SB17 Semiautomatic firearm and magazine..etc. (Page 2 of 2)
|
The house just adjourned. Some committees were still meeting tonight starting at 22:45. I saw a test run for judiciary maybe an hour ago, but don't know if they're meeting yet or not. Well it is now 22:54 and only the appropriations and finance committee is meeting. I'll update if judiciary ends up meeting. I missed some of the closing comments tonight and didn’t hear if they planned on tonight or just reconvene in the morning. 23:06 - No meeting tonight from what I can see. Even tomorrow's house committee schedule that was posted around 22:58 doesn't have judiciary listed for tomorrow. 23:52. Holy hell. They're meeting tonight...I don't know when it started but they're in session. 12:23. I can't listen to this shit anymore so I'm going to bed. I'm sure I'll wake up disappointed and can only hope it fails on a floor vote, but I don't think it will. |
|
All I can see on X is that, as of 2am they broke committees without hearing SB17. They might be able to run the clock out on this. Edit: Update 0550
|
Official ARFCOM nickname, The Germ!
|
This is a very insidious bill. It tries to pull the wool over our eyes by saying it's aimed at FFLs, not gun owners. But it does affect gun owners by making it inpossible for us to sell many of our firearms. Let's say you have an old AR15 that you got from your father. You want to sell it. We used to be able to do FTF sales but a few years back they passed a law saying you could transfer it only through an FFL. BUT SB17 cuts off that route by making it illegal for the FFL to transfer it (and many other firearms). Supposed you die and your spouse decides to sell your firearms to a dealer. This used to be common. Your spouse is going to be shocked when they learn they can't do that because SB17 makes it a crime for the dealer to sell those firearms. He tells you your choices are: 1) bury the firearms with you spouse, 2) keep them until the spouse dies and now you're back to 1 or move out of state to Texas or Arizona, take the firearms with you and sell them there once you've established residency. So what SB17 does is sunset gun ownership on the most popular firearms we have. New Mexico Dems think we are stupid. They clearly want to get rid of guns by targeting the means of legally transferring them. |
|
Originally Posted By tinman44: This is a very insidious bill. It tries to pull the wool over our eyes by saying it's aimed at FFLs, not gun owners. But it does affect gun owners by making it inpossible for us to sell many of our firearms. Let's say you have an old AR15 that you got from your father. You want to sell it. We used to be able to do FTF sales but a few years back they passed a law saying you could transfer it only through an FFL. BUT SB17 cuts off that route by making it illegal for the FFL to transfer it (and many other firearms). Supposed you die and your spouse decides to sell your firearms to a dealer. This used to be common. Your spouse is going to be shocked when they learn they can't do that because SB17 makes it a crime for the dealer to sell those firearms. He tells you your choices are: 1) bury the firearms with you spouse, 2) keep them until the spouse dies and now you're back to 1 or move out of state to Texas or Arizona, take the firearms with you and sell them there once you've established residency. So what SB17 does is sunset gun ownership on the most popular firearms we have. New Mexico Dems think we are stupid. They clearly want to get rid of guns by targeting the means of legally transferring them. All great points, and that's not even touching the other stuff about FFL requirements. If this bill passes, it would be arguably the worst semi-auto ban in the country. |
|
For those that aren't following the progress of SB17. It was last heard in the House Judiciary Committee late Monday night. By early Tuesday morning they had not reviewed all the amendments nor took a vote. There was no movement yesterday on it throughout the day or evening. The judiciary committee is not scheduled to meet today. What does that mean? It means that SB17 is essentially dead. The judiciary would have to meet and vote on the bill. It would have to be scheduled and heard then voted on the floor. If the amendments were incorporated it would have to go back to the senate for a concurrence vote. Is it safe to say it is absolutely dead? Probably, but never underestimate what they're willing to do to ram through legislation in the final hours. We're talking less than 24hrs with numerous other bills that are taking priority. If I'm missing something or incorrect, someone please correct me, but that's where we are at from everything I am following. |
|
Originally Posted By Hilljack: Saved by the clock? Not great but it is better than the dims getting their way. I'm sure they will dig this turd back up next time around. Certainly will - as they do every year in various forms. They were smart about making this an omnibus bill and rolling in the FFL requirements to make it more palatable. Don’t forget Romero and others wanted you to give up your guns a couple bills back. Some rumors about a special session to get this through, but only rumors and speculation so far. |
Thick Member
Joined:
Jul 2024
Posts:
1120
EE: 100% (22)
NM, USA
|
“By passing a ban this broad, we are handing the U.S. Supreme Court a perfect opportunity to deliver a definitive, nationwide ruling against state-level firearm restrictions” -Miranda Viscoli, executive director of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence First, I’m giving thanks to God and Clarence Thomas, whose legacy on the bench is a great weapon in the preservation of our liberty. Second, for my fellow New Mexicans, who stood up to unfuck this. They will be back; a year to prepare and to begin to change the political balance. |
Pretty much focused on off-grid property, acquisition of needed things for an uncertain future, and lightening the load of things.