NM “Assault Weapons” bill gets a hearing Thursday

The “assault weapons” bill, New Mexico House Bill 402, will be heard by the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee at 1:30 PM Thursday, per the house committee schedule. Tonight I finished penning my note to my representative, who sits on that committee. It reads (in principle) as follows:

I don’t write letters like this every day. Today, though, I write to you with urgency regarding a bill that will come in front of you Thursday as a member of the Consumer & Public Affairs Committee, and may ultimately come before you on the house floor, namely House Bill 402 as submitted by Representative Easley.

That bill, focused on criminalization of future purchase, and on possession and safety issues related to “assault weapons”, flies in the face of our inalienable rights as specified in Amendment II, United States Constitution (and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller), and in our own State Constitution, 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.”

Those words were written in 1910, and ratified in time for statehood two years later. The concept of “security and defense” entrenched in that section of Article II was tested six years later when the town of Columbus was attacked by Pancho Villa’s Division of the North. The town, while a home to the 13th Cavalry, was strongly defended by its armed citizenry, who used their own guns to defend their lives and their property.

While the risk of cross-border incursion or foreign invasion is lower today, the continued need to protect one’s home, life, and the lives of one’s family are paramount. You have long been a proponent of maintaining an armed vigilance as one element of a balanced response to violence: you’ve worked for possession rights for officers of the court (as you’ve sponsored in various forms since 2003) together with domestic violence bills (such as HB 249, 2006) as well as numerous expenditures to enhance the Albuquerque Police Department.

For the maintenance of security and defense as laid out in Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution, in line with the rights laid out in the second amendment, I urge your strong opposition to Rep. Easley’s bill, and for the encouragement of fellow Republicans and liberty-minded Democrats in defeating this bill.

With warmest regards,

Kevin in ABQ


NOW is the time to act.
NOW is the time to make your voice heard.

Advertisements

Lapdogs and Kept Men

Both Brian Cates and Ace (who provided a link to Jerry Bowyer at Forbes) had columns of value today, all with some common themes that show the greased pole we face when competing in the arena of ideas.

Jerry Bowyer lays out the concept of “kept conservatives”:

The kept conservative’s announced job is to represent the conservative point of view, but their real job is to give the illusion of balance without really challenging any of the core tenets of liberalism. They spend lots of time ‘reinventing’ the Republican Party, and the new invention is always the same: more liberal. They live among liberals, their friends are liberals, and, of course, they are paid by liberals.

Do, in fact, read it all. Ace cites Mika Brzezinski’s pet rock, Joe Scarborough, as a perfect example of same, to which I added some humor in the comments:

Just remember: As soon as Joe announces for the Presidency

(chorus of laughter)

Ahem.

(silence)

As I was saying, as soon as Joe announces for the Presidency he’ll be declared the ‘maverick’ candidate, and if he should happen to get the nomination

(more laughter)

Yes, yes, get it out of your systems.

(more laughter, petering out in time)

Yes, now should he get the nomination, he’ll be described as he was all along – as a reactionary conservative.

To me, this is the flowchart path of the kept conservative in Washington (and, to the extent necessary, those outside the beltway – e.g., Chris Christie). As long as they stay in place, they’re beloved; once they express traditional orthodoxy (or leave the KeptCon reservation), all bets are off. A case study is Sen. John McCain.

Long loved as the ultimate “maverick”, as soon as he secured the 2008 GOP nomination we began to hear (unfounded) whispers on his private life, photos showing him as bloodthirsty, and more. Once the election was over, and McCain was no longer a threat, he could return to KeptCon status. but ask a few tough questions of DefSec nominee Chuck Hagel? Chris Matthews goes and suggests McCain might be having a “flashback” to his POW days.

To me, the picture of the last two general elections, and of the ways in which the left and the media (but I repeat myself) have taken centrists and made them Birchers tells me we’re as well off to nominate a Conservative and get it over with.

For true conservatives, those Jerry Bowyer describes as “St. Thomas More Conservatives”, the evolution path is simpler. Some pseudocode:

If type.conservative = StThomasMore then Reaction.Media = vapors and investigation

Ask Sarah Palin. Ask Rick Perry. And not all of these are inflicted by the media, either; some are self-inflicted, with the blood drawing the sharks. And while the opinions of the KeptCon are left for those of us on the right to reveal, it is done knowing that the effort, while useful, will lead to

Reaction.Media = Republican infighting and disunity

while the media keeps its powder dry for any signs of St. Thomas More Conservatives.

Brian, in a similar vein, hammers on the questions an engaged media would be asking if only the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave were a Republican (rather than Lapdog Media, I prefer the term “Tiger Beat Media”, as it gives more an appearance of the form of their trade they’re attempting to ply). And these two problems go hand in hand. For one has to have a desire to investigate to do investigative journalism. And one must be challenged with facts and the potential of shaming for ignoring a story if they refuse to do so. When the press assumes a unity viewpoint regarding power, as they have with this President, they in turn have vacated their independence, and are but organs of the state itself.

It’s late. That’s enough for now.