# New Mexico Outlaws Private Gun Sales



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-signs-bill-to-criminalize-private-gun-sales/
@Deebo, your state government is against you.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Maybe the*NRA*could not cringe and act like a man? Weak sister?

I left, not to the Left Wing, that was 1990s Cllintons, seaving the money grubberess NRA. They NRA were pissing me away back then.

So same as NRA, where is GOA?

Got my money. Where to/F are YOU *NRA/GOA*


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> Maybe the*NRA*could not cringe and act like a man?
> 
> I left, not to Left Wing, that was 1990s leaving the money grubberess. They NRA were pissing me away back then.
> 
> ...


Now is the time for the NRA to show up and sue.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Yes, if they are not truly ,are NOT weak sister, the NRA


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

This will be coming to all our states if it’s not stoped here and now.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Camel923 said:


> This will be coming to all our states if it's not stoped here and now.


Can't like that, but you are correct


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Ny did this in 2013, there are still people in this state that haven’t heard of the law and or they don’t care.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Going Nation wide soon.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Lets let them cede and be New Mexicans.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I thought States Rights was agreeable with most folks here.

This does not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, unless there is something in that bill I can not see.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I thought States Rights was agreeable with most folks here.
> 
> This does not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, unless there is something in that bill I can not see.


I see your reasoning, but I still keep thinking about the word,_ infringed_. I don't see that it'd be the government's business if I sell a firearm to a friend. Not that I can imagine selling a weapon, but you know what I mean.
Furthermore, I don't see it being the business of the government if I buy a firearm from a friend.

This statute will not make anyone safe. It's just more control.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Well the states can GIVE you more rights, but NOT take away Constitutional rights.

Crap heads should be jailed for treason in 3 states now.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> I see your reasoning, but I still keep thinking about the word,_ infringed_. I don't see that it'd be the government's business if I sell a firearm to a friend. Not that I can imagine selling a weapon, but you know what I mean.
> Furthermore, I don't see it being the business of the government if I buy a firearm from a friend.
> 
> This statute will not make anyone safe. It's just more control.


Let RPD move to New Texico.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I thought States Rights was agreeable with most folks here.
> 
> This does not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, unless there is something in that bill I can not see.


Do You understand Constitution/Bill of Rights?

That is ALL of America. States can give you MORE rights, but not TAKE AWAY AMERICAN RIGHTS.

So if Shitbags have done this, that IS TREASON.

RPD, did YOU swear an oath to Constitution, enlisting? If so what those 3 states have done is against OUR law..


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> Let RPD move to New Texico.


Nope. I prefer him in my region.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Nope. I prefer him in my region.


So Denton, states can't come and take Your guns.

You are O.K. with that? Bend over!!! I don't do that or have grease for You.

Constitution makes all laws in USA universeal, 14th amnedmet did that..

The creeps who voted on such laws are in high treason. Capital crime.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Again,high treason.

Those who took that oath, then violates it, high treason.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> So Denton, states can't come and take Your guns.
> 
> You are O.K. with that? Bend over!!! I don't do that or have grease for You.
> 
> ...


You seem to enjoy being combative. Try reading my posts and you'll see my position on the law.

I was responding to your suggestion that RPD can move to New Mexico. I prefer him to stay in my region.

Let me explain my thoughts on RPD. I'll make it simple. I'll be in the car in seconds if @rice paddy daddy says he needs my assistance. That should explain why I want him within driving distance.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

μολών λαβέ.

---- "_Come and Take Them_", 480 BCE
---- "_I Will Not Comply_", 2019 ACE


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> RPD, did YOU swear an oath to Constitution, enlisting? If so what those 3 states have done is against OUR law..


The oath I took on January 2, 1968 can be found right here, on the official US Army website. 
https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> You seem to enjoy being combative. Try reading my posts and you'll see my position on the law.
> 
> I was responding to your suggestion that RPD can move to New Mexico. I prefer him to stay in my region.
> 
> Let me explain my thoughts on RPD. I'll make it simple. I'll be in the car in seconds if @rice paddy daddy says he needs my assistance. That should explain why I want him within driving distance.


My position on Your quote is clear.

What about USA Constitution is not clear?

I believe RPD to be a good man, but we disagree.

If You don't like OUR CONSiTUTION, just state that


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> My position on Your quote is clear.
> 
> What about USA Constitution is not clear?
> 
> ...


What the hell is your problem? Here is what I said to RPD on the topic...



> I see your reasoning, but I still keep thinking about the word, infringed. I don't see that it'd be the government's business if I sell a firearm to a friend. Not that I can imagine selling a weapon, but you know what I mean.
> Furthermore, I don't see it being the business of the government if I buy a firearm from a friend.
> 
> This statute will not make anyone safe. It's just more control.


You are looking to pick a fight with the wrong man. I've spent years studying the background of the constitution. I also have no trouble paying attention to discussions. You seem to be having a problem with that.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The oath I took on January 2, 1968 can be found right here, on the official US Army website.
> https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html


Well so are the politicians in three states treasonous? should all be prosecucted?

Edit: I believe you swear by your oath, but might not fully realize it. Regardless , Your service for my county is always well appreciated.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> Well so are the politicians in three states treasonous? should all be prosecucted?
> 
> Edit: I believe you swear by your oath, but might not fully realize it. Regardless , Your service for my county is always well appreciated.


You read his thoughts on the statute. You also read my response.

You see it is a bit of a gray area. I err on the side of caution and our rights. RPD is a little (emphasis on little) more liberal when it comes to such things when states rights are concerned. I see things more along the line of the laws of nature and nature's God. To me, no government at any level has the authority to override our God-given rights. That's the way I see it.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I thought States Rights was agreeable with most folks here.
> 
> This does not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, unless there is something in that bill I can not see.


When I first read this post I thought you were having a PTSD moment. But the more I think about it, the more I think you are right. 2A does specifically mention "keep", but it does not mention "acquire". At first I thought about arguing with you on the basis of Heller, but that does not really apply here either. I am not a legal scholar, but unless the Supreme Court has previously set a precedent that I do not know about, the way I read constitution, RPD is right; the states DO have a right to impose restrictions on selling/buying a firearm.

I don't agree with it, but as near as I can tell, that is the law of the land right now.

Still 30 of the 33 counties in New Mexico have now declared themselves 2A Sanctuary Counties and will not enforce the law.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> When I first read this post I thought you were having a PTSD moment. But the more I think about it, the more I think you are right. 2A does specifically mention "keep", but it does not mention "acquire". At first I thought about arguing with you on the basis of Heller, but that does not really apply here either. I am not a legal scholar, but unless the Supreme Court has previously set a precedent that I do not know about, the way I read constitution, RPD is right; the states DO have a right to impose restrictions on selling/buying a firearm.
> 
> I don't agree with it, but as near as I can tell, that is the law of the land right now.
> 
> Still 30 of the 33 counties in New Mexico have now declared themselves 2A Sanctuary Counties and will not enforce the law.


One can't keep if one can't acquire. Regulating how one morally acquires a weapon is a violation.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> One can't keep if one can't acquire. Regulating how one morally acquires a weapon is a violation.


True. But by the 1790 definition of "keep" and the 2019 definition of "keep", they do not distinguish on how a firearm is acquired. The Founders would not have even considered "acquire" an issue.

As the words are written, they do have the right to keep us from acquiring, but not from keeping.

As someone who reads the words written even if I do not like them. Our Founders left a BIG open hole there which it is our responsibility to close if we are to maintain our rights as free men.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> True. But by the 1790 definition of "keep" and the 2019 definition of "keep", they do not distinguish on how a firearm is acquired. The Founders would not have even considered "acquire" an issue.
> 
> As the words are written, they do have the right to keep us from acquiring, but not from keeping.
> 
> As someone who reads the words written even if I do not like them. Our Founders left a BIG open hole there which it is our responsibility to close if we are to maintain our rights as free men.


Huh? I don't understand.

As I said, if the government prevents one from acquiring a weapon, they are preventing one from bearing a weapon.

There was no way that the founding fathers would know there was a 2 1/2 amendment that would protect our right to purchase weapons. As bad as it was back then, they weren't living in today's Loopy Land.

As I said, one can't bear it if one can't acquire it. It's none of the government's business how I morally acquire it. Furthermore, it is none of the government's business how many rounds per minute the weapon can expend.

Get down to it, the government has no business involving itself in that which is meant to protect us from it. That notion is inherent.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Denton said:


> Huh? I don't understand.
> 
> As I said, if the government prevents one from acquiring a weapon, they are preventing one from bearing a weapon.
> 
> ...


I agree with you 110%. But that is not how the 2A is written. Furthermore, we cannot argue on the meaning of the word "keep". It means the same now as it did then.

I argued on this very site that Al Hamilton would be appalled that we the people cannot own fully automatic firearms since he was the first to fight for that. But that does not change how the law was written. as written, the states do have the right to infringe on our right to purchase firearms. That is why we need a new Amendment to clarify and strengthen the 2nd. You don't like it, I don't like it, but that is the word of law. We cannot call ourselves constitutionalists, yet throw away the constitution when it suits us.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> I agree with you 110%. But that is not how the 2A is written. Furthermore, we cannot argue on the meaning of the word "keep". It means the same now as it did then.
> 
> I argued on this very site that Al Hamilton would be appalled that we the people cannot own fully automatic firearms since he was the first to fight for that. But that does not change how the law was written. as written, the states do have the right to infringe on our right to purchase firearms. That is why we need a new Amendment to clarify and strengthen the 2nd. You don't like it, I don't like it, but that is the word of law.We cannot call ourselves constitutionalists, yet throw away the constitution when it suits us.


You seem to hinder your understanding of of our rights to a bullet statement. That is what the 2nd amendment is. A bullet statement. The founders expected us to understand much more than what the bullet statement said. It isn't their fault. It is our fault.
What you are suggesting would have been viewed by the founding fathers as nonsense, but I am sure you know this. You are trying to make this discussion continue. You are a master at discussion. What I want people to do is research beyond the words of the Bill of Rights. Learn why the founders wrote what they did. Learn the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms and why everything surrounding it is as important as any other part of it is.
Sure. Every right has responsibilities. Infringing on any right doesn't strengthen that right. Therefore, any statute infringing on a right doesn't make our nation better, freer or stronger.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

As a Southerner, perhaps I think of the term “states rights” differently than people from elsewhere.
After all, we did fight a war over the issue.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I suggest that all the Anti-Gun Anti- 2nd Amendment People move to states that have these ridiculous gun laws like New Mexico! 

If all the sheeple get the hell out of Freedom Loving States and move to socialist states, then they can live in their own version of "paradise" and won't screw up other states. Let it be written, let it be done!

Class dismissed!

Slippy :vs_wave:


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

Slippy said:


> I suggest that all the Anti-Gun Anti- 2nd Amendment People move to states that have these ridiculous gun laws like New Mexico!
> 
> If all the sheeple get the hell out of Freedom Loving States and move to socialist states, then they can live in their own version of "paradise" and won't screw up other states. Let it be written, let it be done!
> 
> ...


We just lived since mama dropped us, in the hills away from cities full of scumbags. Can't blame me for that, or the fact I vote without much change.

On states rights, that is clear. States can give you MORE rights but not take away what all Americans have. Courts should not be in the business of taking rights enumerated either.

If You don't like America, change the Constitution.

One more thing, treason needs to be prosecuted.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> We just lived since mama dropped us, in the hills away from cities full of scumbags. Can't blame me for that, or the fact I vote without much change.
> 
> On states rights, that is clear. States can give you MORE rights but not take away what all Americans have. Courts should not be in the business of taking rights enumerated either.
> 
> ...


Since you like to bring up "the Constitution " and "treason" so much, why don't you look up the way the Constitution defined treason.
In fact, it it the only crime specifically mentioned in the Constitution. So go ahead, look it up, and then explain to me how passing a background check law constitutes treason.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
You do have a copy of the US Constitution on hand, right?


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Damn guys...
WE GOTTA STAY UNITED. I know we all have strong beliefs, and are opinionated..
I have to live here. NM is screwed, for now. Sante Fe and Albuquerque have the populous numbers, BUT, the people are now realizing that "if we don't get loud and get heard, we will be represented by Sante fe dicksuckers, and Alb Freaks." 
The country folk are getting upset. 
Our sheriffs are mostly "all for 2A" and all for ICE, we have just sat idle too long.
I am no scholar or well read constitution knower, but TO ME, #### the GOVT, my rights were lost once, they will have to COME PHYSICALLY TAKE THEM FROM ME.
I will never comply, I will never even acknowledge their bullshit law.
Haven't heard what the state police will do, but my sheriff, and the even the towns around me, are hating the governor right now, and actively working on ways to recall/discount/fire whatever we gotta do to get this C U N Together outta here..


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

I think many in congress have done much less than this:

William Bruce Mumford, who was convicted of treason and hanged in 1862 for tearing down a United States flag during the American Civil War.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

There is not much in the link about the actual law passed. Is it one like California’s where buyers and sellers are required to go through dealers because that’s been the law in CA at least ten years or more. Hence court approved sadly.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> I think many in congress have done much less than this:
> 
> William Bruce Mumford, who was convicted of treason and hanged in 1862 for tearing down a United States flag during the American Civil War.


That fits the Constitutional description of "Arraying oneself with the enemy, giving them aid and comfort." Clearly treason as defined.

Now, how does passing a law expanding firearm background checks fit the definition of treason?
If you don't know, just admit it. That won't make you any less of a man.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

I don’t oppose background checks I just think it’s done wrong. Instead of lists of gun owners there should be lists of criminals and mentally insane who have lost their rights for illness or their actions and the back ground check should be by smart phone app or website and instant for like $5. Use it and your absolved of liability for the buyers actions don’t and you share the risk but it’s an option in a free country not required.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Some sort of decorum needs to be restored to this thread. I'm seeing wild accusations based on misunderstandings.
@rice paddy daddy did not say anything other than he does not see a direct infringement of the 2nd amendment in this decision. He is right. One's right to both "keep" and "bear" arms is not touched by this bill from what I can tell. They are restricting private sales. They've just chosen an item that many hold as sacred, and rightly so.

The real root of the issue is not the 2nd amendment, though a case can be made without much effort.
The problem is the precedent this establishes, and whether we are going to allow it. Are we going to allow a government to dictate how PRIVATE CITIZENS are to conduct themselves during PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS for LEGAL GOODS?

I say, not just no, but HELL NO!

They are using the gun because the gun is scary to far too many these days. They will get popular support for this movement due to that fear. The ignorant will not understand that what starts with a gun can easily pivot to cars, exercise equipment, homes, and anything else the government seeks to control and manipulate.
There could very well already be a court precedent that would defeat this, but I'm not familiar with it. Surely this isn't the first time states have tried to control the private sale of goods.

Let's all calm down, get level heads, and think about how to best respond to this encroachment of a man's liberty to conduct his own legal business as he sees fit.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Have I told y'all lately how much I like the @Kauboy ?
He is one smart hombre! :vs_closedeyes:



Kauboy said:


> View attachment 96419
> 
> 
> Some sort of decorum needs to be restored to this thread. I'm seeing wild accusations based on misunderstandings.
> ...


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I never said I was for background checks. I do not support background checks, because they do not stop killings. All they do is penalize law abiding citizens. 
I have reached this conclusion from reading the Gun Rights column by Alex Korwin in each issue of American Handgunner magazine.

As he puts it: "We might support background checks if - they weren't collecting names of more than 12 million innocent Americans each year.
We might support background checks if - people with murder in their hearts were affected by paperwork in buildings."

There is much more solid argument he puts forward. This particular discussion, background checks, started last issue, and is continuing. You will just have to find the magazine and read it.

Serious gun guys don't bother with the competition, they stick to Guns Magazine, and American Handgunner.
Often imitated, never duplicated.
www.gunsmagazine.com
www.americanhandgunner.com

Instead of background checks, how about the BIDS program? Blind ID System. The FBI sends a list of bad guys to gun dealers (like wanted posters), instead of dealers sending their daily list of customers to the federal police force.
BUT, that won't happen for the obvious reason that the government WANTS THE LIST OF NAMES.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

I get @rice paddy daddy 's argument and he is right. It's not a direct infringement on 2A, but we all know the left's agenda and the means to the end here. Be it State or Federal the left's end game is getting the guns. They care not one rat's ass about keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals or people who THEY DECIDE should not have them. They don't care about stopping crime. ( See border control )

@Kauboy 's argument has teeth. That's the argument here. Do we allow a state or the federal government to regulate how personnel business or trade in legal goods are conducted? Whether it's a gun, or a car, or a pencil, it's incremental state control. The ultimate end game for the left is of course, total control. The sheeple don't see the end game.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

There should be a suit filed in the state supreme court, and they should be ready to appeal to the Supreme Court. They need to fight this to the end.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

In my state we believe in reciprocity.

So we with the guns will now outlaw those from New Mexico.

...fair is fair...


----------

