Posted on 12/23/2014 8:26:09 AM PST by rktman
House Bill 44 has been re-introduced by Miguel Garcia (D-Albuquerque) in the state legislature. No surprises here, as a certain political party has a penchant, for victim disarming gun control. Gun owners need to start early and get on the ball opposing it. HB 44 does away with private party sales at gun shows, and it’s really the start, of banning all private sales. What the gun prohibitionists love to call the “gun show loophole.”
(Excerpt) Read more at gunalizer.com ...
They seek to criminalize non-violent, honest citizens, while they deliberately and intentionally, with full knowledge, allow violent hardened criminals to go free.
Maybe the re-training of the police will be to turn a blind eye to particular crimes by particular individuals.
They’re trying to turn the cop killing in NYC into an anti-gun vehicle.
They never quit.
NM Ping
Simply put, criminals in this new era are political and social offenders rather than the usual penal variety.
Mr. Garcia is being racist. He doesn’t trust the 60% of the population in New Mexico that is non-white. That or he just doesn’t want them to be able to defend themselves from the Mexican cartels and gangs.
Polls show American’s do not support more gun control..in fact its quite the opposite. Across the country libs took a beating and rejected their false narratives to infringe on our rights.
Subtitle: MS-13 Protection Act.
Again... of COURSE the left will call evil good and good evil.
It’s what their founder does!
What’s Rahm’s mantra? Never let a tragedy go to waste?
He has to hurry, because come January, the state house is going to flip from Democrat to Republican. His biggest obstacle is the Republican governor, who will likely veto the bill. So unless he can muster enough liberal Republicans to override, there is no way this will pass.
Not a “gun-nut”, I have two shotguns and a .45. ALL of these aquired by private sales or trade. Not even gunshows, just between friends. I bet I know my customers better than the gunshop, however legitimate.
There is, I believe, only one type of personal property which was specifically and unqualifiedly supposed to be protected from any and all governmental impairment, restriction, regulation, limitation, licensing, screening, or interference Now then, what type of property was that? Carbonated beverages? Panty bras? Double whoppers with cheese?
Guess somebody hasn’t reviewed “infringed” in their Funk and Wagnells lately.
Can I give my gun to someone then sell them the gun carry case for 500 bucks?
Thanks Legend.
Yes. Or perhaps they need to look up the meaning of “shall not”. Gee, these ignoramuses/ ignoramusi sure do waste a lot of our country’s time and energy with this silliness, don’t they?
That may be one way. LOL! They’re still trying to get all their “i’s” dotted and “t’s” crossed in Washington under I-594 since it appears that all the definitions are unclear.
I’m really excited to know some of the “enlightened” folks. NOT!
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.