Tipping Point New Mexico Episode 149: Talking Guns/Regulation With New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
Paul visits with Zachary Fort of the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association and Alexandra Garza a lobbyist for gun rights issues. Topics include recent legislation, the growing gap between rural and urban citizens of New Mexico, and possible legislation that may be considered in the coming session of the legislature.
ATTENTION MEMBERS - SOLICITING NOMINATIONS FOR VICE PRESIDENT
NMSSA'S VP recently resigned. So, the Board is looking for nominations for a new VP who will be voted on by the membership.
SEE POSITION DESCRIPTION BELOW
NMSSA VP - Someone who can assist the president in event planning, fundraising, promotion and creating the vision and setting the direction of NMSSA as an organization. Must be familiar firearm ownership and current regulations. Experience with non-profit board membership preferred but not required. Open to members across the state.
ATTENTION MEMBERS - PRINT YOUR MEMBERSHIP CARD ON OUR WEBSITE !!!
1. GO TO NMSSA.ORG and login
2. CLICK ON "ACCOUNT"
3. A NEW WINDOW COMES UP.
4. CLICK ON "PRINT CARD".
5. A NEW WINDOW OPENS. CLICK ON PRINT CARD
MESSAGE FROM NMSSA PRESIDENT - ZAC FORT
No other state has been impacted as much as New Mexico has by decisions of large retailers like Walmart to no longer sell firearms, stop sales certain types of ammunition, or to no longer allow open carry of firearms in their stores. Is this about "public safety?" Not in the least bit. Criminals aren't going to be foiled by Walmart no longer selling handgun ammunition.
So why then are large retailers ending their sales of firearms and asking customers to not openly carry firearms in their stores? This is a coordinated effort to stigmatize firearm ownership. To push guns out of the public eye; to make you feel like social outcast for wanting to exercise your constitutional rights as the founders intend.
How then do we fight back? By being vocal public advocates for our rights. By getting involved in youth hunting and shooting sports. By inviting our friends and family who haven't shot a gun before to go the range. By supporting firearm retailers who support out rights.
New Mexico has a proud tradition of firearm ownership that spans cultures and generations. NMSSA and our members will fight to defend that legacy.
OUR VISION IS TO MAKE NMSSA A STATE-WIDE ASSOCIATION.
THE MORE MEMBERS WE HAVE THE MORE CLOUT WE HAVE IN SANTA FE
YOU CAN HELP US RAISE FUNDS FOR THE UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE SESSION BY DONATING A FIREARM FROM YOUR COLLECTION.
NOTE: DONATIONS ARE NOT TAX DEDUCTABLE.
MESSAGE FROM THE NMSSA WOMENS' PROGRAMS DIRECTOR
I'm looking for women who might be willing to help develop the Women's Programs Division of the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association. WE CAN HAVE SO MUCH FUN !!!! If you are willing to explore the exciting possibilities with me, or just want more information, please email me at;
U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- What does it mean to be a warrior, a hero, and a first responder. I watched as volunteer school staff learned to stop an armed attack. They learned how to treat the injured until help arrives at their school. When they need these skills, they will need them urgently. Mere seconds will count, and lives will depend on their actions. We need more of these trained teachers.
The training program is called FASTER for Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response. This class in the Denver area drew about two dozen school staff from across the state of Colorado since the attack on the school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, about two thousand teachers across the US have taken FASTER training. The volunteers in this class came from both new schools that were setting up their first security program and from existing districts that were expanding their staff. There was a lot to cover in this three-day survey course.
I call it a survey course because the information we learned one minute had to be applied the next. These teachers will take these basic building blocks and their medical kits home with them. There, they will tailor the program for their particular school. The attendees ranged from school superintendents to bus drivers and custodians. We can call all of them teachers, but 60 percent of FASTER students are from non-classroom positions. While the FASTER Colorado instruction and instructors are world class, the application is cutting edge.
The training course borrows everything it can. They take emergency trauma training from the military. From police academies, they borrow training techniques on how to shoot. The course uses concealed carry methods from the civilian world. With all it borrows, the application is unique to FASTER.
Armed first responders are not the police. These teachers don’t have to chase fleeing bad guys across town. Neither are these teachers like private gun owners who can retreat, lock their bedroom door, and wait for police to arrive. Defending our kids requires a special mix of determination and restraint. Each volunteer and each school applies what they learned in a way that fits their unique resources and needs. Some of these schools expected the police to arrive 40 minutes after they are called. They are on their own until help arrives.
These volunteers learned a lot. Some of these volunteer school staff were new to carrying a concealed firearm. They overcame their uncertainty as they were trained. They learned the new mechanical skills with practice. They also learned emergency trauma care. We put on tourniquets and packed wounds. We learned about the legal use of lethal force, and how to apply chest seals to save a life. That was the easy part.
The hard part was attitude and mental preparation. Everyone wants to stop the killing, but no one wants to kill. The sad, hard, fact is that sometimes we have to shoot someone to save lives. That warrior ethic was the hard part for us to grasp. These teachers accepted the uncomfortable and unfamiliar role of a warrior because of who they love. They love their kids. These school staff will risk their lives to save their students.
These volunteer school staff sacrificed their innocence to become protectors. Their character and their commitment were essential.
Mindset is the key to saving lives. You might have a slow draw as you present your firearm to stop the threat. That adds fractions of a second, but denying that the gunshot you heard down the hall is real can add forever. That denial is our all-to-normal response.
We assume the sound we heard isn’t a gunshot since we don’t expect an attack on our schools. We assume the screams we hear are a from a game or a fight since we don’t normally hear our children screaming in terror. Unfortunately, today, those nightmares can be real. Now, what are we going to do?
The warrior mindset says that those sounds are the worst thing we can imagine. We will find the cause and be prepared to stop someone who could be killing our kids. That determination to do whatever it takes to save lives is the attitude of a hero.
We don’t use the term “hero” very often. It took me a minute to be comfortable with it. Maybe you are familiar with a hero’s attitude. See for yourself if I’m using it correctly.
This is a hero’s prayer-
I hope that evil never comes to my school. But if my children are threatened, then I pray that I am there. Let it be me who stops it. For if not me, then who? If not now, then when?
I wish you could meet the instructors and students I saw. We are blessed that the volunteer school staff are eager to save our children. We are rich beyond measure that they are our neighbors.
A study conducted by the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center of 41 separate school attacks released on Thursday found a common pattern among the killers; they were bullied, got in trouble at school, and were never reported to authorities, no matter how bothered others might have been by their behavior.
“These are not sudden, impulsive acts where a student suddenly gets disgruntled,” Lina Alathari, the center’s head, said in an Associated Press interview. “The majority of these incidents are preventable.”
The fathers of three students killed in 2018 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, attended a media conference Thursday in support of the study.
Tony Montalto, whose daughter, Gina Rose Montalto, died, said the research was invaluable and could have helped their school prevent the attack.
“My lovely daughter might still be here today,” he said. “Our entire community would be whole instead of forever shaken.”
Montalto urged other schools to pay attention to the research.
“Please, learn from our experience,” he said. “It happened to us, and it could happen to your community, too.”
Many of the Parkland families have complained that the killer (who will not be named here) exhibited many warning signs and even violated the law, but that the school district minimized and failed to adequately address his behavioral issues long before the shootings took place. According to the new report, that’s not uncommon.
There’s no clear profile of a school attacker, but some details stand out: Many were absent from school before the attack, often through a school suspension; they were treated poorly by their peers in person, not just online; they felt mistreated; some sought fame, while others were suicidal. They fixated on violence and watched it online, played games featuring it or read about it in books.
While the report doesn’t discuss armed teachers, it does contain some information about how these attacks play out that bolsters the argument for having an armed school staff member to act as a first response against an armed school assailant.
The shootings happened quickly and were usually over within a minute or less. Law enforcement rarely arrived before an attack was over. Attacks generally started during school hours and occurred in one location, such as a cafeteria, bathroom or classroom.
If the shootings are over in less than a minute, then you’re going to need someone on scene to stop it. “Law enforcement rarely arrived before an attack was over.” That means that, unless you leave it up to the shooter to decide to stop shooting, someone’s going to have to stop them. Why wouldn’t we want to give them the tools they need to do that?
Again, though, the report doesn’t get into the issue of armed school staff, or gun control for that matter. What it does do is offer an exhaustive look at these types of mass murders in an attempt to make the real changes necessary to prevent them from occurring. The good news is that the study’s authors believe we absolutely can do that, and they don’t talk about needing to ban guns, magazines, or repealing the Second Amendment to do so. We need to be smart, we need to be serious, and we need to be vigilant in recognizing those in crisis and getting them the help they need before they hurt themselves or others.
You can read the entire report for yourself here, and look for further analysis and a deep dive into the data here at Bearing Arms as well.
FROM : BEARINGARMS.COM
California Expanding Its Useless Red Flag Law
Posted at 4:00 pm on September 5, 2019 by Tom Knighton
Red flag laws are being sold to folks as a way to curtail mass shootings. However, it hasn’t seemed to help in California. Despite having red flags laws on the books for years, they’ve had two high-profile mass shootings in recent memory: Gilroy and Thousand Oaks.
In neither case did a red flag law accomplish much of anything despite the claims of proponents of such measures.
Employers, co-workers and teachers could ask judges to take away guns from people who are deemed a danger to themselves or others under a bill that has cleared the California Senate.
California enacted a so-called “red flag law” that took effect in 2016. But it only allows law enforcement and immediate family members to ask judges for gun restraining orders. Assembly Bill 61 by Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco would expand that law.
The ostensible justification for this seems to be the Thousand Oaks shooting. After all, the above-linked story brings it up, as well as the fact that the killer in that attack had displayed “signs of instability to family and friends.”
The thing is, family was able to ask for a red flag order under existing state law. There’s no reason to expand the law based on that.
So what’s this really about?
After all, the law is a failure. There’s little to no evidence that red flag laws actually have any impact on mass shootings, so this push to expand the number of people who can ask for such an order makes no sense.
Well, it makes no sense to us, anyway.
In California, though, it makes a lot of sense. You see, the purpose of red flag laws seems to have less to do with preventing violence and more to do with finding reasons to take people’s guns away.
The state is vehemently anti-gun. We know this. I wouldn’t be surprised if they start putting anti-gun slogans on the state seal next, they’re that anti-gun. Because of that, they can think of no reason to respect the right to keep and bear arms. Nevermind that numerous mass shootings are being stopped all over the nation without the use of red flag laws, but they still want to take people’s guns away.
Heller made it clear that the state can’t just ban guns. They might want to do it, but the Court was clear. They can’t do it so they’ll try other ways. Now, all you need is someone who doesn’t like guns and doesn’t like you to say you’re a threat and POOF! There go your guns.
Oh, supporters of such laws will tell you that you can get your guns back, and it’s true. However, you’re now entering a realm of “guilty until proven innocent.” You have to show that you’re not a threat, something that’s not as easy to do as you might think and something that goes against everything we stand for as a nation.
That’s the only thing red flag laws manage to do well, and that’s why California is loving theirs.
FROM: CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM website
Gun Controllers: The Most Uninformed Among Leftist Subgroups
I sometimes ponder which among the political left’s subgroups tends to be the most unsavory.
Granted, there’s a great deal of overlap among those subgroups. Nevertheless, they are in some ways discrete and distinguishable.
In terms of transparent insincerity, the climate alarmists maintain a wide lead.
Consider that political leaders like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez incessantly lecture us that we’re running out of time to save the planet from man-caused climate change. They’ve explicitly asserted a ten-year timeline until we reach a “tipping point” after which recovery will be impossible – never mind that we’ve been warned of similar ten-year windows since at least the 1980s. Yet when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R – Kentucky) took them at their word and put their “Green New Deal” to a vote, not a single one of them voted in favor. Not one.
Similarly, celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio and Katy Perry signal their virtue demanding that people change their lifestyles to avert climate disaster. But when was the last time one of them canceled an overseas vacation or red carpet appearance because of the damage the flight would inflict upon the planet?
In terms of sheer ignorance, however, Second Amendment restrictionists claim the ignoble prize.
First and most fundamentally, gun controllers falsely assume that the United States suffers an extraordinarily high murder rate as a direct result of our high firearm possession rate.
To their credit, they’re correct in one respect: The U.S does maintain the world’s highest firearm possession rate, by far. According to the 2017 Small Arms Survey, the estimated U.S. civilian firearms possession rate is 120.5 per 100 citizens. In other words, there are more guns in civilian possession than there are citizens. That’s almost twice as high as the second-highest rate in the Falkland Islands, with 62.1 per 100 people.
So with such an astronomically high firearm possession rate, the U.S. naturally suffers a comparatively high murder rate, right?
That’s where gun controllers veer wildly off the rails. The simple reality is that the U.S. murder rate falls substantially below the worldwide average, at just 5.3 per 100,000. That’s one slot better than Greenland, with its 5.31 per 100,000. By comparison, next-door Mexico effectively prohibits firearm possession, but suffers a murder rate of 24.80 per 100,000.
Moreover, the U.S. murder rate has plummeted by almost half since 1993, while at the same time our firearm possession rate has approximately doubled. Whether that suggests that more guns bring less crime, in the words of Dr. John Lott, is a debate for another time. But at the very least, the opposite suggestion that more guns mean more crime fails the simple test of fact and recent historical experience.
Another way in which gun controllers demonstrate their ignorance is in their incessant assertion that the U.S. suffers an epidemic of mass shootings unknown to other civilized nations. The truth, as the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) has shown, is that the U.S. mass shooting rate falls below most other European nations. Out of 18 nations in Europe and North America, the U.S. stands 12th, below such countries as Norway, Finland, Belgium, Austria and France, and just one place above Canada at 13th.
In a broader worldwide comparison, the CPRC finds the same reality:
[T]he U.S. makes up less than 1.1% of mass public shooters, 1.49% of their murders, and 2.20% of their attacks. All these are much less than the U.S.’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the U.S. are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average. Out of 97 countries where we have identified mass public shootings occurring, the United States ranks 64th in per capita frequency of these attacks and 65th in the murder rate. Not only have these attacks been much more common outside the U.S., the U.S.’s share of these attacks has declined over time.
Another area in which Second Amendment restrictionists betray their ignorance is in their fashionable call for a so-called “assault weapons” ban.
In fact, a federal “assault weapons” ban was in effect from 1994 to 2004, and gun controllers predicted doom when it was allowed to expire during the Bush Administration. Instead, the U.S. murder rate fell nearly 20% from 2004 through 2011.
All of this information is readily available to Second Amendment proponents and restrictionists alike. Whether restrictionists are guilty of deliberate dishonesty, simple ignorance or some amalgam thereof is open to speculation.
But what’s beyond debate is the fact that gun controllers’ agenda is untethered from simple, demonstrable fact.
Number of Concealed Carry Permit Holders Increased Again
Last week, economist John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center released “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2019,” his annual report on the number of concealed carry permit holders in the U.S.
“In 2019, the number of concealed handgun permits soared to now over 18.66 million – a 304% increase since 2007. About an 8% growth over the number of permits since 2018.”
Let that sink in. More than 18.66 million Americans hold a permit to lawfully carry a concealed firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones. That number does not include the increasing number of states in which one does not require a permit to legally carry a firearm.
While 7.3% of American adults hold a concealed carry permit, it is by no means a homogenous group. Some states provide permit holder data by gender and race. “Among those states, women averaged 26.5% of permit holders – a half of one percentage point increase over 2018.” The increase in female permit holders outpaced the increase in male permit holders across the same time period – and the number of African American permit holders increased faster than the number of white permit holders. Lott reports that, in Texas, the number of black permit holders has grown more than twice as quickly as the number of white permit holders. Within states that provide data by both gender and race, black female permit holders was the fastest growing population. In fact, as Lott reports, “The rates of permit holding among American Indian, Asian, black, and white females all grew much faster than the rates for males in those racial groups.”
Besides being an increasingly diverse group, permit holders continue to prove that they are law-abiding citizens. Lott presents permit revocation rates to demonstrate. The highest revocation rate listed is 0.72% in Connecticut; only one other state (Maryland) is even above 0.5%. To be clear, that is less than one percent of permit holders and, as Lott notes, “Most of these rates include revocations for any reason, including people moving out of the state, and for the states where the revocation rates are higher than hundredths of a percentage point are due to residency revocations.”
These findings should reinforce the fact that law-abiding gun owners are not criminals and should not be the targets of efforts to reduce crime. As we have seen time and again, focusing on the actual criminals yields results. Efforts to demonize law-abiding gun owners will only increase as politicians get desperate for attention from a fawning media. They will ignore that crime rates have fallen, that the number of permit holders has increased, and that criminals don’t follow laws. Sounds like common sense.
Don’t anti-gun politicians all believe in common sense?
The NRA Hunts for a ‘Red Flag’
Law that Includes Due Process
Jim Geraghty April 25, 2019 5:45 PM
Indianapolis, Ind. — One of the thornier issues facing the National Rifle
Association in the state legislatures this year are “red flag” laws or
emergency risk-protection orders, which are designed to take firearms
away from an individual deemed to be a threat to themselves or
The NRA says that it supports the idea of these laws in general, but
opposes the specific versions that have recently passed state
legislatures. The NRA’s position is:
1. Anyone subject to an ERPO should have the opportunity to
challenge the order with full due-process protections in place.
challenge the order with full due-process protections in place.
2. An order that confiscates firearms should only be granted when a
judge makes the determination, by clear and convincing evidence,
that the person poses a significant risk of danger to themselves
3. The judge should concurrently make a determination of whether
the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment.
Whether or not the person meets the state standard for
involuntary commitment, the person subject to the ERPO should
receive mental-health treatment.
4. The process should allow firearms to be retained by law-abiding
third parties, local law enforcement, or a federally licensed
firearms dealer when an individual is ordered to relinquish such
5. There should be a mechanism in place for the return of firearms
upon termination of an ERPO.
6. The process should include criminal penalties for those who bring
false or frivolous charges.
So far, none of the states that recently passed ERPO laws — including
California, Oregon, Vermont — have met the NRA’s criteria, nor do the
bills introduced in Texas and Tennessee this year.
The NRA grumbles that its position gets misconstrued and
mischaracterized by both sides — gun-control groups paint the
organization as being unwilling to take guns away from dangerous
people, and other gun-rights organizations, eager to draw distinctions
with the NRA, portray the association as sellouts who are amenable to
gun confiscation. The NRA sees its position as simple: They support
extreme risk-protection orders, as long as the process involved
strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due-process
rights at the same time.
Florida’s "Red-flag" Law Taking
Guns Without Due Process
After the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, it didn’t take long for Florida’s
“red-flag” law to be implemented. The Florida legislature enacted the law on March 9, apparently deciding that the ends justified the means, i.e., that judicial processes in place since the founding of the Republic were just too cumbersome and took too long.
So they did an end run around the Fourth Amendment, and the law now allows a family member or a member of law enforcement to ask a judge to issue a warrant to seize an owner’s firearms, lowering the constitutional bar from “probable cause” to “reasonable cause.” The new law also prevents the intended victim from knowing his accusers, or from confronting them in a court of law. If he is later deemed innocent, he must petition the court to regain possession of his confiscated firearms.
In simple terms, under Florida’s “red flag” law — presently in place or being considered in more than two dozen other states — a person is guilty until proven innocent, and he must bear the costs of proving his innocence.
Consider, for example, the case of Broward County Sheriff’s bailiff Franklin Joseph Pinter, age 60, who allegedly made some verbal threats toward other bailiffs and, again allegedly, was seen on the fifth floor of the county courthouse leaning over the railing and pretending to hold a long gun and shooting at people below.
This was all that the judge needed. On Friday, May 25, the sheriff’s office sought the RPO — risk-protection order — which the judge office sought the RPO — risk-protection order — which the judge granted that same afternoon. No trial. No defense. No witnesses. No one representing Pinter. In fact, Pinter had no way of knowing about the court order and the warrant to seize his 67 firearms until deputies showed up at his door.
Broward County is the most aggressive of any Florida county in its use of its new freedom to violate its citizens’ rights and protections granted under the Fourth Amendment. Within six weeks of passage of the law, Broward County had successfully obtained 34 such RPOs.
According to Florida’s Sun-Sentinel, half of those court orders were related to bad behavior on social media. One example will suffice: A Pembroke Pines teenage girl was brought into police headquarters and subjected to more than two hours of questioning about her posts on social media. No attorney was present. None was needed. After all, the right to “lawyer up” isn’t part of the new law. Said Pembroke Pines Police Captain Al Xiques, the “police department will pursue those Risk Protection Orders in accordance with the new law when we determine that it is necessary in order to protect the public’s safety.”
Which is exactly why the new “red-flag” laws are so dangerous to personal liberty. What restraint is placed on Xiques in his quest “to protect the public’s safety”? Does a crime have to be committed, or planned and plotted? Has he proof of a conspiracy to commit an offense? By what standards does he prosecute the innocent in order to protect the innocent?
Kendra Parris, an Orlando attorney who represents the teenage girl in question, is filing suit to demand that the case against her be dismissed and that Florida’s red-flag laws be declared unconstitutional. “This constitutes state action against protected speech — online in public forums.… the legislature needs to … respect individual’s due process rights,” Parris said. Although red-flag laws vary from state to state, in general they allow law enforcement or a family member to petition a judge for a “gunviolence restraining order” or “extreme risk-protection order” (ERPO) that prohibits the freshly minted victim from possessing firearms. The judge issues an emergency order, without the victim being present or even knowing such a petition is being made, to “prevent immediate danger.”
The law often requires a hearing later, where the victim is advised of the rights that were just forfeited and is given a chance to defend him or herself.
Funny thing: The slight difference between “reasonable cause” and “probable cause” is just enough to emasculate the Fourth Amendment. It lowers the bar enough, and removes enough other protections, that every citizen who expresses a view or behavior not in keeping with the standards set by police officials such as Xiques could eventually find law enforcement at his or her door with orders to remove their firearms and related items from their possession, by force if necessary.
Bob Adelman is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs
frequently at LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and
politics. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
War veteran falls victim to New York’s red flag gun law
World Tribune November 24, 2019
by WorldTribune Staff, November 24, 2019
A recent incident in New York’s Putnam County is a prime example of “what advocates of
red flag laws have asked for”. Pushed by leftist politicians, led by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York’s Red Flag Law, also known as the extreme risk protection order law, prevents individuals who show signs of being a threat to themselves or others from purchasing or possessing any kind of firearm.
On Friday, a 28-year-old Afghanistan war veteran, who is popular on Instagram “fell victim” to New York’s Red Flag Law, Taylor Day wrote for American Thinker on Nov. 24.
“A militarized police force, ignoring due process completely, confiscated the property and the civil rights of a U.S. citizen because of nothing more than the opinion of an associate,” Day wrote.
Police showed up at Alex’s workplace “and tried to arrest him over social media posts reported to them by an old army buddy,” Day wrote.
Alex, “slipped out of the back door, and hurried home to check on his family where he found out police had already forced themselves into his home and confiscated his legal firearms after threatening his wife with calling child protective services to remove her newborn child.
Alex then barricaded himself inside his own attic, unarmed. Law enforcement officers followed him, blocked off the road to all traffic and a seven-hour standoff began.”
When the standoff was over, Putnam County Sheriffs, SWAT team and local police, “armed with their own automatic rifles with 30 round magazines, arrested Alex for possessing a ‘high capacity magazine’ for his legal AR-15,” Day wrote.
“In New York, ‘high capacity magazines’ are defined as any magazine that can hold more than seven rounds. Although a plastic box that holds 30 cartridges at one time are standard for this type of firearm, some lawmakers somewhere else believed they knew better and forced that decision upon this American war veteran.”
“Alex told one friend that the man who called in the red flag law lied to police by telling them that Alex suffered from PTSD,” Day wrote. “Putnam County Sheriffs reiterated this, claiming that this was a mental health issue, but offered no evidence of such an allegation.”
Chief Michael Cazzari of the local Carmel Police said in a statement: “This is a person in crisis, having mental illness, having issues and he didn’t need the people on social media telling him that his rights are being violated. He needed help. Medical help.”
Day wrote: “Because armored vehicles and total barricades are needed when someone just needs ‘medical help.’ Perhaps the police understood that illegally confiscating someone’s property might lead to violence.”
Alex said he finally relented when police threatened once again to take his infant daughter from his and his wife’s custody and, according to police, he was peacefully detained.
Though charged with owning the “high capacity magazine,” no charges have been filed as a result of the standoff.
Day concluded: “If the current legal landscape allows for citizens to have their Second Amendment rights stripped from them without any legal opportunity to dissent, what are the next rights to be taken? After all, our rights to speech or religion, or even due process itself, have no obligation to be respected by the government without the right to bear arms.
SHOOTING EVENTS SEND YOUR EVENTS TO email@example.com
SHOOTING EVENTS INFO COURTESY OF SOUTHWEST GUNSMITH TECHNOLOGIES -swguntech.com
Sat 4TH JAN - IDPA Match Del Norte Range 8:00 AM- 9:00 AM
Sat 4TH JAN - RGPSC Rio Grande Practical Shooting club ABQ city Range 8:30 AM- 2:00 PM
Sat 18T JAN - Rio Grande Practical Shooting club ABQ city Range 8:30 AM- 2:00 PM Sat 18TH JAN - IDPA Match Del Norte Range 8:30 AM- 9:30 AM
---------------------------------------------- Del Norte Gun Club -
IDPA Bays 1-4 - JAN 4 & 19 @ 9:00 am - 2:00 pm CMP Match on 1000yd Range - JAN 5 @ 8:00 am - 2:00 pm Precision Rifle Match 1000 YD Range - JAN 12 @ 9:00 am - 4:00 pm 3 Gun LE Range Reserved - JAN 10 @ 9:00 am - JAN 11, @ 5:00 pm
For information on these and more events go to dngcnm.com
ZIA RIFLE & PISTOL CLUB MATCHES ADDRESS: 3615 Los Picaros Rd SE, Albuquerque, NM 87105 - SOUTH OF ABQ SUNPORT