The New Mexico proposal labeled an assault weapon ban is actually a broad semi-automatic rifle restriction that raises constitutional and practical problems, draws even some gun-control advocates’ doubts, and risks the same market dynamics that made AR-15s wildly popular after the 1996 federal restrictions.
Lawmakers in New Mexico are pushing an anti-gun measure that goes well beyond targeting a particular model. What is being sold as an assault weapon ban would sweep up a wide class of semi-automatic rifles, creating consequences that reach into ordinary citizens’ rights and everyday gun ownership.
Even a prominent voice in the state’s gun-control community has expressed hesitation about the approach, noting reasons “to have concerns.” That admission is noteworthy: people who want stricter rules are starting to see the practical and legal risks of a broad categorical ban.
On the legal front, the measure is vulnerable. After the Supreme Court’s NYSRPA vs Bruen decision, courts now require that any modern firearms restriction have a historical analogue around the time the Second Amendment was ratified or when the 14th Amendment incorporated those protections. That is a tough standard to meet for a law that aims to forbid an entire category of commonly owned rifles.
Finding a precedent that resembles outlawing a whole class of semi-automatic rifles is difficult. Historical regulations tended to be more targeted and situational, not blanket bans on styles of firearms that many Americans use for sport, home defense, or recreation. That mismatch makes the bill likely to face a strong constitutional challenge.
Besides the court fights, practical consequences matter. Laws that signal a product will soon be restricted create a rush to buy before the ban takes effect. That kind of panic-driven demand drove a surge in interest in AR-15s after the 1996 federal restrictions were proposed and debated, and similar behavior would play out again with a broad prohibition.
The market response is predictable: when something people can legally own is suddenly threatened, people who were indifferent often become buyers overnight. Before the 1996 effort, most Americans chose hunting rifles, handguns for self-defense, and shotguns. Modern sporting rifles were owned by relatively few, but the threat of prohibition made them desirable almost instantly.
Once that dynamic starts, the practical effect is perverse. A policy intended to reduce the presence of certain rifles can instead make those rifles more sought after, boost sales, and expand ownership among people who otherwise would not have bothered. That outcome undermines the policy goal while creating another set of social and political consequences.
From a Republican perspective, the bill looks like a constitutional overreach and a political mistake. It risks trampling lawful ownership without clear evidence that banning a broad category will make communities safer, and it sets up a costly legal fight that is unlikely to survive current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
There is room for focused, evidence-driven reform that targets criminal misuse without casting a wide net over millions of law-abiding citizens. Broad categorical bans are blunt instruments that invite unintended consequences and courtroom defeats, and they deserve scrutiny from anyone serious about both safety and liberty.
For once, an anti-gunner is talking a bit of sense, even if her reasons for doing it are different than my own.
