Lack of Ethics...

I am a Marylander, a Baltimorean, born and bred.

The husband, 3 dogs, 1 cat, and I left Maryland some 27 years ago and moved to New Mexico for what we thought was more opportunity, lower taxes, and protected gun rights. Boy, were we WRONG! 

Maryland politics was corrupt. I mean, we were the home of Dale Anderson, convicted for tax crimes, extortion, and conspiracy; Marvin Mandel, convicted of pushing legislation to benefit friends and donors; and, perhaps most famous of them all, former Vice President, Spiro T Agnew, who entered a plea of 'nolo contendre' to charges of tax evasion. I now say, "I thought Maryland politics was corrupt. Then, I moved to New Mexico! New Mexico political corruption makes Maryland look like the Ted Mack Amateur Hour." 

That brings me to today.

The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The New Mexico Constitutions says, "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. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

Gun owners in New Mexico are being attacked by the anti-gun faction of the Progressive Leftist Dems. We are fighting attempts to ban guns by various means, including Red Flag Laws, such as Senate Bill 5 (SB 5).

This travesty of a bill denies people, who have committed no crimes, their rights by convicting and stripping them of their rights in secret proceedings where they have neither voice nor representation. Rights are being taken away based on rumors and yet, New Mexico judges have a history of releasing convicted murderers, who received due process, with 30-day sentences. This bill fails to provide safeguards against abuse by vengeful ex-spouses and lovers, neighbors, and relatives with whom one may disagree. 

There are no penalties in it for those who abuse it by filing fraudulent complaints and, in fact, they are protected in this bill. Nothing to protect law abiding gun owners from it being used as a weapon in a bad divorce or from its being used by a stalker to disarm their prey. What this bill does do is task the accused with PROVING they are innocent of some THEORHETICAL crime they MAY commit at some point in time in the FUTURE based on no hard evidence, just supposition, or, if you will, a 'best guess'. It also allows law enforcement to CONFISCATE private property (guns) based on those UNSUBSTANTIATED claims. It also allows law enforcement to SELL that property if it goes unclaimed for a period of time.

New Mexico has a law on the books that bans civil asset forfeiture unless there is an accompanying crime. This bill allows for civil asset forfeiture (guns are assets) and there is no crime. 

In this bill, the gun owner has no input prior to confiscation. They have no attorney and the first time many may be aware of a problem is when the police come knocking on the door. This has already lead to tragic consequences in other states with both gun owners and law enforcement officers needlessly dying. 

This bill is being ram rodded through the State Legislature, much to the chagrin of the citizens and it's all being done for Bloomberg dollars and political theater. 

This bill does nothing for public safety. It does nothing for those in crisis. The sole purpose for this bill is as a GUN GRAB.

Other highlights of the proposed New Mexico Red Flag Law are:

1. Takes guns but allows the dangerous person to roam the streets;
2. Includes the word, "imminent", which was described by Sen Cervantes, one of the bill's sponsors, as 48 hours. When questioned about the definition of imminent, he stated, "In New Mexico, imminent means 48 hours."
3. Gives the imminently dangerous person 48 hours to complete their destructive plan;
4. No due process prior to confiscation;
5. Accused must prove their innocence, when there is no crime; and
6. If the accuser says you have 3 guns and there are only 2, you must prove that you never had 3 guns and only have 2. 

How does one prove innocence with no crime and how does one prove no possession of a gun one has never had? 

Here's something interesting about two of the bill's sponsors, Rep Daymon Ely and the previously mentioned Sen Joe Cervantes. They are personal injury attorneys. Potentially, they can personally benefit from this bill. At some point in time, during one of the revisions, the noted attorneys added the following:

41-1-12 LIABILITY - LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS - The immunity granted pursuant to Subsection A of Section [5-14-4 NMSA 1953] 41-4-4 NMSA 1978 does not apply to liability for personal injury, bodily injury, wrongful death or property damage resulting from assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, defamation of character, violation of property rights, failure to comply with duties established pursuant to statute or law or deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and laws of the United States or new Mexico when caused by law enforcement officers while acting within the scope of their duties. For purposes of this section, "law enforcement officer" means a public officer vested by law with the power to maintain order to make arrests for crime or to detain persons suspected of committing a crime whether that duty extends to all crimes or is limited to specific crimes." 

This bill allows people to file suit against county Sheriffs, who are the ones tasked with filing and serving the ERPO. If they refuse to do so and a crime is committed, they are held liable. The are also held liable if they do file an ERPO and it is found that the claims were fraudulent. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Ask yourself, why would politicians put our Sheriffs in such an untenable position. It is to punish them for standing up and honoring their oath to the Constitutions of the United States and New Mexico. They have pointed out the major flaws in this bill and they are being punished for it. 

In addition to allowing people to sue, Rep Ely and Sen Cervantes, attempted to amend the liability limits of existing law with Floor Amendment 1.  

Floor Amend 1 - Removal of liability caps for law enforcement officers who don't comply wiht the law and are subsequently sued. Raises the liability from $300,000 to $1,000,000 for past and future medical and medically related expenses; and raises the $400,000 to $1,000,000 for any umber of claims arising out of a single occurrence for all damages other than real property damage and medically related expenses as permitted under the Tort Claims Act. Raises the total liability for all claims from a shall not exceed limit of $750,000 to $2,000,000. 

This is just flat out VINDICTIVNESS.

Stefani Lord

Accoding to Stefani Lord, Pro Gun Women, the New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct require that "When the lawyer knows that the interests of a client may be materially benefitted by a decision in which the lawyer participates, the lawyer shall disclose that fact."

Ms Lord continues by stating, "By adding provisions that eliminate the current law enforcement immunity statute, this amendment will directly benefit their clients and their law firms. Sen Cervantes and Rep Ely should have been disqualified or recused themselves from SB 5. Instead of making an ethical and professional decision, both attorneys pushed for amendments that will end up lining their  pockets." 

I'm wondering if either Rep Ely or Sen Cervantes has notified anyone.

It is the opinion of this writer that Rep Ely and Sen Cervantes needed to recuse themselves from voting on this bill, as it can directly benefit their clients. They did not.  It is also my opinion that if this bill passes, and everything indicates that it will, they need to be sued by New Mexican gun owners and the Sheriffs' Association for violating 1) their oath of office, 2) violating NM Professional Standards, and 3) violating ethical standards.

This bill has been presented as "the perfect bill". It has been amended at least 6 times. People have not been given the opportunity to read the latest revision. In addition, rather than it going to the House Judiciary Committee and the lawyers, it's been given to the Corporations Committee, people with little knowledge of law. 

We the gun owners and law abiding people of New Mexico are about to be shafted. Elections have consequences and we are about to suffer them. 

To quote Rep Gregg Schmedes...  "This is tyranny, folks!"