Santa Fe City Council to consider ammo ban

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:00 am | Updated: 12:44 am, Thu Jun 20, 2013.

The Santa Fe City Council is scheduled to weigh a proposal next week that would impose strict regulations on the number of bullets in gun magazines allowed in the city limits.

Councilors Patti Bushee and Ron Trujillo and Mayor David Coss are backing a plan for the city to prohibit possession and sales of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and other gun accessories that the proposed ordinance calls “high capacity ammunition feeding devices.”

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?



You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 5 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can get complete access to the online edition for $2.49 a week. If you need help, please contact our office at 505-986-3010 You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?



Rules of Conduct

  • 1 No Alias Commenters must use their real names.
  • 2 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 3 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. and please turn off caps lock.
  • 4 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Van Hall posted at 11:57 am on Tue, Jun 25, 2013.

    Van Hall Posts: 24

    Correction, three 20-round magazines in the FN57.

    The FN P90 is equipped with either 30 or 50-round magazines.

    The P90 is what the Secret Service uses. And if it is good enough for the President's bodyguards, then it is suitable for the citizen's self defense as well.

  • Van Hall posted at 11:53 am on Tue, Jun 25, 2013.

    Van Hall Posts: 24

    That must have been a California / Maryland/ Mass type of magazine in the FN57.

    The FN57 are typically supplied with three 30 round magazines as a supplemental Personal Defense Weapon to the P90.

    High capacity, lightweight, high velocity, incredibly accurate, and little recoil makes the FN57 a great self defense firearm.

  • Khal Spencer posted at 12:35 pm on Sun, Jun 23, 2013.

    Khal Spencer Posts: 418

    There is one of those change.org petitions against this ordinance here, courtesy of The Outdoorsman of Santa Fe.


  • Khal Spencer posted at 9:38 pm on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

    Khal Spencer Posts: 418


  • Khal Spencer posted at 3:25 pm on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

    Khal Spencer Posts: 418

    Another point. If someone is travelling on I-25 or US 84/285 to a shooting competition and his route takes him through Santa Fe, he/she could be subject to arrest for carrying a magazine that is legal in the rest of New Mexico. How one would prove its an "old", pre-ban magazine is anyone's guess. There is nothing in the proposal to permit traveling through Santa Fe on a State or Federal highway without running afoul of this proposal although presumably, the police would not be stopping every car with an NRA sticker on it to check for contraband.

    Here, at any rate, is the text.


  • Michael Grimler posted at 11:12 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

    shooter Posts: 189

    @WPeterson, +1

  • Pierce Knolls posted at 10:40 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

    Mister Pierce Posts: 1670

    "No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."

    It's my humble opinion that the our city councilors just don't feel important unless they're setting the city up to get sued. They're like kids who like to kick anthills just to prove that they're more powerful than us ants.

  • mark mocha posted at 10:28 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

    brnfre47 Posts: 210

    Actually, you are wrong on both counts. The only reason you call my opinions meaningless is because they don't coincide with your fearful, be scared of anyone different, redneck, canned from rush Limbaugh opinions. What kills me about you guys is not a one of you is a free thinker. All you do is repeat something you read on an NRA website or heard on a Rush Limbaugh show. The same tired old claptrap about how the government is gonna take away your guns and how its a constitutional right to have a 30 round magazine.
    Count number two. I know more than you could even imagine on the subject which is demonstrated by the depth of my knowledge on the subject and the fact that I can come up with my own arguments and state my own opinions, not someone else's. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
    And for the record anyone who thinks that this country needs less gun regulation instead of more is obviously an idiot who has no common sense whatsoever. There are too many guns in circulation. Fact. The only way to limit gun violence is to limit guns,.... and ammunition which is happening as we speak. You guys don't get it and you already missed the bus. Why do you think its getting so hard to find bullets, even in Walmart. Because the guns are already here. Can't do anything at all about that. What can be done is to slowly control the amount of ammunition available to the general public which the government is doing by buying most of it up and stockpiling it. Duh! don't you follow the news? Oops, that requires reading and then putting two and two together. But hey, what do I know. Wink!!

  • Khal Spencer posted at 10:26 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

    Khal Spencer Posts: 418

    Per Mister Pierce's post.

    "Six Things You Can Do To Prevent Gun Violence"

  • Michael Grimler posted at 10:07 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

    shooter Posts: 189

    You're probably one of those folks who believe that the police will protect you from all possible harm to you and your loved ones, all of the time, everywhere you may be, and in every possible circumstance.

    By the way...I have a bridge to sell you.

  • Michael Grimler posted at 10:03 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

    shooter Posts: 189

    So...apparently your answer is to just sit back and let yourself be victimized, I guess.

    Criminals must love you.

  • WPeterson posted at 7:58 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

    WPeterson Posts: 42

    You're not pulling anyone's chain here. You're merely demonstrating that you are clueless on this subject and that you have nothing meaningful or even interesting to add to the discussion. Your post are nothing but pollution, wasting electrons.

  • WPeterson posted at 1:31 am on Fri, Jun 21, 2013.

    WPeterson Posts: 42

    Thanks, Khal. He has lots of guns, but the closest thing he could grab when he realized someone was coming through the door was his FN Five-SeveN. All 3 hits were in the guy's leg. My friend is a very competent shooter, but people who get their knowledge of guns from movies have no idea how hard it can be to hit a still target with a pistol, let along make an effective hit when both the target and shooter are moving in the dark.

  • Khal Spencer posted at 10:18 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Khal Spencer Posts: 418

    Yikes. Sounds like your friend was under-gunned. A friend of mine in law enforcement won't carry anything under 40 cal, and preferably 45 ACP. Glad your friend is OK.

  • WPeterson posted at 10:00 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    WPeterson Posts: 42

    Idiots that know nothing about guns, or about self defense, probably shouldn't go off half-cocked making laws about such.

    Just last year my friend had to defend himself and his home from an intruder. His pistol only had 10 rounds in the magazine. He fired them all, hitting the assailant 3 times. In the dark, with the assailant moving fast, my friend also moving fast, and adrenalin off the hook, it is very difficult to hit anything. When realizing he was out of rounds, my friend had to hastily retreat to where he had another magazine. Luckily, the intruder (still mobile) decided to retreat as well at that point, if he had decide to continue after my friend he could have very well killed him.

    10 rounds? That's nothing in a highly volatile defensive situation.

  • WPeterson posted at 9:54 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    WPeterson Posts: 42

    You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

  • Khal Spencer posted at 9:10 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Khal Spencer Posts: 418

    Perhaps it might be useful
    to remind the public and perhaps even the elected leaders of Santa Fe that the New Mexico State Constitution has much tougher language on this narrow topic than even the U.S. Constitution.

    "Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] 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.))"

    It would seem to me that ammunition and loading devices are incident to bearing arms, and that the City, should it pass this bill, is in contempt of the State Constitution.

    I am happy to lend my assistance to reasonable and prudent ways to reduce illegal gun violence. This proposal is neither reasonable nor prudent.

  • Khal Spencer posted at 7:03 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Khal Spencer Posts: 418

    So much for civil discourse in the New Mexican.

  • Pierce Knolls posted at 3:25 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Mister Pierce Posts: 1670

    If this ordinance passes, someone will probably open a gun store just outside the city limits to sell "high capacity magazines" to deprived Santa Feans. Or maybe they'll just sell them from the fireworks stands out on the pueblos.

  • Pierce Knolls posted at 3:21 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Mister Pierce Posts: 1670

    According to New Mexicans for Gun Safety's Facebook page, they want to ban all semi-automatic weapons from civilians, as well as prohibit open carry. They're obviously not pro gun safety, they're just anti-gun, it's not the same thing. It's like the folks who call themselves Mayors Against Illegal Gun who go around supporting laws that will create more illegal guns by outlawing guns that are currently legally owned by law-abiding citizens. They're just being intentionally misleading about their true intentions.

  • Khal Spencer posted at 2:46 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Khal Spencer Posts: 418

    No, I wasn't there, but I can make an argument without constant resort to ad hominem.

  • Pierce Knolls posted at 2:38 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Mister Pierce Posts: 1670

    The proposed ordinance starts by telling us that guns with a capacity of more than ten rounds serve no self defense role. But then the proposed ordinance goes on to tell us that retired law enforcement officers will be exempt from the ten round limit, which, according to Chief Rael, is because "some people might want to harm former officers."


  • Khal Spencer posted at 2:15 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Khal Spencer Posts: 418

    Based on those FBI statistics, roughly twenty times more people, 6220, were murdered with handguns than with rifles of all types. But there is something else going on. Handgun murders are onesies and twosies. Assault rifle murders are in tens and twenties. Like extremely infrequent but catastrophic aircraft crashes vs. everyday car crashes (that kill over 30,000 people a year), people react to large, infrequent events and ignore everyday events that are far more lethal to the public.

    Besides, those big, infrequent events happen in nice, Middle America, USA, whereas most of those handgun murders happen in those nasty inner cities. There is more than a touch of race and class based concern here.

  • Pierce Knolls posted at 1:57 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Mister Pierce Posts: 1670

    According to the FBI's data, only 323 people were killed with rlfles in 2011, while in that same year 1,694 people were killed with knives/cutting instruments, 496 people were killed with blunt instruments (hammers/clubs), and 726 people were beaten to death by someone using only their hands and/or feet.


    Let's be real, assault weapons just aren't commonly used to murder people, with or without high capacity magazines.

  • Khal Spencer posted at 1:08 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Khal Spencer Posts: 418

    Do we have any gun-toting lawyers reading this? How would the state constitution apply?


    What is INCIDENT?

    This word, used as a noun, denotes anything which inseparably belongs to, or is connected with, or inherent iu, another thing, called the “principal.” In this sense, a court-baron is incident to a manor. Also, less strictly, it denotes anything which is usually connected with another, or connected for some purposes, though not inseparably. Thus, the right of alienation is incident to an estate in fee-simple, though separablein equity. See Cromwell v. Phipps (Sur.) 1 N. Y. Supp. 278; Mount Carmel FruitCo. v. Webster, 140 Cal. 1S3, 73 Pac. 820.

    Law Dictionary: What is INCIDENT? definition of INCIDENT (Black's Law Dictionary) http://thelawdictionary.org/incident/#ixzz2WmjSryHb

  • Khal Spencer posted at 12:52 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Khal Spencer Posts: 418

    Sorry, I forgot to include the link to the post below.

  • Khal Spencer posted at 12:51 pm on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Khal Spencer Posts: 418

    As Mr. Winton mentions below, the New Mexico State Constitution states quite clearly in Section Six "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.)"

    Perhaps Julie Ann Grimm, in writing this story, should have asked the City Administration and sponsoring Councillors how they intend to defend this bill, should it become city ordinance, against the inevitable request for an immediate injunction against its enforcement on the grounds that the ordinance will pretty clearly and obviously be in conflict with the state constitution.

    If I wanted to be snarky, I would suggest to the authors that there are some pretty big states back east where such a bill would stand a better chance of passing constitutional muster, but would I ever be snarky?

  • Van Hall posted at 11:30 am on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    Van Hall Posts: 24

    Firearms are embedded in the US Constitution, and American history.

    Americans have the Right to keep and bear arms. Period. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is an individual right, and does not require military service.

    The New Mexican Constitution also expressly reserves the right of the State to make any laws concerning firearms and their use. And prohibits the City from making such a law.

    The Bushee bill is on its face illegitimate, and will fail in court. The City is wasting the taxpayers' money with these misbegotten efforts.

    Mayor Coss has been a failure, a liar, and a fraud. Where are the 4,000 new jobs?

    Despite the efforts of the progressive politicians, the American people want to preserve their Civil Rights, including the 2nd Amendment.

  • mark mocha posted at 6:37 am on Thu, Jun 20, 2013.

    brnfre47 Posts: 210

    Ban 'em all. Guns, magazines and the morons who have emptied the shelves of all ammunition just because there is a black president and Wayne La Pierre has convinced them that the federal government is gonna go house to house confiscating weapons. I mean, what idiot would believe that? Apparently quite a few and in my humble opinion if you would believe that then you are obviously a mental defective and shouldn't be in possession of a firearm anyway so ban away.

  • Gregorio Ambrosini posted at 9:45 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

    Gregorio Ambrosini Posts: 56

    I know lots of high capacity clips in town. None of them ever were used to shoot at people. What are you going to do about the clips that are in many houses. Go house to house ,and steal them from their rightful owners? You'll have a little war on your hands. Some people are just to stupid to believe, especially ones who manage to get elected.

  • Al K posted at 6:16 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

    oatka Posts: 1

    "Bruce Merchant, a retired physician who moved to Santa Fe from California and who is on the gun-safety group’s steering committee, said he spoke before several legislative committees early this year in favor of expanding background checks at gun shows."

    He's part of the problem. These Californians screw up their own state to the point that the consequences of their crack-brained idea make they flee to another state - where they start the same process all over again. They are like cancerous cells that eventually destroy their host.

    These idiots have never heard of "jungle clipping" magazines? Tape two end-to-end and voila, you've just made an "illegal" 20-round magazine out of two "legal" 10s. What will they then propose? Banning electrical or duct tape? This practice has been in use since WWII, but then these people are on another planet when it comes to firearms.

  • Donald Sure posted at 5:43 am on Wed, Jun 19, 2013.

    Older and wiser Posts: 86


  • Jay Winton posted at 8:47 pm on Tue, Jun 18, 2013.

    6gunner Posts: 1

    Regardless of your opinions regarding guns and gun control, the simple fact is that the state Constitution SPECIFICALLY says: "No municipality or County may regulate IN ANY WAY an incident of the right to keep and bear arms." This is part of the state Constitution, voted on by the citizens of New Mexico. Patti Bushee, Ron Trujillo, and Mayor Coss all took an oath to honor the Constitution of the state of New Mexico, and pushing this blatantly unconstitutional law violates those oaths. Pushing for a law that is obviously against the state Constitution and that violates the rights of law-abiding citizens while doing NOTHING to actually improve public safety proves that these three people do not have the moral or ethical standing to hold ANY elected office!

  • Isaac Daniels posted at 6:39 pm on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

    Isaac Daniels Posts: 37

    Don't feel bad I also live in his district and I've written to him as well and voiced my concern but to no avail! He's not interested in what we have to say! As a matter of fact not long ago I myself took a survey in my own district concerning a proposal he favored. In one week I called over 175 families who object and the proposal and it passed him voting in favor of it!
    He never called anyone in his district to get our opinion!

  • Isaac Daniels posted at 3:10 pm on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

    Isaac Daniels Posts: 37

    I can't understand the Santa Fe City Council at all! At times they address issues that are none of their business or try to pass laws that Legislators haven’t even introduced and now this?
    We elected these people to pay heed to the voice of Santa Feans which they're ignored completely and have become nothing but 'clowns'.
    Now, Patti Bushee the 'cemented fixture' of the council chamber wants to run for Mayor, just like Ben Lujan was! That’s another fiasco Santa Feans don't need!

  • Thomas Franks posted at 10:39 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

    tunelesschalace Posts: 18

    Another piece of "feelgood" legislation that will be unenforceable. Please, city council, deal with enforceable issues that can really help the people of Santa Fe! I'm appalled by gun violence as much as the next person, but, as the Monty Python group used to say, "Now THIS IS SILLY, stop it!" You're just taking up everyone's time to do something useless.

  • Jeremy Bangs posted at 10:37 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

    JDB Posts: 15

    I live in Councilor Trujillo’s district, and I am extremely disappointed in his actions. I have not received responses to emails I have written him. So, I guess expressing my concerns on pointless proposals that he and the other councilors openly support will not work through email. Maybe I should just run against him? He wouldn’t be that hard to beat being that I am definitely not in the minority of individuals that know he has accomplished nothing during his tenure as a City Councilor.

    This proposed ammo ban ordinance is a perfect example of why our city needs new leadership. Why even waste time discussing such a ludicrous ordinance that will be struck down at the State and National level the very first time it is challenged? Events like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Aurora, etc. are extremely tragic and I sympathize with those forever impacted by these tragedies. However, guns are not the problem. People are. None of the past incidents that I listed above would have been prevented through a city ordinance which limited that amount of ammo an individual could utilize with their firearm. These sick individuals would have purchased their weapons online or simply drove to another town to get what they needed. They are about to go on a mass murder rampage, do you really think a city ordinance putting a restriction on the amount of ammo they can carry is going to make them think twice? Come on, use some common sense people.

    Long story short, this proposed ordinance is not only pointless because it will be struck down on the very first challenge, but it is impossible to enforce, and will not prevent tragic events caused by sick individuals from happening in our city.

  • Meredith Madri posted at 10:12 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

    FilmArtPhoto Posts: 34

    It only takes one bullet to kill someone.

  • Max Verts posted at 10:00 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

    Max Verts Posts: 20

    It's irresponsible to pass legislation that can't be enforced. This bill is very similar to the recent law passed in Colorado limiting magazine capacity, which 80% of Colorado sheriffs have sued to overturn. Many Colorado sheriffs have stated openly they won't enforce the law. If the supporters on the council can't explain how it can be enforced, it should be withdrawn. Also, how many city tax dollars have they put aside to defend this legislation from the numerous lawsuits it will produce? it's a total waste of time and money and reflects badly on the competence of those on the council who are supporting this.

  • Nena Roberts posted at 9:23 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

    Nena Posts: 30

    “I think it makes a very strong statement at the very least,” Bushee said in an interview. “And at best, it actually limits the sale of these high capacity magazines in our town.”

    This makes me chuckle. Hasn't she heard of the black market that is alive and well? It's all about politics for Bushee, thinking she's putting a notch in her belt for her mayoral votes.

  • Michael Grimler posted at 8:23 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

    shooter Posts: 189

    This is nothing but a bunch of politically-correct BS that will do absolutely NOTHING to reduce crime or save lives.

    Legislation is supposed to actually *do* something to correct or prevent a specific behavior. Bushee stated, "...“This is just our way of demonstrating concern for these feeding devices that are, generally speaking, used for mass murder.”

    First of all the contention that high-capacity magazines are "...generally speaking, used for mass murder..." is hyperbole at its best. Mass murder using high-capacity magazines is the EXCEPTION rather than the general use of them, which is everything BUT mass murder.

    Passing the legislation just to "demonstrate concern" does NOTHING.

    Advocating for a "new bureaucracy" to force gun owners to show "notarized proof" they are permitted to keep already-possessed high-capacity magazines shows Bushee's idiotic, liberal-based thought processes and ignorance.

    To wit, she believes more government bureaucracy is the answer to this and probably a whole host of other social ills. Nothing could be further from reality. As we have seen in our society over and over again, MORE government is not the answer; the embracing of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and common sense is.

    Secondly, all notarizing does is prove that a specific person signed something in front of a Notary Public. The Notary Public does NOT affirm content or truthfulness in any document. So, setting up ANOTHER government bureaucracy to administer such drivel would, again, do NOTHING to reduce crime or save lives.

    I urge common sense-minded Santa Feans to take these facts into consideration prior to letting your politically-motivated City Council to railroad you into believing that such legislation will do ANYTHING to reduce crime or save lives. Every minute the Council wastes on trying to get this passed is your tax money flushing down the toilet.

    Why not compel them to act on REAL legislation that will address the problem?

  • Pam Walker posted at 7:18 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

    lilbit Posts: 68

    I am totally sick of all of this. I am a responsible firearm owner and have gone through the rigors of obtaining my concealed carry license. I have owned my firearms for several years. I can prove when and from who I purchased my 40 cal but there is no mention of how many rounds my magazines hold. Like the previous post, these laws will only burden the responsible owners. Enough is enough.

  • Donald Sure posted at 5:49 am on Mon, Jun 17, 2013.

    Older and wiser Posts: 86

    Once again, this type of law only effects law abiding citizens. How many criminals and gang members lined up to surrender their weapons when the police (city) paid for the surrender of weapons? My guess is that the number was zero.

    How many of these same individuals will comply with this type of magazine ban? Again, my guess will be zero.

    Councilor Bushee and Trujillo should focus enforcement of laws already on the books and stop with the political posturing.


Follow The Santa Fe New Mexican

Today’s New Mexican, July 24, 2014

To view a replica of today's printed edition of The Santa Fe New Mexican, you must be a subscriber. Get complete access to the online edition, including the print replica, at our low rate of $2.49 a week. That's about the price of a cup of coffee. Or get online and home delivery of our print edition for $3.24. Click here for details.