Alamogordo Second Amendment Task Forc...

Alamogordo Second Amendment Task Force Announces Bill of Rights Rally

There are 59 comments on the AmmoLand story from Jan 21, 2013, titled Alamogordo Second Amendment Task Force Announces Bill of Rights Rally. In it, AmmoLand reports that:

The rally will commence at noon. Larry Pratt , Dr. Ray Seidel, Bob Wright, and Diana Martwick will speak.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at AmmoLand.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Wow

Alamogordo, NM

#1 Jan 22, 2013
The DA is actually doing something besides not prosecuting. Easy on crime, tough on 2nd ammendment.
Larry

Alamogordo, NM

#2 Jan 22, 2013
Notice how sly these slick weasel's are as they state that its an ''Bill of Rights'' rally however then go on to say that it's basically ONLY the 2nd Amendment that they are for protecting and so in their eyes ''to the hell'' with our other Nine Bill of Rights Amendments as once again you see the true nature of these sleazy right wing gun nuts!!

Since: Oct 08

.

#4 Jan 22, 2013
The Assault on Your Rights Has Started in Santa Fe: Rep. Miguel Garcia Introduces Private Firearm Transfer Ban, Gun Tax and Firearm Registration Bill

Gun control advocates are wasting no time. On the second day of the sixty-day legislative session in Santa Fe, Representative Miguel Garcia (D-ABQ) introduced House Bill 77, imposing sweeping restrictions on firearms sales in the State of New Mexico.

HB 77 restricts ALL private transfers of firearms – not just those taking place at gun shows – including those between family members, friends and co-workers. Any person who is not a federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL) would have to contact the New Mexico Department of Public Safety prior to transferring any firearm to any prospective purchaser, provide the department with detailed information on the firearm being sold and the person to whom the firearm is being transferred, and get approval from the department before the transfer is completed. This includes transfers between relatives, friends and co-workers. In order to accomplish this, this bill sets up a state-level criminal records check system, which will be subsidized and paid for by lawful gun buyers.

HB 77 imposes a $25.00 fee on private gun transfers –$35.00 if the transaction occurs at a gun show – constituting a tax on gun purchases. Lawful gun buyers shouldn’t be forced to pay for a system that’s being created under the guise of public safety – all taxpayers should bear the brunt of this cost. The FBI-run National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which FFLs use imposes no "user fee" on prospective gun buyers.

HB 77 creates a state registry of legal firearms transferors and purchasers. Private sellers would be required to provide the state Department of Public Safety with the name, address, and telephone number of the transferor; the make, model, caliber, and serial number of the firearm being transferred; and the name, date of birth, race, sex and address of the buyer. DPS is required to retain a record of this information for five years. Under NICS, FBI is required to destroy all records of approved purchasers by the next business day.

Additionally, HB 77 imposes recordkeeping requirements on private sellers, requiring them to maintain records of approved transfers for five years, and it contains no privacy protections to prevent (or detect) a person using the system to run a background check on someone for purposes other than a gun purchase.

This measure has been referred to two committees - House Judiciary and House Appropriations - and it could soon be set for a public hearing in the first committee. Please check www.nraila.org for updates on scheduled action on this measure. In the meantime, it is critical that you contact House committee members, as well as your own state Representative, and urge him or her to OPPOSE HB 77!

Since: Oct 08

.

#6 Jan 22, 2013
Guns are Bad wrote:
<quoted text>This is good sound law and will have the support of all those who posess common sense. Praise the Lord it is happening faster than I ever hoped it would. Guns kill.
Typical libtard..."guns kill" no people using guns kill...guns can not do a thing with a person on the trigger... using your logic...cars kill and the 47% uninformed voters like yourself should not be allowed to drive.
whatever

Tularosa, NM

#10 Jan 22, 2013
Just the facts wrote:
You gun rights idiots rather protect gun rights rather the safety and lives of innocent children. You filthy disgusting fools. Post the 2 admin that said owning a assault weapon is a protected right. Bet you can't. You all have innocent blood on your hands. I hate all you who are blinded by the crosses at cementaries. I hope they ban all weapons including claw hammers. So there now you can't use that in your stupid fairy tale world argument.
Listen up moron! The second amendment doesn't speak to specific types of guns. Indeed, the fact that it does not, does not necessarily mean that a specific type of gun is not allowed, or allowed. If you ill informed libtards really want to outlaw guns change the constitution and be done with the issue. Good luck!
Not A Problem

United States

#13 Jan 22, 2013
Guns are Bad wrote:
<quoted text>So what should you be able to own. Grenade launcher, surface to air missle, tank, nuclear bomb. Pony up big boy. Right to bear arms or not? I am waiting!
Huh? 2nd Amendment only addresses firearms. At the time current technology was barrel-loaded blackpowder firearms. It's illegal to own machine-guns (true assault weapons) without a class-III license, and explosive devices. AR-15s operate the same as any other semi-auto rifle that doesn't scare people with it's looks. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16 - capable of multiple shots per trigger pull. Same as the civilian version of the AK-47, which is sold in U.S. stores. The military version of the AK-47 fires multiple rounds per trigger pull. Both military versions are NOT AVAILABLE to anyone who doesn't possess a class III licence. Calling an AR-15 an assault rifle is like painting your Ford Pinto with racing stripes, putting a bigger air cleaner on it, and calling it a Formula 1 racecar. In addition, 2nd Amendment was written as a timeless tool to enable populace to be able to defend against government tyranny, not to hunt deer.
Not A Problem

United States

#15 Jan 22, 2013
....and another thing: should big ugly civilianized AR-15s and AK-47s ever get banned/eliminated from the U.S, then people will just find another tool to terrorize. Remember when the fad was putting hazardous materials in pill bottles on store shelves? And there's still the old putting razor blades in candy/fruit during Halloween. Different tools but no one wants to address the common denominator - bad actors who use whatever tool is most convenient.
Not A Problem

United States

#17 Jan 22, 2013
Guns are Bad wrote:
<quoted text>
You are either a child or very OLD. Putting razor blades in candy is an old wifes tale. Nothing like that has happened in decades. Just like the old tylonol scare (of the 70's), tampering with products. That was solved by tamper proof containers! Try again gun nut! Guns kill pure and simple. You do not NEED a gun.
exactly. happened decades ago; SOLVED by tamper proof containers (costs lotsa money to fix a non-existant problem, no?). Guns don't kill, just the operator. Great Britain banned guns and gun crime is the same. Then they banned knives and knife crime is still bad. Now, a British subject has to be over 18 to buy a kitchen knife set. I don't NEED a gun, but I want one to protect myself and family - kinda evens the odds and I don't want to feel bad about not even having the option to put up a fight. I don't think of myself as a gun nut, although I do like to target shoot. I don't slobber all over myself and I don't delude myself that everything will be alright if I close my eyes and curl into the fetal position while waiting for a real man to protect my family.
whatever

Tularosa, NM

#18 Jan 22, 2013
Guns are Bad wrote:
<quoted text>So what should you be able to own. Grenade launcher, surface to air missle, tank, nuclear bomb. Pony up big boy. Right to bear arms or not? I am waiting!
Go back to school and try to learn a little logic, you obviously didn't learn it the first time around.
Not A Problem

United States

#19 Jan 22, 2013
Guns are Bad wrote:
<quoted text>"2nd Amendment only addresses firearms"
Does not this document of yours say Right to "bear arms"? It doesn't say "firearms" but right to bear arms correct? You cherry pick to meet your agenda. Governments around the world have an "arms race" Not a firearms race! Interesting that a guy like me who wants to ban guns knows more about the second amendment than a staunch gun rights advocate such as yourslef! You talk about current technology back then. OK, I will give you that. So lets turn in ALL of our technology that was created since the constitution was written. You can keep your muskets. What say you?
Nitpicker. O.k., it's arms. Big deal. Same difference. Did you win now, or are you gonna get in a snit that I agree with you on that point? Apparently you didn't get the part that the 2nd Amenment was written with current technology in mind; new times call for new technology because bad guys use new technology...and I don't see them volunteering to put down their TEC-9s or FN-28s. Remember, if you go into a fair fight, you did something wrong. Ban all firearms and we'll be beating each other over the heads with table legs.

Since: Oct 08

.

#20 Jan 22, 2013
Just the facts wrote:
You gun rights idiots rather protect gun rights rather the safety and lives of innocent children. You filthy disgusting fools. Post the 2 admin that said owning a assault weapon is a protected right. Bet you can't. You all have innocent blood on your hands. I hate all you who are blinded by the crosses at cementaries. I hope they ban all weapons including claw hammers. So there now you can't use that in your stupid fairy tale world argument.
I would just use a nail gun then...oops there is that evil work gun..guess nail guns are nest..

Since: Oct 08

.

#21 Jan 22, 2013
Guns are Bad wrote:
<quoted text>"2nd Amendment only addresses firearms"
Does not this document of yours say Right to "bear arms"? It doesn't say "firearms" but right to bear arms correct? You cherry pick to meet your agenda. Governments around the world have an "arms race" Not a firearms race! Interesting that a guy like me who wants to ban guns knows more about the second amendment than a staunch gun rights advocate such as yourslef! You talk about current technology back then. OK, I will give you that. So lets turn in ALL of our technology that was created since the constitution was written. You can keep your muskets. What say you?
some folks have muzzle loaders...but you head is located in a very dark location on your body...lol
Not A Problem

United States

#22 Jan 22, 2013
Skuttlebutt wrote:
<quoted text>I would just use a nail gun then...oops there is that evil work gun..guess nail guns are nest..
Nails have lousy ballistics. But I do agree; they are just as potentially evil.
Not A Problem

United States

#28 Jan 22, 2013
Guns are Bad wrote:
<quoted text>So finally a gun nut admitted that they were wrong. And now you say our founding fathers could see into the future and predict the technology we have today. OK, I will play. Now you and our current fathers tell me the technology we will have in just 20 years. I am waiting! Maybe they see into the future and that is why guns need to be banned. Tell me the future. I am waiting!
I didn't say founding fathers could see into future...that's silly!. Don't know 'bout you, but I can't see into the future (Dude, buy lottery tickets!). Common sense says fight fire with fire; new stuff against new stuff. That means I lose more fights because I gotta play good with more rules (you mean the bad guys don't follow the laws!!). Hampering me with new rules just means more gun-free zones and me without an equal means of resistance. Sorry, gotta go now; more things to do. Nice playing with you. Peace.
Fact

Alamogordo, NM

#29 Jan 22, 2013
Why is it then, that every law enforcement agency in america has become militarized, with assault rifles, street sweeper shotguns, and Glocks with 18-shot Magazines?

Not to mention that all have virtually been supplied with Swat Armored Vehicles?

LEO's have never been required by law to protect against large numbers of adversaries, which the libs claim that's all these Firearms have purpose for?

It is because LEO's will miss 29 times, and then maybe get lucky and kill a perp with the 30th shot?

Or is it that our Armies, our National Guard, and a host of other Law Enforcement organizations will spring into service "ala Branch Davidian Compound", and gun down all hypothetical "threats" to america as they see fit, foriegn, or "domestic"? Note the emphasis on "Domestic". This meand John Q.Public.

If the Police Departments feel they have a need, and a legal justification to have such weapons to defend themselves against foes-criminals, foriegn, or domestic, then so do I, as well as all other law abiding citizens in america.
Gorky

Albuquerque, NM

#31 Jan 22, 2013
The original 2nd Amendment contained a typo. It should read "the right to arm bears."
Fact

Alamogordo, NM

#32 Jan 22, 2013
Just because wrote:
<quoted text>
Why because of idiots that think its a right. Founding fathers put that the right to bear what assault weapons. How about a Russian Mig?
You did nothing but dodge my points with some incomprehensive liberal drivel, nothing more.

Then may I ask you lib, how far will you go to ban arms?
Will you choose to ban "ALL" semi-auto Shotguns, Rifles, Handguns, and that the civilian population should be regulated back to muzzle loading single shot firearms, ala the american revolution?

And do tell us what such measures would solve?

At what point in future time would you thensay the american populace can again feel safe in their "No Gun Zones"?

100 years? 200 years? 500 Years?

Remember this true saying, "When you outlaw guns (of any kind) only outlaws will have them".
Gorky

Albuquerque, NM

#34 Jan 22, 2013
Your anxious fear mongering aside, I would be satisfied and happy too, if the NRA and "The Rifleman" would reduce their PR activities for the arms industry and would return to hunting, collecting, and safety articles and issues. I might even renew my subscription.
ExCop

Alamogordo, NM

#36 Jan 22, 2013
Guns are Bad wrote:
<quoted text>Not only do you BAN guns but you CONFISCATE guns also. ALL guns. In time there will be no guns and YOU will be safe. Hope this answers your silly gun nut tea bag question.
You have NO IDEA why the founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in the "BILL OF RIGHTS"!!! People like you are dangerious to our LIBERTY.
Fact

Alamogordo, NM

#38 Jan 22, 2013
Guns are Bad wrote:
<quoted text>Not only do you BAN guns but you CONFISCATE guns also. ALL guns. In time there will be no guns and YOU will be safe. Hope this answers your silly gun nut tea bag question.
Yep, and in every instance throughout history where Guns were banned, and confiscated, genocide followed.

Read sometime, you might learn something.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Otero County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News District attorney applies for vacant NM judgeship (Jun '13) Jun 7 Truthbetold 40
News SHERIFF: Six homes on fire in Chaparral, New Me... May 30 rickiee54 1
News Woman arrested; baby in custody (Feb '08) Mar '16 Jasta 220
News County Clerk supports Robyn Holmes Mar '16 Alamogordo Reinsu... 2
Where is Otero Sheriff House? Mar '16 Otero Sheriff a joke 1
News Jackson, Manning acquitted of rape, kidnapping (Oct '10) Jan '16 Struck DoWN not D... 91
News Moore off PRC ballot (Apr '10) Dec '15 the truth 39
More from around the web