Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Tuesday, 22 September 2020

[Letter to ABQ City Council] Please OPPOSE O-19-82 AND O-19-83

Filed under: Politics, Resistance, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 12:28 AM (00:28)

From: Mike Blessing
To: Councilor Lan Sena <lansena@cabq.gov>, Councilor Isaac Benton <ibenton@cabq.gov>, Councilor Klarissa Peña <kpena@cabq.gov>, Councilor Brook Bassan <bbassan@cabq.gov>, Councilor Cynthia Borrego <cynthiaborrego@cabq.gov>, Councilor Pat Davis <patdavis@cabq.gov>, Councilor Diane Gibson <dgibson@cabq.gov>, Councilor Trudy Jones <trudyjones@cabq.gov>, Councilor Don Harris <dharris@cabq.gov>
CC: Policy Analyst Diane Dolan <ddolan@cabq.gov>, Policy Analyst Rachael Hernandez <rmhernandez@cabq.gov>, Policy Analyst Susan Vigil <susanvigil@cabq.gov>, Policy Analyst Sean Foran <seanforan@cabq.gov>, Policy Analyst Abigail Stiles <astiles@cabq.gov>, Policy Analyst Aziza Chavez <azizachavez@cabq.gov>, Policy Analyst Laura Rummler <lrummler@cabq.gov>
Date: September 21, 2020, 11:42 AM MST
Subject: Please OPPOSE O-19-82 AND O-19-83

Dear Councilors:

I am writing to you in order to speak up against two pieces of proposed legislation scheduled to come before the Council today, O-19-82 and O-19-83.

Ordinance O-19-82 will attempt to mandate secure storage of firearms.

Ordinance O-19-83 seeks to create a city ordinance out of Keller’s questionable order banning firearms on city owned or leased properties.

Both ordinances would violate the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, Article II, Section 6, which states:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

A recent attempt to pass a non-binding resolution to repeal this seciton of the state Constitution failed in the council 5-4.

Let’s make no mistake about it these proposed ordinances are in no way, shape or form about “gun safety” or “gun control”.

True gun safety and gun control stem from the four safety rules, the seven fundamentals of marksmanship, and knowing what is and is not a legitimate target.

If the people backing “Everytown for Gun Safety” truly care about firearms safety, then why aren’t they chipping in towards firearms safety training, as does the group they list as their archnemesis, the National Rifle Association?

If Michael Bloomberg and the other multi-millionaires behind “Everytown for Gun Safety” truly cared about gun safety, they would put their millions behind the construction of MORE shooting ranges, and the maintenance of existing ones. They would chip in for the creation of DVDs and online video shows that provide instruction on the safe and proficient handling of firearms.

Instead, all they do is lobby and agitate for more restrictive laws upon the pre-existing civil, Constitutional, human individual right to own and carry weapons, as supposed to be guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico.

Rather, the legislation in question (O-19-82 and O-19-83) is more properly called “victim disarmament,” in that the people most likely to be affected by it are the people who have the most reason to own and carry firearms for self-defense — the little old lady or the paraplegic who lives alone in a bad neighborhood, the five-foot-nothing 100-pound woman being stalked by a six-foot 200-pound deranged ex-boyfriend.

The bad people (the criminals, terrorists, and violence-inclined mental defectives) whom the proponents of this legislation say will be disarmed by it most likely will not be affected in the least. If they want access to a firearm, they will have it, by hook or by crook.

You see, the bad guys have found this massive loophole in the existing restrictions on private civilians’ rights to own and carry weapons called “breaking the law.”

There are already 20,000 to 25,000 existing restrictions upon the pre-existing individual, civil, Constitutional, human right to own and carry weapons, which are supposed to be guaranteed against State infringement by the Second Amendment and Article 2, Section 6 of the State Constitution. None of these anti-liberty statutes has stopped a bad guy from obtaining a firearm when they want it.

Laws already exist that prohibit felons, domestic abusers, foreign terrorists, incurable drug abusers and alcoholics, and mental defectives from obtaining, owning or carrying firearms.

Laws already exist that prohibit the use of firearms (and other objects) to harm other people (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.).

I think it’s safe to say that all these laws have done is keep honest people honest, the same way locks on doors do.

Those who propose further infringements upon individual liberty aren’t truly looking to improve the human condition at all, but seeking more power over others for whatever reasons. No good will come from these infringements — no good has ever come from these sorts of laws, and no good ever will.

As for the phrase “gun violence” —

Why are not criminal stabbings or slashings with knives ever referred to as “knife violence” ?

Why are hit and run murders done with cars or trucks never called “automotive violence” ?

Why are attacks using baseball bats, pry bars, hammers and pieces of steel rebar never referred to as “blunt object violence” ?

Look, no one is trying to take your government away. We just want to have an honest, open, adult conversation about common-sense restrictions on government. If we can save just one child from government violence, it will be worth it.

Mike Blessing

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should — you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer — what’s the question?


RESPONSES FROM THE COUNCILORS [2]

From: Bassan, Brook <bbassan@cabq.gov>
To: Mike Blessing
Date: September 21, 2020, 11:48 AM MST
Subject: Re: Please OPPOSE O-19-82 AND O-19-83

Good morning,

I agree with your statements. I do not believe we should impose more regulations especially at a municipal level and when they appear to work in opposition of the United States Constitution while possibly putting more innocent people at risk. I do not plan on supporting these Ordinances.

Thank you for reaching out.

Brook Bassan
Albuquerque City Councilor
District 4
Office: 505-768-3101
Fax: 505-768-3227
Email: bbassan@cabq.gov

From: Jones, Trudy <trudyjones@cabq.gov>
To: Mike Blessing
Date: September 21, 2020, 11:56 AM MST
Subject: Re: Please OPPOSE O-19-82 AND O-19-83

Thank you for your comments. I do not support this legislation.

Trudy E. Jones


NOTES

  1. Reposted —
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs — Diaspora* / Facebook page / Flote / Gab / Spreely page / Twitter / VK / Wimkin page
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook page / Spreely page / Twitter / WordPress

Copyright © 2020 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepadqq and Notepad++.

Saturday, 10 October 2015

[ABQ Journal] ABQ mayor’s marijuana veto survives challenge

ABQ mayor’s marijuana veto survives challenge

By Dan McKay / Journal Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 7:26pm
Updated: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:09pm

Mayor Richard Berry’s veto of a marijuana decriminalization bill withstood a challenge from Albuquerque city councilors on Wednesday.

Democrats on the City Council failed to persuade one of their Republican colleagues to change positions and join them in favor of a veto override.

But no one changed positions. The override attempt failed on a 5-4 vote along party lines.

It takes six of nine councilors to override a mayoral veto.

About a half-dozen speakers urged councilors to override the veto and enact the legislation – which called for making it a civil offense, not a criminal violation, under city law to possess an ounce or less of marijuana.

A companion bill sought to make marijuana a low priority for law enforcement.

Berry, a Republican, vetoed both proposals. He said they conflicted with state and federal law.

Councilors Isaac Benton and Rey Garduño, who co-sponsored the legislation, said cities have authority to set their own penalties for marijuana possession. That gives police officers discretion to cite people under either a local ordinance or under state law, they said.

Furthermore, the two argued, local voters already support reducing marijuana penalties.

“We don’t have to wait for the federal government or the state of New Mexico to tell us how to govern our own community, or respond to the voice of the community,” Benton said as he read a joint statement.

About 60 percent of Bernalillo County voters last year expressed support for decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. That was in response to a nonbinding question on the general-election ballot.

None of the council’s four Republicans spoke about the veto Wednesday. But they’ve previously said they don’t view city government as the right venue for changing drug laws.

That didn’t stop people from trying to change their minds.

Mike Blessing of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico told councilors they were supporting organized crime if they refuse to change the law. Support for an override, however, means “you’re standing up for free markets,” Blessing said.

Other supporters said that a marijuana conviction can make it hard to find a job and that enforcement draws resources away from more-serious crimes.

“The war on drugs has been a terrible failure,” Garduño said. “We know this isn’t working.”

In New Mexico, marijuana use is legal only for medical purposes.

Supporting the override were Benton, Garduño, Ken Sanchez, Diane Gibson and Klarissa Peña, all Democrats.

Republicans Brad Winter, Dan Lewis, Trudy Jones and Don Harris voted “no.”


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. City Council on 2015-10-07 5:00 PM – TWENTY-FIRST COUNCIL – FORTY-NINTH MEETING
  2. DPA Statement: Albuquerque Mayor Berry’s Veto of Marijuana Decriminalization Lags Behind History and the Public’s Will

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 13.6
  2. Original article — http://abqjournal.com/656288/news/abq-mayors-marijuana-veto-stands.html
    Archived here — https://archive.is/3NWiF
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – App.net / Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook page / Facebook profile / FetLife / Google Plus / tsu / Twitter / WordPress
    2. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoBlog / Facebook page / Facebook group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoBlog / Facebook page / Facebook group
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    4. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    5. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Google Plus / Twitter / WordPress

Copyright © 2015 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with KWrite.

Sunday, 27 May 2001

[ABQ Journal] City Ban On Hidden Guns May Be DOA

Filed under: Media, Politics, Resistance, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 12:01 AM (00:01)

Albuquerque Journal, page A1

City Ban On Hidden Guns May Be DOA

Majority of Councilors Oppose Mayor’s Proposal

By Jeff Jones
Journal Staff Writer

Albuquerque Mayor Jim Baca’s proposal to opt out of a new state law and to ban concealed handguns appears to be a long shot with the City Council.

A majority of the nine council members said last week they are not inclined to ban concealed handguns in Albuquerque when it would be legal in other parts of the state.

And two of the councilors — both mayoral candidates — vowed to fight Baca’s bill tooth and nail.

“I think it would do Albuquerque a world of good for some of our thugs to have in their minds that they’re dealing with citizens who can protect themselves,” said Councilor Greg Payne, a mayoral candidate.

Fellow councilor and candidate Mike McEntee said, “Many of my constituents have called me and said, ‘Amen, brother. Fight Mayor Baca on this issue.”

But the ultimate decision on whether city residents — or any other civilian in the state, for that matter — can legally carry a hidden pistol could rest with a judge, not with a mayor or city council.

Those for and against concealed handguns don’t agree on much when it comes to the issue. But they do agree the new law appears destined for court.

“Somewhere along the line, somebody will sue,” Baca said.

See PROPOSED on PAGE A5


Copyright © 2001 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepadqq and Notepad++.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: