There has been a lot of disinformation about the US Constitution Second Amendment portrayed in New Mexico’s last two regular legislative sessions and from the Governor’s office.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 46 “if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own right and those of their fellow citizens.” The Founding Fathers provided that we, the people, have the right to bear arms as a last resort against any form of tyrannical government, Local, State or Federal.
I oppose all proposed laws and regulations requiring registration and licensing of firearms because it creates a path for government to track and confiscate firearms in utter disregard of the Second Amendment. Proposals also have been considered to tax arms and ammunition, to limit the purchase of firearms and require background checks to purchase ammunition. I oppose all efforts to limit or restrain our Constitutional right to bear arms.
The risk of abolishing the Second Amendment rights is overwhelmingly exemplified by the confiscation of arms in Venezuela that led to the overthrow and complete collapse of the government and establishment of a marxist/socialist regime. Venezuela, once a thriving economy with the highest standard of living on South America continent and the third highest in the Western Hemisphere, is now in shambles. Venezuela has been reduced to poorly dealing with critical food and medical shortages, financial crises, and severe governmental repression of its people. Rights of the people have been systematically stripped away, not unlike attempts we are witnessing to do the same in the United States. Examples of the complete collapse of nations following the repression of citizens rights that began with disarming citizens have been repeated many times in history.
The reality of gun control is that it does not reduce crime. The City of Chicago is one of the most heavily restricted gun ownership cities in the US, and has proven without a doubt that so-called “gun-free zones” are in fact not much more than shooting galleries for criminals. Chicago is a tightly gun-controlled city under progressive government and the sad result in June of 2020 is that shootings have increased by 75% with 424 shootings and 89 murders. (Click for stats) July is looking to be much worse. The lawless do not obey laws, so the easily foreseen result is that law-abiding citizens have been stripped of their right to defend themselves and their families.
Imposing restrictions on the Second Amendment will never resolve the issue of violence. As an example, the government has been unable to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the US. Past history has proven that the government will never be able to completely eliminate criminal elements from illicit enterprises. My conclusion is that if drug dealing cartels are able to still supply illegal drugs in massive quantities, these same criminal networks could just as well supply weaponry to the criminal element. I do not want to surrender my right to protect my loved ones and property for any governmental “safety” edict. The only reason the government has to eliminate free and unrestricted gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is to eliminate potential opposition to repressive government edicts.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is not so we can hunt, not so we can participate in shooting sports. The Second Amendment was provided, not as an afterthought, but as a bulwark for the citizens to be able to protect themselves and their freedom, whether from criminal elements or from an oppressive government regime. Imposing restrictions of the Second Amendment does not address nor resolve the issue of violence and crime but infringes upon the freedom of law respecting and abiding citizens. The Second Amendment is our first line of defense in protecting life and liberty.
Dear New Mexico NRA House District 46 Members:
You couldn't draw a bigger contrast between the candidates running to represent YOU in the New Mexico State House of Representatives in 2020.
Since she was elected in 2018, your State Representative Andrea Romero (D) voted to ban the private transfer of firearms and for red flag gun confiscation laws. Before she took office, and since then, she has been embroiled in a scandal over taxpayer reimbursements for questionable expenses related to her service with an organization that had little or no demonstrable value to the citizens of New Mexico. Even the Santa Fe New Mexican, which tilts far left of center, questioned her involvement and her debt owed to them this week.
On the other hand, you have a candidate in Jay Groseclose (R) who has fought for your rights alongside NRA-ILA at the Roundhouse as a private citizen. As a volunteer, he has chaired the Friends of NRA of Santa Fe, raising money to support programs that promote the safe and responsible use of firearms. Jay is a retired engineer, a New Mexico native, a youth sports coach, a deacon and a steadfast supporter of the Second Amendment.
Santa Fe New Mexicans deserve better. Your rights shouldn't mean less because of where you live. VOTE for Jay Groseclose this November!