Has Bloomberg bought this state legislature?

Mike Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety spent over $250,000 in direct contributions in New Mexico legislative campaigns last November – more than any other special-interest group – plus various in-kind and less obvious donations from Bloomberg subsidiaries. In comparison, the National Rifle Association spent about $10,000 in New Mexico. As a result, Bloomberg is claiming credit for Democrats increasing their majority in the State Senate and taking control of the State House. The election success prompted the Bloomberg subsidiary, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, to brag that a gun control majority would control the legislature this year, and they're calling in their marker with their flagship legislation, a so-called "universal background check" bill.

As we have seen in several other states in recent years, the Bloomberg conglomerate, and their friends in the media, claims the bill closes a "dangerous loophole" in the state's gun laws. With baited breath, gun control proponents decry the ability of convicted felons and other prohibited persons to "buy a gun, no questions asked" from "private dealers" at gun shows and over the Internet. They also doggedly repeat the bogus claim that some 90 percent of citizens support these types of laws.

All of these claims are pure hogwash. Selling or transferring personal property without government interference is not a "loophole"; it is a basic right – and it is important to note that the bill being considered by the New Mexico Legislature is not just about sales, not just about gun shows and not about imaginary "Internet gun sales." The bill would require a licensed gun dealer to participate in every transfer of a firearm – even those that are temporary and those between close friends and family members. Loaning a gun to a friend for a training class, a competition, or a hunting trip would require going to a dealer, paying a fee, filling out paperwork – which would be required to be maintained for decades – and submitting to a background check. This same costly and time-consuming process would have to be repeated when a loaned gun or one stored for a friend is transferred back to its rightful owner.

Criminals – particularly those who are prohibited from even touching a gun – don't generally acquire guns through legal channels. They don't buy from a gun dealer or a private seller at a gun show or through a classified ad. Criminals virtually always acquire their guns via illegal means, either stealing them, buying them from someone else who stole or otherwise acquired them illegally, or having someone with a clean record buy them. This has been clearly demonstrated with crime-gun traces and polling of convicted criminals in prison.

One of the primary reasons criminals don't buy their guns from legal, private sellers is that legal gun owners are overwhelmingly responsible, law-abiding citizens who would refuse to sell a gun to anyone they weren't comfortable with, and usually require that a buyer at least provide their driver's license prior to agreeing to a sale. There is no such thing as an "Internet gun sale." All guns sales are required by federal law to be face-to-face transactions. The only way the Internet might be involved is as an advertising venue, like classified ads in the newspaper.

As to the repeated claims that some 90 percent of Americans support the legislation, that's demonstrably false. A high percentage might support the idea of background checks, but once they understand what Bloomberg's plan actually does, that support quickly evaporates. This has been proven in three states where Bloomberg background-check initiatives have been voted on in recent years. In each case, proponents of the initiative outspent opponents by wide margins, flooding airwaves and mailboxes with misleading ads urging voters to approve the initiative. In spite of the disparity in spending, the initiatives passed by narrow margins in two states and failed in the other. Washington voters approved the measure by a margin of about 2 percent. Nevada passed it by less than one-half of 1 percent, only acquiring a majority in one county. And Maine voters rejected the measure by a narrow margin.

The more people know about what Bloomberg's proposals actually do, the less likely they are to support or vote for them, even if they support the concept of broader background checks for gun purchases. As with all legislation, the devil is in the details, and the details of Bloomberg's proposal are a devilish mess. If there were truly 90 percent support for these laws, they would win overwhelmingly in every state where they are introduced. The fact that they have divided voters fairly evenly – in spite of lopsided spending in support of them – proves that the 90 percent support statistic is a fiction based on manipulated polls.

The people of New Mexico have time to stop Bloomberg's hostile takeover of their rights, but they must act fast. They must flood legislators' offices with calls and emails urging them to reject the Bloomberg background check bill. At this point, the easy argument is that the bill goes too far. The governor also needs to hear from constituents, calling on her to veto the bill if it makes it to her desk. Again, the argument is that this bill goes too far. It is not the simple gun show bill she previously said she would sign. This bill is much more complex and far-reaching. She must not allow Mike Bloomberg to roll in from New York with his wads of cash and purchase rights from unsuspecting New Mexicans.

Bloomberg believes he purchased the New Mexico State Legislature for the paltry sum of a quarter of a million dollars, but it is the people, not Bloomberg, to whom the politicians must answer, and it is the people who must rise up and demand that their rights be protected from the megalomaniacal, hoplophobic New York billionaire.

knox170224