Tweet
First off, let me say, long time lurker, first time poster.
Anyways, I just wanted to say thank you guys. I was PCS'd to Monterey about a year and a half ago, and I left my guns in my home state of NM because I didn't want to deal with the CA firearms laws. Being in CA, I wanted to get abreast of the local firearms scene if you will, and landed here.
Thanks to all of you guy's hard work and publishing of SCOTUS cases and the various cases coming through CA, I had some ammunition to use in a fight that came up in NM:
Rep. Easley's HB402 mirrors the new law in NY. He would want us to go from a state where, while not having constitutional carry, we have open carry, shall issue, and extended domain (car is an extension of your home, thus no way to "conceal" a weapon in your car), to New York style gun grabbing.
Again, thanks to all of your hard work, I knew enough to write this letter to the State Reps and Gov. Martinez:
Again, thanks for your help guys!
Anyways, I just wanted to say thank you guys. I was PCS'd to Monterey about a year and a half ago, and I left my guns in my home state of NM because I didn't want to deal with the CA firearms laws. Being in CA, I wanted to get abreast of the local firearms scene if you will, and landed here.
Thanks to all of you guy's hard work and publishing of SCOTUS cases and the various cases coming through CA, I had some ammunition to use in a fight that came up in NM:
Rep. Easley's HB402 mirrors the new law in NY. He would want us to go from a state where, while not having constitutional carry, we have open carry, shall issue, and extended domain (car is an extension of your home, thus no way to "conceal" a weapon in your car), to New York style gun grabbing.
Again, thanks to all of your hard work, I knew enough to write this letter to the State Reps and Gov. Martinez:
Madam Governor:
I write you today over concerns with HB 402 introduced by Representative Stephen Easley (Eldorado). HB 402 is a direct violation of the Second Amendment which guarantees the individual right to own a bear arms commonly in use for lawful purposes.
First I would like to cite the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of New Mexico (Article II, Sections 4 and 6):
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness."
"No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
Now, I would like to mention some pertinent Supreme Court rulings pertaining to the Second Amendment:
The Supreme Court of the United States has found in Heller vs. DC that the Second Amendment confers an individual right, not one restricted to state or federal organizations. Further, in McDonald vs Chicago the SCOTUS found that the individual right found in Heller is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the state and local governments.
Finally, as part of the Heller decision, the SCOTUS also ruled on the type of weapon that is covered by the Second Amendment. That is, those being the type of weapons in common use for lawful purposes.
I can assure you that AR-15's and other so called "assault weapons" are "in common use for lawful purposes". I myself have used one since I was a little boy to help maintain my family's ranch. I've used that rifle for recreation. And, while I still own it for the purpose of self defense, it has never been used in anger, nor has it ever been pointed at another human being (either loaded or unloaded). All of these uses are listed specifically as lawful in Article II, Section 6.
Further, limiting the number of rounds in a magazine to 7 clearly runs afoul of the Heller decision. Not only are 30 round magazines in common use for lawful purposes, but the pistol in question in Heller was a 9-round revolver.
Madam Governor, I hope that the people of New Mexico can rely on you to uphold the Constitution of these United States and our State Constitution against this misguided fear-mongering by Representative Easley.
However, if this law is enacted, I will be forced to seek immediate relief through the courts. I simply cannot tolerate my rights being trampled on by those who are appointed to protect them.
Thank you for your time.
Very Respectfully,
Patrick D. Smith
I write you today over concerns with HB 402 introduced by Representative Stephen Easley (Eldorado). HB 402 is a direct violation of the Second Amendment which guarantees the individual right to own a bear arms commonly in use for lawful purposes.
First I would like to cite the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of New Mexico (Article II, Sections 4 and 6):
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness."
"No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
Now, I would like to mention some pertinent Supreme Court rulings pertaining to the Second Amendment:
The Supreme Court of the United States has found in Heller vs. DC that the Second Amendment confers an individual right, not one restricted to state or federal organizations. Further, in McDonald vs Chicago the SCOTUS found that the individual right found in Heller is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the state and local governments.
Finally, as part of the Heller decision, the SCOTUS also ruled on the type of weapon that is covered by the Second Amendment. That is, those being the type of weapons in common use for lawful purposes.
I can assure you that AR-15's and other so called "assault weapons" are "in common use for lawful purposes". I myself have used one since I was a little boy to help maintain my family's ranch. I've used that rifle for recreation. And, while I still own it for the purpose of self defense, it has never been used in anger, nor has it ever been pointed at another human being (either loaded or unloaded). All of these uses are listed specifically as lawful in Article II, Section 6.
Further, limiting the number of rounds in a magazine to 7 clearly runs afoul of the Heller decision. Not only are 30 round magazines in common use for lawful purposes, but the pistol in question in Heller was a 9-round revolver.
Madam Governor, I hope that the people of New Mexico can rely on you to uphold the Constitution of these United States and our State Constitution against this misguided fear-mongering by Representative Easley.
However, if this law is enacted, I will be forced to seek immediate relief through the courts. I simply cannot tolerate my rights being trampled on by those who are appointed to protect them.
Thank you for your time.
Very Respectfully,
Patrick D. Smith
