More On NM Representative Garcia’s Gun Law

The following information was sent to us by Jim Crawford. Please read both emails and then act accordingly. Also see yesterday’s article for additional information:

Yesterday I forwarded the comments I had sent to the House Judiciary Committee about the HB 77 gun control measure to be heard tomorrow 1/28. I received an excellent reply from Bill Rehm which I am forwarding FYI. Hopefully, some of you will add your voices and write to the committee before they meet tomorrow.
Later Jim

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: Oppose HB 77 Firearms Transfer Act
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 03:03:03 +0000
From: Rehm, Bill <>
To: James Crawford <>

I have taken an oath to uphold and defend the US and NM Constitution. I take this oath very seriously and I believe that our forefathers placed great thought in the principles of these documents and placed in stone certain rights they did not want changed—our Second Amendment rights.
Representative Miguel Garcia introduced HB 77, ad after a quick read of this legislation I have several problems with it—most importantly that it violates our Second Amendment rights.
First, HB 77 would restrict all transfers and sales of firearms between private parties, including gun shows. Meaning that if you want to sell a firearm to a friend, family member or neighbor, you will now have to call the New Mexico Department of Public Safety’s Criminal Records Checks System and provide the make, model, caliber and serial number of the firearm in addition to the name, date of birth, race, sex and address of buyer as well as an optional social security number. The Department of Public Safety will then tell you whether or not you may sell the gun. Besides being unconstitutional, this bill assumes that criminals and others who do not follow the law will run the background check.
Furthermore, DPS will keep in its system a record of the information provided by the seller for 5 years. For comparison purposes, when a gun is purchased at a licensed retailer, the FBI is required to immediately delete all information associated with the federal check. Not so under HB 77, New Mexico will have its own database of lawful gun owners. This legislation also requires the seller to maintain records of the sale for five years. This puts the sensitive private information in the hands of other people. A poor records keeper, who improperly disposes of this information, would instantly put the identity of the buyer in jeopardy.
Finally, there are no user fees associated with the purchase of a firearm through a Federal Firearms (FFL) dealer. Yet, under HB 77, a citizen would be forced to pay a fee, up to $35, for the same transaction that does not exist through a FFL dealer. Simply put, this is a tax on firearms, one that criminals obviously will not pay.
Deplorable crimes, such as what happened at Sandy Hook, undoubtedly lead us to evaluate our laws and our society. The shooter in Connecticut broke numerous laws (5 Federal, 13 CT), including using a firearm that was legally purchased through a background check by his mother. The proposed changes to gun laws—while they may be well intended—are fueled by emotion and would do nothing to stop the types of crimes perpetrated at Sandy Hook. Instead, they would further inhibit lawful gun owners from legally owning firearms and penalizing them with a fee if they chose to do so.
Rather than creating more laws that punish law abiding citizens, I urge my fellow lawmakers to take a serious look at how we handle mental health in this country and direct our focus on changes that will truly make a difference. There are solutions that we can agree on that will lower gun crime in this country while at the same time protecting the precious right to keep and bear arms. I look forward to discussing those solutions as the session moves forward.
To put this in prospective when you currently purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer you complete a Federal 4473 form. Vice-president Joe Biden stated “we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”
In 2010 there were 72,600 persons denied a firearm and just 44 prosecuted for their lie on the 4473 form.
Thank you for your input,
NRA Life Member

From: James Crawford []
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:30 AM
To: Gail Chasey; Louis, Georgene; Eliseo Alcon; Cathrynn Brown; Zachary Cook; Easley, Stephen; Egolf, Brian; Fajardo, Kelly; Nate Gentry; Emily Kane; Antonio Maestas; Terry McMillan; Pacheco, Paul; Rehm, Bill; Lundstrom, Patricia;
Cc: Baldonado, Alonzo; Don Tripp; Michael Sanchez; Garcia, Miguel
Subject: Oppose HB 77 Firearms Transfer Act

HB 77 Firearms Transfer Act

New Mexico Legislature 2013 House Bill 77, Firearms Transfer Act, creates a massive new bureaucracy and record keeping nightmare by setting up a system for and requiring background checks for sale or transfer of firearms at any time and at any venue.

This bill is a typical knee jerk reaction by politicians in response to the past and recent horrible gun related tragedies. As usual, this bill provides hindrances and penalties to law abiding citizens going about their lawful activities. Not a single life would have been saved if this bill or others like it would have been in place.

None of the weapons used in the recent tragedies were purchased from private individuals in or outside of gun shows and been subject to this bill.

Politicians seem to believe that this kind of knee jerk reaction proves they are “doing something” no matter how burdensome, how ineffective, and how unconstitutional the action might be.

This bill is an affront to our constitutional rights both under the 2nd and 5th amendments. It interferes with our right to own firearms and their protection as part of our private property.

Beyond the fact that this bill should die a swift death just on constitutional ground, it is riddled with inconsistencies and abhorrent rules.

It is redundant with federal law. There is no need for items 1-7 in Section 2 A or A-G in Section 3. Item 8 and item H already define the prohibitions respectively.

It makes no provision for inheritance of guns from parents or grandparents if the heir happens to be less than 18 years old. Is the state going to confiscate this legally owned private property that is part of an estate?

Extremely stringent photo identification is required for transfer of a gun but ironically none is required to vote for the politicians imposing these rules on us! (Section 4 A6)

The costs and burden on the Department of Public Safety will be horrendous. How much staff and how many phone lines will be required? What documentation shows when a request is received (Section 4 E)? The Department is supposed to respond in 30 minutes but if they don’t make it, the Department can provide a time frame for response. So, in effect there are no time constraints on the Department. (Section 4 E)

What possible difference does it make if the transfer has not been completed in 24 hours (Section 4 D2)? It is unlikely a person’s criminal or mental condition is going to change in 24 hours. Years might be a concern but 24 hours is ludicrous.

Section 4 G establishes a gun registration scheme that not even the feds maintain. The Department is the registration agency for private gun sales but if a private sale is made at a gun show the seller also becomes a registration agency and has to maintain records for the government (Section 5 C).

There is no reasonable explanation for the differences in fees and requirements for forms between a person making a private sale at a gun show and a private sale outside of a gun show. A private sale is a private sale. It is obviously a discriminatory tactic against guns shows. It will encourage selling guns in the parking lot instead of inside the building.

James Crawford
19 Lucero Road
Los Lunas, NM 87031
505 864 7225

One thought on “More On NM Representative Garcia’s Gun Law

Comments are closed.