Jared
Regular Member
imported post
steveaikens wrote:
steveaikens wrote:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
2010 Legislative Requests
- Thread starter aadvark
- Start date
Jared
Regular Member
imported post
cloudcroft,
Umm, I was simply citing case law and the intent of the 14th amendment according to the author of the 14th amedment. Sorry, but that takes precedent ( as well as SCOTUS) over whatever you think about citizens or non citizens, your opinion is irrelevant unless you can somehow show that your opinon is more important than those of the Supreme Court or those of the author of a constitutional amendment.
It's not a suprise, while Steve may not like any dissent or feedback, he does do a good job and he did save the New Mexico RKBA provision when they rewrote the state constitution it doesn't chance the fact on the case law I quoted. I don't care if I offend a few corrupt bigots who (now pay attention Steve) sit in the New Mexico legislature.
cloudcroft,
Umm, I was simply citing case law and the intent of the 14th amendment according to the author of the 14th amedment. Sorry, but that takes precedent ( as well as SCOTUS) over whatever you think about citizens or non citizens, your opinion is irrelevant unless you can somehow show that your opinon is more important than those of the Supreme Court or those of the author of a constitutional amendment.
It's not a suprise, while Steve may not like any dissent or feedback, he does do a good job and he did save the New Mexico RKBA provision when they rewrote the state constitution it doesn't chance the fact on the case law I quoted. I don't care if I offend a few corrupt bigots who (now pay attention Steve) sit in the New Mexico legislature.
cloudcroft
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Jared,
Thanks, but I don't need to "show" you or anyone else anything, as I was just stating my opinion (besides, my opinion is never irrelevant). So, I have no legal "citations" to offer (nor have I looked for any)...I will leave that to you...or Steve. ;-)
I won't comment on the SCOTUS except to sayI have zero respect for it, partly because too many unconstitutional laws exist in this country yet are never challenged. Consequently, the court's credibility (with me) is zero. I don't care what it "decides," unless it decides the right thing. Or affirms our unalienable rights. The cowards hardly ever do either.
Maybe we need a NEWhighercourt to "decide" the SCOTUS, as it performs nowadays, is itself unconstitutional and therefore illegal -- and ordered dissolved. ;-)
-- John D.
Jared,
Thanks, but I don't need to "show" you or anyone else anything, as I was just stating my opinion (besides, my opinion is never irrelevant). So, I have no legal "citations" to offer (nor have I looked for any)...I will leave that to you...or Steve. ;-)
I won't comment on the SCOTUS except to sayI have zero respect for it, partly because too many unconstitutional laws exist in this country yet are never challenged. Consequently, the court's credibility (with me) is zero. I don't care what it "decides," unless it decides the right thing. Or affirms our unalienable rights. The cowards hardly ever do either.
Maybe we need a NEWhighercourt to "decide" the SCOTUS, as it performs nowadays, is itself unconstitutional and therefore illegal -- and ordered dissolved. ;-)
-- John D.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
cloudcroft wrote:
So you support disarming a permanent resident alien, a person that legally goes through very extensive background checks in order to even live here legally?
You support disarming them even though if they commit a crime they can have their residency stripped and deported out of this country, when a natural born US citizen can generally commit any number of non-domestic violence misdemeanors with impunity, and still be able to be to own guns?
Most of the permanent resident aliens I know, know more about the constitution and it's legal structure, than every class of individual I can think of, short of politically active gun owners. Most of the permanently resident aliens I know are from countries that banned guns entirely. In fact, a few of those folks works in gun shops, which is why they had to file suit against the State of Washington for refusing to process specific alien firearms licenses because they couldn't do an FBI background check due to their own policy, and basically told permanent resident alien gun owners "Too bad, so sad, disarm or be felons".
I had to deal with gun owning US citizens here in Washington State who was married to a permanent resident alien, and when they couldn't get an AFL, the US citizen had to sell their guns for fear that they ones that they loved may be sent to prison by the State of Washington, then deported. Do you think they should be disarmed?
Would you disarm OCDO member Manu, who has graciously hosted many of our Seattle area OCDO meets, who gladly welcomes open carriers into his restaurant, with a sign that encourages gun owners to carry there? He's more of a patriot for this country than most natural born US citizens than I've met outside of the gun rights and general civil rights movements, and he was born in INDIA!
Would you have disarmed Oleg Volk, one of the gun rights movement's leading supplier of pro-gun imagery, for the years he was a permanent resident alien but not a US citizen yet?
Your desire to disarm those who comply with our laws when they come here, who do so legally and refuse to "jump the fence", absolutely astonishes me as a gun rights activist. They are not allowed the ability to vote, or to hold public office, or be in certain professions of public trust (police officers), which to me are very big restrictions on their civil liberties.
As many people here are fond of saying: "The right to keep and bear arms protects a pre-existing god given right innate to all people". Unless they are committing a crime by their very presence in this country, I don't understand the animus, which seems to center purely on animus against illegals and seemingly spilling over to those who follow our laws?
You should think about the consequences of the nation that you seek, and how it effects people, before you pretty much write off an entire class of people, based on an unrelated animus against a class of people who violate our laws.
cloudcroft wrote:
So you support disarming a permanent resident alien, a person that legally goes through very extensive background checks in order to even live here legally?
You support disarming them even though if they commit a crime they can have their residency stripped and deported out of this country, when a natural born US citizen can generally commit any number of non-domestic violence misdemeanors with impunity, and still be able to be to own guns?
Most of the permanent resident aliens I know, know more about the constitution and it's legal structure, than every class of individual I can think of, short of politically active gun owners. Most of the permanently resident aliens I know are from countries that banned guns entirely. In fact, a few of those folks works in gun shops, which is why they had to file suit against the State of Washington for refusing to process specific alien firearms licenses because they couldn't do an FBI background check due to their own policy, and basically told permanent resident alien gun owners "Too bad, so sad, disarm or be felons".
I had to deal with gun owning US citizens here in Washington State who was married to a permanent resident alien, and when they couldn't get an AFL, the US citizen had to sell their guns for fear that they ones that they loved may be sent to prison by the State of Washington, then deported. Do you think they should be disarmed?
Would you disarm OCDO member Manu, who has graciously hosted many of our Seattle area OCDO meets, who gladly welcomes open carriers into his restaurant, with a sign that encourages gun owners to carry there? He's more of a patriot for this country than most natural born US citizens than I've met outside of the gun rights and general civil rights movements, and he was born in INDIA!
Would you have disarmed Oleg Volk, one of the gun rights movement's leading supplier of pro-gun imagery, for the years he was a permanent resident alien but not a US citizen yet?
Your desire to disarm those who comply with our laws when they come here, who do so legally and refuse to "jump the fence", absolutely astonishes me as a gun rights activist. They are not allowed the ability to vote, or to hold public office, or be in certain professions of public trust (police officers), which to me are very big restrictions on their civil liberties.
As many people here are fond of saying: "The right to keep and bear arms protects a pre-existing god given right innate to all people". Unless they are committing a crime by their very presence in this country, I don't understand the animus, which seems to center purely on animus against illegals and seemingly spilling over to those who follow our laws?
You should think about the consequences of the nation that you seek, and how it effects people, before you pretty much write off an entire class of people, based on an unrelated animus against a class of people who violate our laws.
cloudcroft
Campaign Veteran
imported post
...then stay tuned, you'll continue be "astonished."
-- John D.
...then stay tuned, you'll continue be "astonished."
-- John D.
Jared
Regular Member
imported post
Gray,
Most gun owners don't care about freedom in any form. They only care about themselves. I do think it was great that you and I did the legwork in the beginning to get Washington to repeal their non-citizen gun ban by a unanimous vote.
If I had the attitude of some people on this forum, I would give up on Rhode Island and other places where I have had impact. After all, I can carry anywhere in the U.S. Even on airplanes, even in places that state and local LEO's under LEOSA can not carry. Maybe I should sit out on the sideline and laugh as people in TX fight for open carry or people in NJ, MD, HI etc fight for carry. After all, I can already carry in any of these places concealed or not as per Title 8 of United States Code.
Gray,
Most gun owners don't care about freedom in any form. They only care about themselves. I do think it was great that you and I did the legwork in the beginning to get Washington to repeal their non-citizen gun ban by a unanimous vote.
If I had the attitude of some people on this forum, I would give up on Rhode Island and other places where I have had impact. After all, I can carry anywhere in the U.S. Even on airplanes, even in places that state and local LEO's under LEOSA can not carry. Maybe I should sit out on the sideline and laugh as people in TX fight for open carry or people in NJ, MD, HI etc fight for carry. After all, I can already carry in any of these places concealed or not as per Title 8 of United States Code.
imported post
I would like to get everyone back on the topic since this is so important. We have had over 500 people read this post, but I wonder how many actually e-mailed or called a NM legislator? There are about 17,000 licensed CCW holders in NM at this time and many thousand other open carry residents that should take the few minutes to write or call any legislator or the governor.
The February 1, 2010, Albuquerque Journal has a large front page story titled “NRA: Let Guns Into Eateries in NM”[/b]- this makes it sound like only the NRA is pushing this when in fact most gun owners want this but have not been vocal enough. YOU MUST SPEAK OUT if we are to change things. In the article you see Steve quoted many times supporting the gun owners of NM. However, the CEO of the 1,100 member NM Restaurant Association says the owners “worry about liability issues and putting more pressure on servers who have no way of knowing whether they’re serving alcohol to someone with a handgun.” And even the Dept. of Public Safety says “The introduction of a firearm, legal or otherwise, into an environment where alcohol is consumed is inherently dangerous.” Without hearing from gun owners we will end up with nothing.[/b] Please take some time to contact the governor or a legislator soon. Here is a link to all the legislators’ names, phone numbers and e-mail addresses; just pick a few and start now:
House of Representatives:
http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/lcsdocs/HouseMailingList.PDF
Senate:
http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/lcsdocs/SenateMailingList.PDF
I would like to get everyone back on the topic since this is so important. We have had over 500 people read this post, but I wonder how many actually e-mailed or called a NM legislator? There are about 17,000 licensed CCW holders in NM at this time and many thousand other open carry residents that should take the few minutes to write or call any legislator or the governor.
The February 1, 2010, Albuquerque Journal has a large front page story titled “NRA: Let Guns Into Eateries in NM”[/b]- this makes it sound like only the NRA is pushing this when in fact most gun owners want this but have not been vocal enough. YOU MUST SPEAK OUT if we are to change things. In the article you see Steve quoted many times supporting the gun owners of NM. However, the CEO of the 1,100 member NM Restaurant Association says the owners “worry about liability issues and putting more pressure on servers who have no way of knowing whether they’re serving alcohol to someone with a handgun.” And even the Dept. of Public Safety says “The introduction of a firearm, legal or otherwise, into an environment where alcohol is consumed is inherently dangerous.” Without hearing from gun owners we will end up with nothing.[/b] Please take some time to contact the governor or a legislator soon. Here is a link to all the legislators’ names, phone numbers and e-mail addresses; just pick a few and start now:
House of Representatives:
http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/lcsdocs/HouseMailingList.PDF
Senate:
http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/lcsdocs/SenateMailingList.PDF
steveaikens
Opt-Out Members
imported post
More than anything, we need calls for Sen. McSorley to HEAR OUR SB40. After significant pressure, he finally scheduledSB40 for a late night hearing that he knew wouldn't take place last night. After letting us sit in his committee, he announced a couple more bills that would be heard and said he would reschedule the remaining bills for Monday. Your phone calls may push him to actually hear it this time.
WE NEED YOUR HELP! CALL AND EMAIL SEN McSorley.
We passed HB83 [sister bill to SB40] in House Public Affairs this morning with a6 to 1 vote with the Chair being the only no vote. Chair GailChasey may not be for firearms bills but she is very fair and always keeps her word to hear our bills. Please contact her to let her know we appreciate her hearing our bills. She will get us reported out and the bill will move to House Business and Industry Wednesday, then House Judiciary Friday.
Steve Aikens
More than anything, we need calls for Sen. McSorley to HEAR OUR SB40. After significant pressure, he finally scheduledSB40 for a late night hearing that he knew wouldn't take place last night. After letting us sit in his committee, he announced a couple more bills that would be heard and said he would reschedule the remaining bills for Monday. Your phone calls may push him to actually hear it this time.
WE NEED YOUR HELP! CALL AND EMAIL SEN McSorley.
We passed HB83 [sister bill to SB40] in House Public Affairs this morning with a6 to 1 vote with the Chair being the only no vote. Chair GailChasey may not be for firearms bills but she is very fair and always keeps her word to hear our bills. Please contact her to let her know we appreciate her hearing our bills. She will get us reported out and the bill will move to House Business and Industry Wednesday, then House Judiciary Friday.
Steve Aikens
steveaikens
Opt-Out Members
imported post
Yeah, I should have addred that. Thanks.
Yeah, I should have addred that. Thanks.
steveaikens
Opt-Out Members
imported post
aadvark wrote:
We are one step closer. Following an extremely long and difficult Senate Judiciary hearing, SB40 was heard and successfully passed at 8:15 last night and our SB212 was laid on a clearly exhausted committee at about 8:30, also passing.
The challange we now have is to get both bills reported in to the Senate and heard on the floor. I suspect SB40 will once again be debated on the Senate floor. Our opponents are pretty strong and vocal and last year, debated this bill on the Senate floor for just over an hour before we got it voted on and passed.
Following the Senate floor, both bills move to the House and go through the same process there before we have succeeded this session. Last year, these bills failed to be heard on the House floor after succeeding through the process. I'll keep you posted on our progress.
At this point, we don't need help getting heard in the House Business & Industry committee - we'll be heard there tonight and don't foresee any problems. However, once we clear HBIC, I'll need to ask you to get on the phones and ask House Judiciary members to vote for Representitive Heaton's HB83. HB83 is the House version of SB40.
Steve Aikens
aadvark wrote:
We are one step closer. Following an extremely long and difficult Senate Judiciary hearing, SB40 was heard and successfully passed at 8:15 last night and our SB212 was laid on a clearly exhausted committee at about 8:30, also passing.
The challange we now have is to get both bills reported in to the Senate and heard on the floor. I suspect SB40 will once again be debated on the Senate floor. Our opponents are pretty strong and vocal and last year, debated this bill on the Senate floor for just over an hour before we got it voted on and passed.
Following the Senate floor, both bills move to the House and go through the same process there before we have succeeded this session. Last year, these bills failed to be heard on the House floor after succeeding through the process. I'll keep you posted on our progress.
At this point, we don't need help getting heard in the House Business & Industry committee - we'll be heard there tonight and don't foresee any problems. However, once we clear HBIC, I'll need to ask you to get on the phones and ask House Judiciary members to vote for Representitive Heaton's HB83. HB83 is the House version of SB40.
Steve Aikens
steveaikens
Opt-Out Members
imported post
http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/committeedisplay.aspx?CommitteeCode=HJC
We pass out of HBIC late last night. Get on the phones and call the Judiciary committee members at the link about and tell them you want HB 83 to be heard TODAY!
Steve Aikens
http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/committeedisplay.aspx?CommitteeCode=HJC
We pass out of HBIC late last night. Get on the phones and call the Judiciary committee members at the link about and tell them you want HB 83 to be heard TODAY!
Steve Aikens
imported post
It was reported this morning that SB212 (eliminate need for the 2 year CCW refresher course) was approved in the Senate 32-8 on Wednesday. Even though Steve would lose customers by backing this, I know he was pushing for it. Senator Ingle of Portales was quoted as saying that the "two year refresher course was unnecessary and not required in any other state that has a concealed carry law." Of course the opponents cried that some licensees may have limited experience and could use the training! Now it goes to the House.
It was reported this morning that SB212 (eliminate need for the 2 year CCW refresher course) was approved in the Senate 32-8 on Wednesday. Even though Steve would lose customers by backing this, I know he was pushing for it. Senator Ingle of Portales was quoted as saying that the "two year refresher course was unnecessary and not required in any other state that has a concealed carry law." Of course the opponents cried that some licensees may have limited experience and could use the training! Now it goes to the House.
cloudcroft
Campaign Veteran
imported post
"Of course the opponents cried that some licensees may have limited experience and could use the training!" -- snoball
...in which case I would point out statistics comparing shootings of criminals by cops vs. shooting ofcriminals by armed citizens. It would be clear then who needs the training: Cops...except they already received such "training," right? Ooops!
Somuchfor "professional training" (aside from the truly professional civilian shooting academies)...which, IMO,is highly overrated by both ignorant politicians, sheepleand the media.
-- John D.
P.S. I am not faulting the INSTRUCTORS at the assorted LEO academies, I'm just saying it doesn't "trickle down" to the cops on the street (learned, retainedand employed by the average cop). So it's not "the plan," it's the "execution."
"Of course the opponents cried that some licensees may have limited experience and could use the training!" -- snoball
...in which case I would point out statistics comparing shootings of criminals by cops vs. shooting ofcriminals by armed citizens. It would be clear then who needs the training: Cops...except they already received such "training," right? Ooops!
Somuchfor "professional training" (aside from the truly professional civilian shooting academies)...which, IMO,is highly overrated by both ignorant politicians, sheepleand the media.
-- John D.
P.S. I am not faulting the INSTRUCTORS at the assorted LEO academies, I'm just saying it doesn't "trickle down" to the cops on the street (learned, retainedand employed by the average cop). So it's not "the plan," it's the "execution."
steveaikens
Opt-Out Members
imported post
snoball wrote:
I'm not only pushing this change, I'm the one that had Senator Ingle introduce it last year and again this year. The requirement is a 2 hour - 25 shot , 17 hit requirement at 3 and 7 yards. I've never had a student that couldn't do that blindfolded once they had been trained on the basic fundamentals of shooting a handgun. We have a four year license - you shouldn't be required to do anything during that 4 year period to maintain the validity of that license.
I'm sure you will find it interesting that an instructor from Roswell sent emails opposing this change to both the Senate and the House. Makes you wonder just how much he charges students to shoot that 25 rounds.
I forget his name at the moment but I'll certainly let you know who it is. Personally, I would be very wary of an instructor that wants to remain the only state in the U.S. to have a mid-term requirement to line his own pocket.
If this sounds like I'm pissed an instructor would do this - you would be right.
Steve Aikens.
snoball wrote:
I'm not only pushing this change, I'm the one that had Senator Ingle introduce it last year and again this year. The requirement is a 2 hour - 25 shot , 17 hit requirement at 3 and 7 yards. I've never had a student that couldn't do that blindfolded once they had been trained on the basic fundamentals of shooting a handgun. We have a four year license - you shouldn't be required to do anything during that 4 year period to maintain the validity of that license.
I'm sure you will find it interesting that an instructor from Roswell sent emails opposing this change to both the Senate and the House. Makes you wonder just how much he charges students to shoot that 25 rounds.
I forget his name at the moment but I'll certainly let you know who it is. Personally, I would be very wary of an instructor that wants to remain the only state in the U.S. to have a mid-term requirement to line his own pocket.
If this sounds like I'm pissed an instructor would do this - you would be right.
Steve Aikens.
SB40 Passed the senate 27-15:celebrate Now to get it through the house!
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
steveaikens wrote:
What a douche!
steveaikens wrote:
There's only one liner I can say to this:
What a douche!
steveaikens
Opt-Out Members
imported post
Barry L. Haight - Roswell, NM
Barry L. Haight - Roswell, NM