NM’s anti-gun AG Torrez declares war on ammo
In another extremist move, a coalition of Democrat attorneys general, including New Mexico’s Raúl Torrez, have issued a letter to the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, calling for an investigation into the sale of military-grade ammunition to civilians.
The anti-ammo letter, signed by attorneys general from 20 states, including New York, California, and New Mexico, specifically addresses the manufacture and sale of “military-grade ammunition” at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. They want to ban it from civilian use. The group, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, contends that the availability of such “high-powered” ammunition in civilian markets has contributed to the escalating severity of mass shootings across the country.
However, this initiative has faced staunch opposition from gun rights supporters, arguing that a focus on banning specific types of ammunition is a misguided approach that infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to bear arms, which implicitly includes access to various types of ammunition for such arms.
Raúl Torrez, in particular, has come under fire from pro-gun groups in his home state of New Mexico. These groups argue that his support for the letter contradicts the values of many New Mexicans who cherish their gun rights. They contend that the move is not only an overreach of government authority but also an ineffective solution to the issue of gun violence.
In contrast, gun rights advocates maintain that the focus should be on addressing the root causes of gun violence, such as mental health issues and societal factors, rather than imposing further restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. They argue that such measures only serve to penalize responsible gun owners while doing little to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms and ammunition illegally.
The debate is also colored by concerns about the role of government in regulating firearms. Critics of the initiative view it as a slippery slope that could lead to more extensive gun control measures. They fear that conceding ground on ammunition could pave the way for more restrictive laws that erode the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
The issue is further complicated by the involvement of federal funds in the production of this ammunition. The letter from the attorneys general points out that taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize the production of ammunition that is ultimately sold in civilian markets, raising questions about the appropriate use of public funds.
