criminals from accessing and using firearms. Would-be mass shooters or murderers will wait for two weeks, use the intervening time to further plan, then commit their crimes. Alternatively, criminals of all stripes will simply steal weapons. Stolen weapons make up the vast majority of firearms in the hands of criminals and a waiting period will not stop that from happening.

We’ve heard the sponsor say last year if this bill saves one life from suicide it will be worth it. I submit to you that if this bill costs the life of one victim of domestic violence who can’t get the tools to protect herself, it will be an indictment of the legislature.

As Dr. King famously said, a right delayed is a right denied, and self-defense is a human right. I encourage you to reject this bill and protect victims of domestic violence.

SB69 – OPPOSE

Senator,

SB69 will endanger victims of domestic violence and do nothing to prevent criminal access to firearms.

A waiting period delays the ability of those who have a sudden need for a defensive firearm, such as women fleeing an abusive relationship, to protect themselves. The thought of an abused person counting down the days until they can have an effective tool to protect themselves hoping their abuser or stalker doesn’t attack in the meantime is horrifying.

A waiting period will similarly fail to prevent criminals from accessing and using firearms. Would-be mass shooters or murderers will wait for two weeks, use the intervening time to further plan, then commit their crimes. Alternatively, criminals of all stripes will simply steal weapons. Stolen weapons make up the vast majority of firearms in the hands of criminals and a waiting period will not stop that from happening.

SB69 varies from Representative Romero’s HB129, a nearly identical bill in its effect, by the inclusion of a provision exempting licensed concealed carriers. Representative Romero repeatedly shot down amendments to that effect in the House last year as unfriendly, but it’s here in this bill. Is that inserted to make the bill seem palatable in committee and on the floor, but be thrown away in reconciliation negotiations?

As Dr. King famously said, a right delayed is a right denied, and self-defense is a human right. I encourage you to reject this bill and protect victims of domestic violence.

HB127 – OPPOSE

Representative,

HB127 is a mistake.

It does not prescribe a remedy for adults ages 18-20 who already possess a firearm regulated by the bill. These are adults who bought these items, items they can at this time lawfully possess, and use them to hunt, protect livestock on family farms and ranches, sport shoot, and protect themselves. What would these women and men do with the firearms they already own – some of the most common in this state and country?

There are listed a number of exceptions where an adult under 21 could use one of these firearms. All of those seem to rely on someone else holding onto the firearm. Should a 19 year old victim of domestic violence have to choose between being able to protect herself in her apartment and becoming a criminal?

Similar laws in other states are being rapidly challenged and failing in court. Spending time lawmaking in this regard seems, in the current legal climate, to be set up to fail. Challenges to similar laws are having success in New York and California, and have recently overcome similar laws in Tennessee, Texas, and other states. After the legislative session started here in New Mexico, Lara v. Evanchick was decided in the 3rd Circuit in favor of the young adult plaintiffs about the same issue! If the government could not succeed in court on the same arguments the sponsors of this bill last year advanced in a circuit including New Jersey and Delaware, it has no hope of doing so here. I encourage you not to waste taxpayer money in passing, enforcing, and defending this bill in court, only for it to be quickly overcome.

HB137 – OPPOSE

Representative,

Copying failed federal legislation is hardly a good starting point for public policy in our state.

This bill, in the words of the interim Courts, Corrections, and Justice Committee, is a waste of time. When Senator Cervantes and Representative Chandler discussed the kind of bills that had no chance of surviving their respective committees in a post-Bruen world, let alone judicial review, HB137 would have been a prime example.

To be clear, this bill flies in the face of every single iota of Supreme Court jurisprudence ever issued on the Second Amendment. The severability clause is useless as no section of the bill has any chance of surviving judicial review. The Governor, despite her passion on the issue, is plainly wasting your time and the time of the legislature as a whole by advancing this bill.

Beyond the already fatal failings of HB137, I am uncertain whether the sponsors of this bill actually understand its contents. The bill, as written, would ban almost all semiautomatic rifles, a number of semiautomatic shotguns, and would seem to ban a number of semiautomatic handguns. Regarding handguns, blowback operated and striker fired semiautomatic handguns would be banned and recoil-operated single or double action handguns would not under the current language. The difference between these categories of handgun is deeply technical and I worry that the sponsors would be unable to explain even that tiny piece of the bill to the committee in a correct and digestible manner – much less the remainder.

Please hold the sponsors of HB137 accountable for the failings of the legislation they are carrying when they come before your committee.

NEW MEXICO FIREARMS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
To PROTECT, PRESERVE and PROMOTE the firearms industry in New Mexico.
www.newmexicofia.org

OPPOSE HOUSE BILL 114:
RECKLESS LAWSUITS AGAINST THE FIREARMS INDUSTRY
During the interim joint committee on Courts, Corrections & Justice meetings, lawmakers repeatedly stated that they wanted to target UNLAWFUL manufacturers and sellers of ILLEGAL firearms and attachments. This bill as written sweeps up LAWFUL and LEGITIMATE firearms industry members in a web of subjective, vague civil law that applies only to them and no other industry – for now. HB 114 provides a model that can and will be used to bankrupt any industry disfavored by certain elected officials and activist groups.
HB 114 is unnecessary. Bad actors in any industry who engage in unconscionable, unfair, or deceptive business practices are already held to account by the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. Federally-licensed gun manufacturers and retailers who violate firearms laws commit federal felonies and face prison time, heavy fines, and revocation of their license by ATF. Existing laws can be applied to bad actors in this industry.
HB 114 terms “firearm industry member” & “firearm product” are too broad. There is no requirement that the member be engaged in the business of manufacturing, making or selling for purposes of sale or distribution at wholesale or retail. A person who makes their own firearm as allowed by law becomes a “manufacturer”, as does a person who reloads cartridges at home as a hobby, or who makes leather holsters for sale at craft shows or farmers’ markets. The administrator of an estate who sells off an estate’s collection of firearms and accessories is similarly included. And the scope of the measure includes not just firearms, but any “firearm product,” which the bill defines as a “firearm, firearm component, firearm accessory, ammunition or any other product sold for use as part of a firearm.” Firearm components could include every screw, spring, etc. and any accessory including scopes, optics, grips, slings, tripods, flashlights, etc.
HB 114 opens the door to firearms industry member liability for criminal acts or misuse of lawfully sold, legal products by unrelated third parties. Section 3 of the bill requires members to establish and implement “reasonable controls and procedures” to prevent theft, ensure compliance with state laws, stop illegal straw purchases and prevent the acquisition of firearms for unlawful commerce. Members must comply with all state and federal laws as a condition of their license, but the bill does not specify what else a member must do to avoid newly-established liability under this act. Advocates for the legislation have stated that the courts that determine whether a member is in compliance with this section, a daunting prospect when you read over the broad enforcement mechanisms in Section 4. Additionally, Section 3 lacks any kind of knowledge or notice requirement on the part of the industry member.
HB 114 creates public and private causes of action that could bankrupt the firearms industry. Section 4 declares the failure to exercise undefined “reasonable controls and practices” to be a public nuisance. The state attorney general or a DA may bring a civil action to abate the nuisance and seek civil penalties of $5,000 per violation, but lawsuits brought by private citizens have no award limitations (nor will those actions require show of actual harm or damages by the plaintiffs.) Court costs and attorney fees shall be awarded to prevailing plaintiffs, but not to successful defendants, setting up a low-risk-high-reward playing field for trial lawyers and anti-gun activists.
HB 114 does not punish actual wrongdoers. This bill doesn’t have any restrictions or punishment for the actual wrongdoers, the persons in Section 3 who acquires or transfers a firearm product illegally, or for purposes of “unlawful commerce,” or conceals that the purchase of a firearm is actually a straw purchase made for a person that is prohibited under state or federal law from possessing a firearm.

Be sure to mark your calendars for a Second Amendment Rally at the New Mexico State Capitol on Saturday, February 3rd, at 10:00 a.m. MST. Join your fellow New Mexicans for this peaceful showing of solidarity, as we continue to defend the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Land of Enchantment. Hear from various speakers including New Mexico NRA-ILA State Director, Tara Mica, New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, and state lawmakers! RSVP by clicking below:

CLICK HERE TO RSVP

NM: Second Amendment Rally at the Roundhouse
Saturday, February 3rd, at 10:00 a.m. MST
490 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87501
Governor Lujan Grisham and other anti-gun lawmakers have made it a priority to strip law-abiding New Mexicans of their right to self-defense. They have done so by proposing a 14-day waiting period, bans on semi-automatic firearms, expansion of red flag laws, an 11% excise tax on firearm and ammunition purchases, and many more anti-gun bills. It is crucial that you join us on the Frontlines at the Capitol, to show Governor Gun Grab that we will not stand for such tyranny!
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at Clay@nrailafrontlines.com. Hope to see you in Santa Fe!
Yours in Freedom,
Clay Kimberling
New Mexico NRA-ILA Grassroots Coordinator
Clay@nrailafrontlines.com
(703) 943-6566
https://www.nrailafrontlines.com/

Today, the 2024 New Mexico Legislative Session officially started. The governor wasted no time attacking out rights in her State of the State speech. She has made it clear that once again she is targeting your right to own a firearm while ignoring New Mexico’s broken criminal justice system. This year is a 30-day budget session, but there have been a multitude of gun related bills filed so far. Here is the list we are tracking, some we support, most we are opposed to.

HB27 – Expand New Mexico’s “red-flag extreme risk protection order” gun confiscation law to allow a police officers and any “health care professionals” to seek an order against someone. It would also allow police to obtain a search warrant under the purely civil orders and require an accused party to immediately surrender their firearms.

HB58 – Remove the law passed in 2019 to criminalize private firearm sales.

HB78 – Make New Mexico a permitless or “constitutional” concealed carry state.

HB79 – Reduce gross receipts tax on firearm and ammunition sales.

HB81 – Tax credits for gun safe purchases. While this is a concept we support, one of the bill’s sponsors was also a sponsor of mandatory storage laws in the past, so it is a bill we will be watching very carefully.

HB114 – Increased civil liability for the firearms industry by creating new civil actions against gun manufacturers and retailers in New Mexico. Several New Mexico FFLs have told us they would go out of business if this bill passes.

HB127 – Banning anyone under 21 from purchasing or possessing a semiautomatic firearm. An 18-year old who currently own a semiautomatic firearm would not be allowed to keep their gun if the bill passes.

HB129 – Mandatory 14-day waiting period on firearm sales. After you purchased a gun, you would have to wait 14 business days before you could take it home with you.

SB5 – Banning firearms near polling places.

Additionally, we are expecting several more bills that have yet to be filed, or do not have a bill number yet.
• A semi-automatic rife ban that would also require current owners to register their firearms with the state.
• Another version of a 14-day waiting period bill.
• A bill that would impose an 11% excise tax on the sales of firearms and ammunition.
• A bill that would impose even more restrictions on where someone can carry a firearm.
This is going to be a very busy session for gun owners. We will be sending out alerts as we receive information on bills and when they will be heard.

CALIFORNIA-STYLE GUN AND AMMO TAX PRE-FILED IN NEW MEXICO SENATE

The attacks on the Second Amendment keep coming in the Land of Enchantment!  More anti-gun legislation has been pre-filed this week, this time by State Senator Linda Lopez (D-ABQ), who is proposing a California-style 11% excise tax on firearms, firearm precursor parts, suppressors, and ammunition, to be collected from New Mexico firearms retailers and sporting goods outlets and placed in both the crime victims reparation fund and a fund for services to children and families involved in abuse or neglect situations (the latter being an area where the current administration and state agencies have failed abysmally.)  This bill would make it more expensive for law-abiding citizens to exercise a constitutional right and to practice or train with firearms to become safer and more proficient when using them recreationally, or for hunting, competition or self-defense.   This tax on your Second Amendment rights will not be assigned a bill number until after the New Mexico Legislature convenes next Tuesday, January 16th.  And we are still waiting for progressive, anti-gun lawmakers to file Governor Gun Grab’s legislation banning semi-automatic firearms and limiting magazine capacity.  Now is the time to begin contacting your State Senator and State Representative and urging them to OPPOSE waiting periods and special taxes on lawful firearms purchases, bans on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, and limits on standard capacity magazines for those firearms.     Also, make sure you register for NRA-ILA’s pre-session webinar taking place at 7:00pm on Monday, January 15th, to learn how you can help stop these attacks on your Second Amendment rights at the Roundhouse. Advance sign-up is required and you can do so by clicking here.

Late Tuesday evening, New Mexico State Senator Joseph Cervantes (D-Las Cruces) pre-filed legislation what would impose a 14-day waiting period on law-abiding gun buyers. If enacted, this bill would make for the longest firearms purchase waiting period in the country, delaying your Second Amendment right to buy a firearm to defend yourself, your family and your property. Contact your State Senator and State Representatives now, and urge them to OPPOSE this measure, and other anti-gun legislation we will face during the 30-day legislative session!    The proposed legislation will add nothing to the existing FBI background check process and will apply when going to a federal firearm licensed dealer (FFL) to transfer a firearm ordered online. An assigned bill number will not be placed on this measure until the legislature convenes on Tuesday, January 16th. Furthermore, we expect more anti-gun lawmakers to file more radical legislation banning semi-automatic firearms and imposing limits on magazine capacity.  Be sure to register for the New Mexico NRA-ILA Legislative Kickoff Webinar we are hosting on Monday, January 15th, at 7:00 p.m. to learn more about these proposed measures and the actions you can take to defend your Second Amendment rights in New Mexico! Registration is required, and you can do so by clicking HERE.  Yours in Freedom,                      Clay Kimberling New Mexico NRA-ILA Grassroots Coordinator         Clay@nrailafrontlines.com (703) 943-6566 https://www.nrailafrontlines.com/

ARE THE DEMS TRYING TO STEAL YOUR RIGHTS!

As we approach the start of the 2024 New Mexico Legislative Session, there are more bills we want to make you aware of. First, while we don’t have a bill number yet, Senator Cervantes has said that he will again file a firearm waiting period bill. The bill would require a 14 Business Day wait before a purchased firearm could be taken home. Once we have a bill number we will send an update.

The 30-day session is a budget session, so non-budget bills require a message from the governor to be added to the agenda. Here are some bills that have been filed, but we don’t know yet if they will be heard.

HB58 from Representative Lord would repeal New Mexico’s law criminalizing private firearm sales. HB78 from Representative Block would make New Mexico a permitless, or constitutional carry, state. HB79 from Representative Block would reduce gross receipts tax on firearm and ammunition sales. HB81 from Representatives Reeb and Hernandez would give New Mexicans a tax credit for purchasing a gun safe. 

We will continue to update you on the progress of firearm related legislation in Santa Fe. Please forward our email alerts to your contacts who need to know what is happening in Santa Fe and let them know they can subscribe for free anytime. Also, please consider donating to NMSSA to help us keep up the fight for your rights in New Mexico.

ZACH FORT NMSSA

The recent decision by the New Mexico Governor to ban firearms within Bernalillo County has raised concerns over the constitutionality of such a measure. While public safety is undoubtedly a critical consideration, it is vital that any law enacted aligns with the constitutional rights of citizens. In this case, the prohibition on firearms within the county appears to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding individuals.   The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution explicitly states, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This constitutional provision grants citizens the fundamental right to possess firearms for self-defense, hunting, and other lawful purposes. Therefore, any governmental action that directly curtails this right should be subjected to careful scrutiny.   Banning firearms in Bernalillo County raises the question of whether it is a justifiable restriction on Second Amendment rights. Proponents argue that it will enhance public safety by reducing the risk of gun-related crimes and accidents. However, opponents counter that such localized bans disproportionately impact law-abiding citizens, as criminals are unlikely to abide by these restrictions.   Moreover, imposing such a ban restricts the ability of individuals to protect themselves and their families. In a nation where personal safety remains an essential concern for many, this curtailment of rights may undermine the well-established principle of self-defense.   While the Governor’s intentions to safeguard public safety are commendable, it is imperative to examine alternative approaches that strike a balance between protecting citizens and preserving their constitutional rights. Implementing comprehensive background checks, enhancing mental health services, and promoting responsible firearm ownership are just a few examples of measures that can address the concerns without infringing upon the Second Amendment.   In conclusion, the recent ban on firearms within Bernalillo County raises valid concerns surrounding its constitutionality. The essential principle of individual rights, particularly the right to bear arms, must be duly respected. Balancing the genuine concerns for public safety with the preservation of constitutional rights is an ongoing challenge, requiring a nuanced and thoughtful approach that acknowledges the complex nature of the issue at hand. Anthony Segura, Executive Director NMSSA NMSSA is working to challenge the Governor on this Unconstitutional Health Order. We need your financial help to accomplish this. Please use the following button to donate what you can to help offset the costs of any litigation.

ABQ GUNS WILL BE OPEN FROM 9:00 AM TO 3:00 PM ON LABOR DAY FOR YOUR SHOPPING NEEDS.

6301 RIVERSIDE PLAZA LN NW ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87120