Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signs a bill into law in 2019 that expanded background checks to nearly all gun sales in New Mexico (AP Photo/Morgan Lee)
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

New Mexico’s Senate Judiciary Committee gathered recently to figure out how much latitude they had to regulate guns after last year’s bombshell Second Amendment ruling from the Supreme Court.

Most sounded confused. Some seemed unaware that the laws they passed might not hold up in court if a similar regulation hadn’t been on the books in the 18th century. One lawmaker called the ruling “mind-boggling.” Another asked whether their authority was now limited to regulating firearms “where you have to manually load the gunpowder.” 

New Mexico’s legislative session last month opened with gun reform high on the agenda. After a string of politically motivated shootings at the homes of Democratic legislators in Albuquerque, Gov. Michelle Luján Grisham (D) called for a series of firearm restrictions, including an assault weapons ban, in her State of the State speech in January. 

Three variations of the AR-15 assault rifle are displayed at the California Department of Justice in Sacramento, California.

But with a week left to go before the session ends, lawmakers are cautiously approaching gun bills and are wary of passing laws that will run afoul of a Supreme Court that has taken a firm stance on the side of gun rights. The legislature is likely to pass some gun reform before the session ends, but lawmakers say an assault weapons ban would be unlikely to hold up in court, and they’re uncertain about a proposal to raise the age to buy some types of firearms from age 18 to 21.  

“What I hope we don’t do is lead the public into believing we’re doing something, knowing full well that what we’re doing is unlikely to really have an effect,” Joseph Cervantes, the state Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said at the hearing last month. “I think that’s a disservice to people.”  

The flagging reform push in New Mexico highlights how the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which overturned a narrow provision of New York’s concealed carry law, isn’t just overturning gun restrictions ― it’s also blocking them from passing in the first place. 

“That Bruen ruling is going to hurt us for decades to come,” said Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence. “It’s going to be the excuse of every conservative Democrat who doesn’t want to pass common-sense gun laws.”

— Roque Planas in How This Supreme Court Ruling Is Already Affecting Gun Reform In A Blue State

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

38 COMMENTS

      • There are more conservative Dems at the state and local level. There are also more lefty Republicans — McCain and Romney come to mind.

        • McCain was a RINO. Not a conservative Democrat. Being a Republican does not make him a conservative.

      • What you won’t see any legislator do is stand and Define Gun Control according to its history of rot. Legislators who cannot speak out against an agenda history confirms is rooted in racism and genocide are worthless and should be held accountable. Of course holding such legislators accountable takes Gun Owners calling legislators out who fail to stand and Define Gun Control for mobs of seriously misguided drama queens using their rugrats as props to advance the agenda of racists and nazis…talk about child abuse.

        Because calling legislators out for their failure to Define Gun Control does not happen I get the feeling most Gun Owners must think to themselves there is a need for Gun Control…As much as the Gun Owner Club pretends not to be infected by demoCrap their silence says different.

    • There are no “common-sense” gun control laws!
      There are just varying degrees of stupid, moronic, senseless laws infringing on fundamental Constitutional and God-given rights.

  2. “…of a Supreme Court that has taken a firm stance on the side of gun rights”

    This is not actually true. All SCOTUS did in Bruen was rule on the constitutionality of NY gun laws which were clearly intended to suppress or remove the exercise of a constitutional right, using basically the same logic they used for first amendment cases that being what the original intent of the amendment was and its that logic which enables a free press and free speech to continue to exist today.

    So what SCOTUS did was take a firm stance on the side of the constitution like they are suppose to do.

    • I disagree somewhat. Roberts allowed for the Bruen opinion to be written by Thomas, knowing full well the language and articulation Thomas would use to craft it. I believe the intent was to strike a broad blow to the myriad gun prohibitions across the nation and allow the ripples of Bruen to have the desired effect of forcing States to take care of many issues themselves, thereby reducing the chances of cases even making their way up the ladder to SCOTUS at all.

      • yes, using basically the same logic they used for first amendment cases that being what the original intent of the amendment.

        • we need to stop falling into the ‘gun rights’ terminology trap the democrats and MSM use to reframe their arguments and statements to keep the ’emotion’ and confusion going and relegate it to second class ‘privileges’ to be decided by the state.

          its a constitutional right, period, just like the first amendment is a constitutional right. The SCOTUS decision, basically, even said so.

        • and that ‘Gun Control’ terminology trap needs to be avoided too.

          Exercise of the 2A is a constitutional right, period.

          The anti-gun and left and MSM ‘Gun Control’ terminology is not about guns at all. Its about ‘Constititional Rights Control’.

        • “its a constitutional right, period, just like the first amendment is a constitutional right.”

          Those are Natural rights affirmed to the People. The Constitution does not grant them to us. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights speaks directly to the Federal Government and tells it what it may *not* do to abridge those rights.

          FIFY

        • I didn’t say ot was not a natural right. only referring it in the context of the SCOTUS decision to shorten for the distinction anti-gun terminology games they play to keep from saying or admitting its a constitutional right (an argument they basically lost in Heller years ago).

          CTFY

      • “I believe the intent was to strike a broad blow to the myriad gun prohibitions across the nation and allow the ripples of Bruen to have the desired effect of forcing States to take care of many issues themselves, thereby reducing the chances of cases even making their way up the ladder to SCOTUS at all.”

        Correct, *why* Thomas re-set the standard from two-part to one, with the intent to cut them off at the knees… 🙂

  3. Wow. They don’t want to run afoul of the Supreme Court? Amazing. Other states are running full tilt into a battle with the Supreme Court – most notably California and New York. Other states aren’t shying away from a showdown, either.

    I don’t think much of New Mexico’s legislature, but, just maybe they have better sense than some other ultra-liberal states.

    • All elected officials should have to qualify before running for office. By qualify, I mean that they should be required to take an approved course on our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If they get elected, they should be required to take 4 hrs. of CEU’s on Supreme Court rulings as well as appellate court rulings for the year. Unqualified lawmakers are the problem. Also, if lawmakers sign onto, promote and or vote on an unconstitutional bill they should face automatic impeachment.

  4. less willing to waste their time and constituents money makes them more sensible than some other states.
    but decades? it won’t be that long before progs take back the court.

    • I’m guessing maybe 5 years, if they keep winning the WH.

      But when the end comes, it’s gonna be *fast*… 🙁

  5. Instead of bitching about how hard it is to strip people of their rights they could always just stop stripping people of their rights. I know, unheard of.

  6. “Momma, why is there no common sense in common sense gun laws?”

    “Well Forrest, some people aren’t as gifted as you. You see, some people feel angry that they can’t control everything, and they just have to try and try to control everyone else. You see Forrest, stupid is as stupid does, and there’s really no other way to describe it.”

    “Thank you momma.”

  7. Anyone who votes for democrats (communist party USA) at any level is not a conservative.

  8. “Most sounded confused. Some seemed unaware that the laws they passed might not hold up in court if a similar regulation hadn’t been on the books in the 18th century.”

    This why I keep saying that the magnitude of the ‘Bruen’ decision hasn’t fully sunk in yet.

    But when it finally happens… 🙂

    • At least they have the grace to appear confused. In Washington state the legislators don’t even try to pretend; it’s part of their willful ignorance. On recent anti-gun bills, they’ve told constituents that they can enact anything they want and the courts can decide if it was unconstitutional.

    • pretending to take Bruen seriously.

      look at their statements…. they are promoting the democrat ‘Bruen is too confusing’ theory.

      • .40, you may be right. The Anti-Gun radicals have a reading comprehension problem. Just look at dacian, the DUNDERHEAD and MINOR Miner49er as well as Albert the Brit.

        • Walter, Bruen is confusing and misunderstood because they refuse to accept it and in so doing cling to ignorance as a defense for their stupiditry.

        • Hush, Then it is NOT “confusing”; the anti-gun radicals just refuse to read it as written. No one in their right mind (no pun intended) ever thought an anti-gun radical was all there in the “upstairs” department.

  11. I’m shocked & amazed dims were aware their schemes were “illegal” in NM. Would they had those brains in ILLANNOY,Commiefornia,NY…🙄

  13. Conservative Democrat? Is that a mythical creature rumored to exist but no one has ever found one? Akin to Bigfoot, unicorns, dragons and space aliens?
    Show us a single so called common sense gun control law that would have or ever will prevent a crime or criminal use of firearms. Name a single law that would have prevented any crime.
    Be honest. Laws do not and never have prevented crimes. Only the threat of sure swift and unpleasant retribution has ever prevented any crime from happening. And then there is no guarantee. After all, murder robbery, rape, and other acts of violence are illegal. Can anyone demonstrate how the act being illegal has stopped anyone from committing these crimes?

  14. You’re talking about a group of people (the legislature) who get most of what they know about guns from the Santa Fe New Mexican op-ed page. They’re also not professionalized, they live and work outside Santa Fe and only go there occasionally for .gov business.

    A few years back this particular paper pushed the idea of banning open carry but keeping concealed carry, totally ignoring that OC is protected by the NM Constitution and CC is allowed by specifically legislation and actually isn’t constitutionally protected. (see below).

    Now, the Constitution can be amended but it’s a PITA by design. It requires (based on the way the New Mexican proposed it) a majority vote in both houses and then a cooling off period of not less than six months, with the text of the amendment published in English and Spanish in newspapers in every county in the State. It can then be voted on by the public and become an Amendment to the Constitution provided that it passes the plebiscite.

    The last part being the big hurdle. Outside Santa Fe, even with blue voters, guns are real, real fuckin’ popular. Then of course there’s that cooling off period and the fact that, mostly this would be on the next general election cycle (6 months is a rush but legal, mostly this stuff shows up the next time your reps are up for election) and is posted with every single Yea and Nay as recorded from the legislative roll call vote.

    Outside Santa Fe and Rio Rancho, ain’t no one who wants their name on that during an election. And, because of the way the State works, they cannot avoid it. Again, a PITA by design.

    And so the editors had it exactly backwards. Banning CC was the legislatively easy thing to do (but very unpopular even in blue areas outside S. Fe) but banning OC was a herculean task that the op-ed editors didn’t understand at all. They promoted it and got some attention from various legislators who then had a chat with lawyers or more experienced legislators, figured out exactly how it would work and immediately walked away from the idea.

    An interesting state, demographically and geographically. The northern half is very blue but also ranch country. Guns are popular with all but the frothing-at-the-mouth style of Leftist common in the capitol but rare outside of Santa Fe and Taos.

    Constitution of the State of New Mexico, Article II, Section 6:

    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. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

Comments are closed.