|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NM: New Mexico Senate narrowly passes 'red flag' bill
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Senate Bill 5, the Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act, was passed by a margin of two votes on the New Mexico Senate floor Friday afternoon.
The vote began at 3:20 p.m. After a roll call vote, the bill passed 22-20, with two abstentions.
Six amendments to the bill, including the correction of two typos, were adopted, leading Sen. Mark Moores (R-21) to comment in the debate that the bill was rushed.
Red flag laws were passed in 17 other states and the District of Columbia. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(2/9/2020)
|
| So, they essentially passed a rule of force, (Not a legitimate law) that deprives citizens of the Republic, their right to due process.....Disgraceful, if not down right criminal. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
