The Left has demonized so-called assault weapons for decades now, despite them actually accounting for a ridiculously low number of homicides. We can debate why that is until we're blue in the face, but the truth is that it's a high-priority item for them.
And in New Mexico, a bill that lumps most semi-auto rifles into that category is one step closer to becoming law.
It's not unusual for the anti-gunners to take this approach, mind you, because the 1996 Assault Weapon Ban didn't do much because it was so easy to get around. This time, they're trying to basically wipe out an entire category of weapons, and the kicker is that we don't know quite how bad it'll be:
There is a committee sub for SB17 that hasn't been released to the public, but it is the bill the committee is debating. The sponsors and committee are purposefully withholding language on what could be the worst gun ban in the nation.
— NM Shooting Sports Association (@NM_SSA) February 5, 2026
This substitute bill comes as a result of their rejecting an amendment that would have stripped the worst of the language from the bill.
And again, we don't know precisely what they're looking to do beyond the broad strokes they've already made public.
Recommended
To be clear here, there will be some semi-automatic firearms that would survive the ban, no matter how they frame it, but it won't be enough to really justify it surviving a judicial challenge.
Ever since the decision in DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court has defended the idea that a weapon ban can only be justified if it pertains to a weapon that is both dangerous and unusual. The term "in common use" comes in here, and this is before we get into the decision from NYSRPA v. Bruen.
What I mean is that guns like AR-15s might be dangerous — all guns are, after all — but it's the most popular model of long gun in the United States. In other words, it's in common use, which means it can't be banned under multiple Supreme Court precedences. It's dangerous, but it's not unusual.
Then we get the Bruen decision, mentioned previously, which stated that for a gun control law to be constitutional, there has to be a historic analog from either the time of the nation's founding or from when the 14th Amendment was ratified. They failed to prioritize which period was most important, but the truth is that you're not going to find a blanket ban on a particular class of firearms anywhere in that history.
So, regardless of the withheld language, it shouldn't survive legal challenge if passed.
But the fact that they're withholding the text is especially troubling, considering that's the last thing any state lawmaker has the authority to do. They're trying to hide the text so the opposition can't be effective.
Leave it to the Left to engage in dirty tricks while attacking our rights.
If they get away with this in New Mexico, just imagine what they'll try in other states. I promise you that it won't be good.
