So the Catholic Church Says "Spend More" ?

Today's Albuquerque Journal ran an article on page C1 ("Metro & New NM") — PullTogether kicks off, faces funding skepticism

From the article —

In a separate and somewhat dueling news conference, Archbishop of Santa Fe John C. Wester said he wants state leaders to do more than "sing a jingle," and to find new revenue sources to pay for programs such as state-assisted child care and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or food stamps.

Now if the IRS were to yank the Archdiocese of Santa Fe's 501(c)(3) non-profit status so that donations are no longer deductible on the donors' 1040 (and PIT-1 ?) and the Church were subject to the same sorts of taxation as, say, the rest of us, how much could the State of New Mexico rake in from Wester and his buddies?

If Bishop Wester really cares about "the children" as much as he professes, why doesn't he cut the check to the State for whatever amount he deems necessary right now?

Or he could directly help those he claims to care about so much — which is preferable from my viewpoint, as that doesn't further increase the expenses and intrusiveness of Santa Fe, Washington DC, and One Civic Plaza.

Add to that the point that if those who profess to care about poor people so much would simply directly provide the help they say they is necessary instead of lobbying and agitating for a larger, more intrusive, more expensive welfare state, there wouldn't be as much of an underclass in America needing that help.

Finally, to paraphrase a friend from years ago:

Poverty in the Third World is when there are flies crawling on your kids as they go through a trash heap, looking for whatever.

Poverty in America is when you get that letter from Comcast or DirecTV with "FINAL NOTICE" printed across the top in big letters.

---

NOTES

1. Approximate reading level – 18.5

---

Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

China's "Sesame Credit" -- Coming to America Soon!

After watching that video clip, who can truthfully say that the DNC and a good bit of the RNC wouldn't want something along the lines of China's proposed "Social Credit System" for deployment here in the States?

Why, they might even make your health a part of your "personal score," thanks to Obama's federalized copy-and-paste job from Massachusetts Romneycare. So much for the "privacy guarantees" that were allegedly instituted with HIPAA.

If the Imperial District wants to know if you've made any financial transactions that they disapprove of, they can always check with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and add those to your score.

I'm sure I left some things out, but the Imperials from the District of Criminals will think of things to fill in any blanks I left here.

H/T L. Neil Smith at The Libertarian Enterprise

---

Copyright © 2016 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 medit.

2016 Annual Convention, Libertarian Party of New Mexico

Libertarian Party of New Mexico

2016 Annual State Convention

Saturday, 16 April 2015, 10 AM — 4:45 PM

Room 2406, UNM School of Law

1117 Stanford Street NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106

Contact Marty Swinney – 575-648-4240 for details

Donations to defray the costs of the convention will be greatly appreciated.

Convention Schedule (Tentative)

10:00 – 10:30	Registration
10:30 – 10:45	Welcome and Introduction by Marty Swinney, Chair, LPNM
10:45 – 12:00	Address and Q&A by Jay Carroll and David Walker, The Convention of the States
12:00 – 1:30	Lunch Break
1:30 – 2:30	Keynote address by Lily Tang Williams, My Journey For Freedom — From Mao's Young Pioneer To Libertarian
2:30 – 2:45	Q&A period for Lily Williams
2:45 – 4:45	LPNM Business Meeting
	• All who are registered to vote with the State of New Mexico as Libertarians ("LIB" on the voter registration card) can vote during nominations for public office.
	• Only Caucus Members can vote during LPNM business and internal LPNM elections.
	• Visitors do not vote in any actions or activities.
	• Central Committee meeting after close of the LPNM Business Meeting.
4:45	Convention Closes

Handouts for Distribution

The LPNM membership reserves the right to disavow any handouts (handbills, brochures, CDs, DVDs, etc.) offered for distribution to convention membership, as well as the person(s) doing the distributing.

Nominations for Candidates for Public Office

Anyone wanting to vote to nominate candidates for public office needs to make sure that they're registered to vote as "Libertarian" or "LIB" as the Secretary of State prints on the voter registration cards before they show up for the Convention.

So make sure to bring your voter registration card.

Participating in LPNM Internal Business

All you have to do to participate in the LPNM's internal business (changes to the Constitution and Bylaws, internal nominations, etc.) is to do the following (all steps are necessary, regardless of order completed):

1. Register to vote as "Libertarian" so that your voter registration card reads "LIB" in the spot marked "PARTY" (lower right-hand corner).
2. Sign up as what the LPNM refers to as a "Caucus Member." Basically, this means that you've signed the Non-Aggression Pledge and paid $25 in dues. You can do this at the Convention itself, as we'll have the necessary paperwork on hand.
3. Pay the required amount for a convention membership.

Out-of-State Visitors

1. All national-level candidates (for President, National Chair, LNC spots, etc.) are responsible for covering their own expenses, including but not limited to travel, meals, and lodging. They are, of course, free to solicit financial or other support from individual LPNM members, but the LPNM will not expend organizational resources for this purpose.
2. The LPNM as an organization will NOT endorse candidates for any office until they have been officially nominated by an accredited affiliate of the Libertarian Party.

Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of New Mexico

Quote of the Day for Thursday, 21 January 2016

If the Constitution of the United States were written based on current policies and attitudes of those who govern us, its preamble would probably be something like this:

WE THE AUTHORITIES, of the State of America, in order to form the basis for societal perfection, establish social justice, insure domestic obedience, provide for the global defense, promote the welfare of special interests, and secure the bondage of national debt from ourselves to our posterity, do mandate and impose these executive orders upon the people of the Nation, formerly known as the United States of America.

— Arthur Berman

H/T Frank Ney

---

Copyright © 2016 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 medit.

"Nobody wants to take your guns" v.1

Whenever I, or others, object to "registration" or bans on transfers, or other forms of "gun control" and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we're paranoid and "nobody wants to take your guns."

Well, perhaps we should consider these "nobodies":

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls . . . and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act . . . [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."
Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"
John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."
Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."
Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers . . . No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."
Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."
William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take . . . we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."
U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October 1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."
Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true . . . "
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill . . . establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."
U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."
Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times
12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned . . . We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."
The Washington Post – "Legal Guns Kill Too" – November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."
USA Today – Michael Gartner – Former president of NBC News – "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" – January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
           (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
           (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
           (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."
Legislation introduced in Missouri. 2013

And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program.  Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include ALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed / sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated. ("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it . . . We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”
Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed?  "Final Solution" anyone?)
(Emphasis added in the above).

"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”  Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey's State Legislature, May 9, 2013

“No one in this country should have guns.” Superior Court Judge, Robert C. Brunetti, Bristol, CT. September, 2013

Proposed Missouri Bill to ban "assault weapons":


4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

New York sends out Confiscation letters.

But nobody wants to take our guns?

---

NOTES

1. Approximate reading level – 10.9
   
   
2. Original article

---

Copyright © 2016 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 medit.

LPNM 2016 Annual State Convention

More Hoplophobia and Victim Disarmament from Michelle Lujan Grisham

Lujan-Grisham's original text is in italics, my comments are in bold.

Say you believe that now is the time to act on reducing gun violence in America by adding your name to our petition today.

Show me a responsible gun owner who actually approves of "gun violence," OK?

Dear Mike,

During my time in Congress, I've participated in more moments of silence to honor the victims of gun violence than policy debates about how to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. It's unacceptable.

Never mind that the phrase "gun violence" is intended to provoke an anti-firearm emotional state. Notice how the hoplophobes never talk about "knife violence" or "baseball bat violence" or "beer bottle violence" ?

Just look at what our community in New Mexico is coping with right now: -- the tragic murder of an ADP police officer -- the fatal road rage shooting of a 4-year-old girl in Albuquerque -- and another incident just this week in Española where a brawl turned into something worse when a man pulled out a gun and shot an 8-year-old boy

With dangerous weapons killing an average of 36 people every day, it's only a matter of time until another community in New Mexico has to suffer.

These incidents bring to bare that many communities -- that every single community across the country -- are suffering from gun violence, and other public safety issues. In Washington, there is a growing sense that we are failing to act as policy makers, yet action continues to be stalled. And these recent shootings are a reminder of how unacceptable that has become.

Politicians are always the last people we should look to in order to solve any problem.

Duh.

Sign this petition to stand with me in tackling gun violence -- we can no longer afford to wait to act on gun violence. The time is now.

I'm already taking specific steps to address this crisis in Washington.

First, I'm co-sponsoring the bipartisan^[1] King-Thompson bill^[2], which expands existing background checks to cover all commercial firearm sales. On top of that, I'm aggressively supporting the Gun Violence Research Act^[3], which will repeal the ban on CDC gun violence research.

And how many 20-25 year-old criminals will be labeled as "teen-agers? How many instances of justifiable self-defense using firearms will be lumped in as "gun violence" ?

Neither of these Acts has a real chance of passing the Republican-led U.S. House, which has to at least pay lip service to respecting the right of private civilians to own and carry weapons, as gauranteed by the Second Amendment. Even most Democrats pay that lip service, in the same breath as they propose to rewrite the Second into oblivion.

I feel strongly that everyone has the right to safety in their community. It is fundamental to the American dream, and that's why it is imperative that we act on gun violence before it's too late. Will you stand with me today?

It's always "imperative," isn't it?

Add your name to our gun violence petition right here, right now

Best wishes,

Michelle Lujan Grisham

P.S. And just this past week, I was interviewed on KOB4 in Albuquerque to talk about the recent gun violence in New Mexico. You can watch it here.

http://kob.com/article/stories/S3950289.shtml

Never shy for the media, is she?

This email was sent to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. If you want to unsubscribe then you can here: http://go.michellelujangrisham.com/unsubscribe

PAID FOR BY FRIENDS OF MICHELLE

This email was sent to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

If you believe we need a Congresswoman who will fight to give everyone a chance to live the American Dream, then follow Michelle Lujan Grisham on Facebook / Twitter

Should you want to unsubscribe then you can click here.

Join Michelle Lujan Grisham in building a stronger community and country by making a contribution to our campaign here.

Of course she's all about enhancing the cash flow.

---

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

1. The Republican sponsoring this bit of hoplophobic nonsense is none other than the cretinous Peter King from Long Island, New York.
   
   
2. HR 1217 – "Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2015"
   
   
3. HR 3926 – "Gun Violence Research Act"

NOTES

1. Approximate reading level – 12.2

---

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 gedit Notepad++.

[Garrison Center] Arbitration Isn't The Problem

Arbitration Isn't The Problem

November 5, 2015 — Thomas L. Knapp

Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Robert Gebeloff of the New York Times claim to have discovered "a far-reaching power play orchestrated by American corporations" ("Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice," October 31^[1]). They're missing the forest for the trees. Arbitration is not the problem.

Corporate preference for private arbitration instead of litigation in government courts is nothing new. The twist in the Times expose is that arbitration clauses have evolved to make it more difficult for dissatisfied customers to band together and bring particular types of suits: "Class actions" in which numerous complaints are bundled together, reducing the plaintiffs' costs and resulting in huge potential aggregated damage awards.

In recent years, arbitration clauses have begun specifying individual arbitration. Corporate attorneys know that most customers won't spend hundreds or thousands of dollars arbitrating $10 complaints. If the complaints can't be aggregated, they're not worth pursuing from a financial standpoint. A win for the corporations, a loss for consumers whose complaints don't pass the financial test.

What Silver-Greenberg and Gebeloff leave out are two important consumer tools: Information and choice.

Their story opens with reference to "a clause that most customers probably miss" on "page 5 of a credit card contract."

The reason most customers probably miss that clause is that most customers don't bother to read contracts pertaining to small-money matters, or have them reviewed by attorneys, before signing them. That's a choice. So is the decision to sign something one hasn't read.

The Times piece quotes F. Paul Bland Jr. of Public Justice, a "national consumer advocate group." Bland claims that "[c]orporations are allowed to strip people of their constitutional right to go to court." No, people are allowed to voluntarily waive their right to go to court, in return for valuable considerations. If they do so from voluntary ignorance, that's their fault and no one else's.

It's not that complicated:

If you don't want to commit to arbitration in general, or to individual arbitration in particular, don't sign contracts committing yourself to those things.

If you consider reading and understanding a contract before you sign it to be too much work, don't complain when your decision to remain ignorant comes back to bite you.

If you really, really want something, but the only way to get it is to accept an arbitration clause, then make your choice. Do without that thing or to accept the clause. Nobody owes you a smart phone or a credit card or whatever. Take the deal or don’t take the deal. Don't blame arbitration itself, which is as good in some cases, and better in most, than resort to government courts. Remember, it was government that made the corporations so powerful in the first place.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

---

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

1. http://nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html
   
   

NOTES

1. Approximate reading level – 12.3
   
   
2. Original article
   
   

---

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with Notepad++ and KWrite.

[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

---

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.

Convention of States Resolution

Convention of States resolution:

Whereas the Libertarian Party of New Mexico is a political party with the goal of increasing liberty in New Mexico; and

Whereas the federal government of the United States in all its branches has been recently engaged in limiting the powers belonging to the several states and to the people in violation of the Constitution of the United States; and

Whereas, the Constitution provides a remedy to the states and the people for the purpose of addressing said violations in the form of an Article 5 Convention of the States to amend the Constitution:

Be it resolved that the Libertarian party of New Mexico endorses the political work necessary to pass a resolution in the New Mexico legislature to apply for a Convention of the States to amend the Constitution as an exercise in asserting the powers reserved to the states and to the people in order to preserve and increase liberty.

Resolution passed by the LPNM Central Committee on Sunday, 2 August 2015

---

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

1. Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution [Wikipedia page]
   
   
2. http://conventionofstates.com/ — the official site
   
   
3. Second Constitutional Convention of the United States [Wikipedia page]
   
   
4. List of state applications for an Article V Convention [Wikipedia page]

NOTES

1. Approximate reading level – 15.6
   
   

---

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

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack