Category: A Victory!
The Whiskey Rebellion
by Aaron Kendeall
What Was the Whiskey Rebellion?
In the 18th century, a new nation was recovering from its War of Independence. The economy was in shambles. And, subsequently, so were the drinking habits of citizens across the fledgling United States of America.
During the colonial era, American whiskey was considered a low-brow tipple, one relegated to mountain folk of the frontier beyond population centers along the East Coast. But following the Revolutionary War, whiskey was thrust into the forefront of the American experiment—causing an early confrontation whose reverberations continue to be felt today.
In this article, we’ll see how these factors led to the event known as the Whiskey Rebellion. And we’ll see how the spirit at the heart of this conflict—Monongahela Rye—was an early predecessor of today’s Bourbon and American Rye whiskeys and how innovative craft whiskey makers are bringing back this historical spirit and leading a renaissance in an emerging whiskey sub-category.
Background & History
Following the end of the American War for Independence, the newly established Treasury Department—led by Alexander Hamilton—was broke. During the war, the national government—an alliance of states loosely bound by the Articles of Confederation—was unable to levy taxes. As a result, it racked up $75 million in debt.
Simultaneously, America’s relationship with drinks was being altered by divergent forces.
First, the production of Rum was disrupted by the war. The import of finished drinks like European wine and French cognac ceased, as did trade with the British islands that supplied the molasses the Atlantic coast distilleries used to make Rum were wiped out by British embargoes. Import duties caused prices to soar. Suddenly, the favorite tipples of those living in the wealthy and influential population centers along the Atlantic Coast were wiped out.
So, the young nation turned to the whiskey that was already wildly popular in the Allegheny highlands to fill its demand. The Founding Fathers were quite philosophical about this endeavor.
A domestic drinks industry was needed to fill the gap and liberate Americans from the tariffs of foreign wines and spirits. Whiskey could be made from plentiful crops harvested domestically without any foreign inputs. And federal officials could tax production to help lower the national debt.
George Washington’s stance was so enthusiastic that he began distilling whiskey at his property at Mount Vernon – becoming the largest whiskey distiller in the United States by his death in 1799.
What Was the Root Cause of the Whiskey Rebellion?
A group was considerably less enthused about the idea of an excise tax on distilled spirits production – the western farmers along the frontier of the new nation. Those centered around the hamlets that dotted the Monongahela River valley as it meandered along the banks of Washington County and Allegheny County while flowing north towards Pittsburgh to meet the Allegheny River and form the Ohio River were especially adamant. Surrounding areas, including Fayette County, Westmoreland County and Bedford County, were also involved.
When congress authorized the newly-established federal authority of the treasury department to enact an Excise Whiskey Tax in 1791—the first such tax levied by the new national government—on whiskey production, farmers in these western counties protested the tax. The ensuing conflict became known as the ‘Whiskey Rebellion.’
Who Were the Whiskey Rebels? And Who Were They Rebelling Against?
Let’s stage the stage.
Like a Shakespeare play, the drama about to unfold is best told with an introduction to our cast of characters.
We should emphasize this was a civil dispute—a conflagration that unfolded as a battle between the new federal government, militia forces and mountain distillers who sought to protect their most important source of revenue. And like most civil disputes, it pitted neighbors and family members against each other. Both sides were ranked with a significant number of Revolutionary War veterans.
As we will learn, the lines drawn between these dynamic forces were quite blurred. But we can draw distinctions where applicable.
John Neville – Brigadier General and veteran of the Revolutionary War. He was appointed Inspector of Revenue by President George Washington for the district that included Western Pennsylvania.
John Adams – Vice President of the United States during the Whiskey Rebellion.
George Washington – First President of the United States. He was in office during the Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington’s Mount Vernon estate later featured the country’s largest distillery.
James Madison – Founding Father and later President of the United States. A shrewd Anti-Federalist politician, he argued for the right of the rebels to plead their case in the court of public opinion.
James McFarlane – Earned the rank of Major during the Revolutionary War. He was a leader of Whiskey Rebellion forces and was killed in the exchange of gunfire at Neville’s property.
‘Light Horse Harry’ Henry Lee III – Revolutionary War Hero, Lee was a cavalry commander during the Revolutionary War. He was summoned by the president to lead roughly 13,000 federal troops to put down the rebellion. Ironically, his son—Robert E. Lee—would later lead the Army of Northern Virginia against federal troops during the American Civil War.
James Ross – Pennsylvania politician and member of Pennsylvania’s Constitutional Convention. Ross was chosen by President Washington to negotiate with the rebels and diffuse the situation.
William Findley – An Anti-Federalist, Findley nonetheless helped to calm the situation and acted as an arbiter between the rebels and the government.
David Bradford – Whiskey Rebel and distiller, attorney and shipping magnate. A Revolutionary War veteran, he was among the wealthiest men on the Western frontier.
Hugh Henry Brackenridge – A Pennsylvania lawyer and moderate, he tried to position both sides to calm, earning the dislike of all.
Whiskey Boys – This group vehemently opposed taxation and harassed federal revenue officers and any distillers they saw as bowing to law enforcement.
Alexander Hamilton – Secretary of the Treasury, he directed federal officials to collect taxes from distillers and personally led the forces to put down the rebellion.
Thomas Jefferson – Founding Father and third President of the U.S., he politician whose stance on personal liberty helped motivate the rebels.
Albert Gallatin – A calm-headed statesman and member of the Friends of Order, he opposed the tax. But Albert Gallatin’s level-headed pragmatism was credited with avoiding additional bloodshed.
Tom the Tinker – Whiskey Boys organizer and agitator who signed anonymous threatening letters to distillers who cooperated with the law. Often, stills that ignored these pleas might’ve found their equipment ruined.
As the two camps of distillers broke into factions, the Friends of Liberty were the rebels, and the Friends of Order sided with maintaining order. And the Federalist wing of government sought to execute their power to repay America’s war debt, eventually mustering armed forces to put down the rebellion.
Why Was Monongahela Rye Whiskey Crucial to the Economy?
The Monongahela River Valley played an essential role in forming what is now recognized as American whiskey.
Before Bourbon was a county—or Kentucky a state—farmers in the western counties that formed the new nation’s frontier used excess grain from their harvests to produce whiskey. Throughout the Allegheny Mountains—a natural boundary preventing westward expansion—distillers turned this grain into whiskey, a shelf-stable product that would not spoil and could even improve with age.
In a time before refrigeration, we cannot emphasize the importance of a product that could preserve surplus grain yields. In fact, throughout these frontier counties, folks utilized whiskey as a currency where paper notes and coins were scarce.
The whiskey produced on the Pennsylvania frontier was colloquially known as ‘Monongahela Rye.’
To learn more about this aspect of the story, we traveled to the Bradford House and Whiskey Rebellion History museums in Washington, Pennsylvania. There, Bradford House Head Docent Dave Budinger helped explain the importance of whiskey production in the local economy.
Dave is a fantastic storyteller—we really recommend visiting the museum if you ever find yourself in the Pittsburgh area and want to explore the growing Monongahela Whiskey trail. We will let him pick up this part of the story and explain how David Bradford fits into the big picture.
“[David Bradford] had a distillery, he had a grist mill, and he had a sawmill,” Dave said. “And he owned great tracts of land in the area. There, he distilled his whiskey and probably a lot of other people’s whiskey.
“These farmers had individual stills, and maybe one still would serve about five or six individual families here. People would send their grain to the nearest gristmill, which would grind it and prepare it. Some of the ground grains would become flour, which would be shipped—apparently, wheat doesn’t grow quite well in New Orleans.
“So, flour was a very important product,” Dave said. Goods would travel down the Monongahela River to the Ohio River and then the Mississippi River, eventually making its way to the port of New Orleans.
On the frontier, whiskey wasn’t just an essential part of the economy—in many ways, it was the economy. Because of the distance from banking institutions, access to currency was often nonexistent.
“That’s why it was so important out here,” Dave said. “This was their cash. And for this new upstart federal government to tax their only way to make any cash out here really upset the hell out of them—enough to pick up a musket and do something about it.”
An essential piece of Bradford’s role in the whiskey economy dealt with his shipping interests. He organized the pack trains of horses that served as the main avenue of the trade from the western frontier east to Philadelphia and the Atlantic Coast.
“This is before there were any decent roads over the mountains, so they had to ship things by horseback for the most part,” Dave said. “Farmers would get together and build these long trains of horses, ship their goods over and cross their fingers they didn’t lose too much. And Monongahela Rye was very sought after on the other side of the mountains. We had some very good distillers here.”
Whiskey was the most critical commodity being transported east from Western Pennsylvania.
“They couldn’t make money shipping their grain across the mountains because it’s too bulky,” Dave said. “You could have a horse carry four bushels of grain, but if you distill that grain into whiskey, a horse could carry the equivalent of 24 bushels of grain over the mountains,” Dave said. And whiskey was much more valuable than grain, earning more profits per pound of cargo.
At this point in history, most whiskey would be consumed as a white, unaged spirit—days or weeks after coming off the still. But, as we mentioned in our previous What is Bourbon? post, transportation of whiskey down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to New Orleans led to important discoveries in the art of maturation. The earliest of these shipments would’ve been Monongahela Rye.
But similar magic happened in the barrel on the road east to Philadelphia. Thanks to the jostling of the liquid over the rugged mountain paths, agitation might have created intriguing flavor characteristics. So, in addition to today’s mandated American oak barrels, used charred and uncharred oak barrels would’ve been used, along with wood like chestnut, maple and hickory—barrels that might be considered exotic wood by today’s distillers.
Monongahela Whiskey was perfectly placed for distribution.
In addition to river route to market—the Monongahela meets with the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh to form the Ohio River—an overland route was available east to Philadelphia, which at the time was the capital of the United States and one of the largest markets in the country. The wooden barrels that served as shipping vessels also imparted flavors on the overland route, and the jostling of the horse-drawn wagons over rugged mountain trails might’ve helped distillers understand the improvements offered by wood maturation.
What Was the Whiskey Rebellion? And How Did It Play Out?
The Excise Tax on distilled spirits disrupted production not only in the frontier settlements in Western Pennsylvania, but across the newly formed United States.
Many Revolutionary War veterans—including some Scots with a generational view of avoiding any tax on whiskey from the King’s exchequer—abhorred the the idea of federal officials coming after their primary means of income.
Poor farmers who distilled to monetize their excess harvest across the country fomented opposition to the tax. In North Carolina, a sizeable population of distillers opposed the tax and began illicit distillations. In Kentucky, Maryland, South Carolina and what is now West Virginia and Ohio and throughout the Appalachian Mountains chain, distillers raised opposition and fought tax collectors.
But we will focus on a group along the Monongahela River Valley in Pennsylvania near the town named Washington to honor the first president of the newly formed nation.
The Whiskey Excise Act, known as the ‘Whiskey Tax,’ was the country’s first excise tax. It was enacted in March 1791.
After petitioning unsuccessfully against the tax, farmers grew increasingly frustrated. In September of that year, a tax inspector was tarred and feathered. Tensions continued to mount as the government looked to enforce its tax, and local distillers were split into camps based on whether they fought the tax. Finally, a whiskey tax collector was attacked at Pigeon Creek. The idea of violent resistance and declaring independence from the United States grew.
In July 1794, the Battle of Bower Hill occurred in which about 600 whiskey rebels led by Major James McFarlane surrounded the house of revenue collector General John Neville. During the struggle, McFarlane received a fatal gunshot, and several other participants were injured and killed before Neville’s house was burned to the ground.
Enraged by the death of McFarlane, the rebels met at Braddock’s Field near Pittsburgh. About 7,000 people marched through the streets of Pittsburgh, terrorizing residents until the situation was diffused.
What Was the Whiskey Rebellion Flag?
A short discussion of vexillology…
The flags the rebels carried varied, but often had seven stripes—four red and three white—one for each of the counties represented at Braddock’s Field— Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, Bedford, Westmoreland and Ohio and Monongalia counties, which are in modern-day West Virginia. Simple flags were often hung from liberty poles to show solidarity with those fighting for independence. Often, they carried an inscription with the words ‘no excise.’
A second flag has caused some disagreement.
The flag depicts an eagle on a field of blue and 13 white stars—representing the original 13 colonies. It is often described as a Whiskey Rebel flag, but recently historians have suggested it may have been flown by the troops mustered by the federal government because of its similarity to federal standards of the day.
Monongahela Rye Production Techniques
In future posts, we will dive more in depth into the production techniques of historical distillers, as well as how today’s producers are paying homage to that legacy when producing today’s top brands. But for now, check out this video of the historical diorama that is on display at the Whiskey Rebellion History Center in Washington, Pennsylvania.
Monongahela Rye in Today’s Marketplace
We must make a distinction between the Straight Rye whiskey customers are familiar with in today’s marketplace. Today, American Rye whiskey must be made from a mash bill of at least 51% rye grain. But as we noted in previous posts about the history of Canadian Whisky, the Scottish distillers who were more accustomed to using malted barley as the primary grain of their wort started utilizing the hearty rye grain that thrived in colder climates along the frontier and used the term to describe varying amounts of the grain in their distillates. So the rye content in Monongahela Rye historically would’ve varied from still to still and from batch to batch depending on each year’s yield and what remained from the harvest after being sold on the commodities market.
Popular Monongahela Rye and Pennsylvania Whiskey Brands
While only the tip of the iceberg, here are three brands that will help you start your journey to learn more about the Monongahela Rye category.
Wigle Whiskey – Named after Philip Vigol, an anglicized spelling of the German Wigle, this brand is produced in Pittsburgh and makes Rye whiskey along with a panoply of distilled spirits, liqueurs and ready-to-drink beverages. Note: The author worked as a distiller and brand ambassador for Wigle before its acquisition by Highland Ventures.
Liberty Pole – Located a few blocks away from the historic Bradford House, Liberty Pole was founded by the passionate Hough family. They utilize local grains to make authentic Monongahela Rye style whiskey—along with bourbon, bourbon cream liqueur, corn whiskey and other distilled spirits.
Stoll & Wolf – Old meets new in an innovative whiskey brand that honors the past. The distillery is on the site of the old Bomberger’s Distillery in Schaefferstown, Pennsylvania, which was founded in 1753 and boasts the distinction as the oldest distillery in the United States. It was the original production site of the Michter’’’s brand and when it shut down in 1989, Dick Stoll had been one of the last old-school producers to make Pennsylvania Rye. Along with partner Eric Wolfe and his wife Avianna, they resurrected the historic brand and were among the first to distil using historic methods at the reconstructed distillery at George Washington’s Mt. Vernon home.
Ponfeigh Distillery – Once up and running later this year, the continuous column still at Ponfeigh will have the capacity of 3,000 barrels per year. Focusing on Monongahela Rye, this project is another indication that volume distilling is returning to Western Pennsylvania.
Bibliography & Additional Resources
Below are some great titles that will help you dive deeper into this important historical episode in which the American Government first met armed resistance to its Constitutional powers.
- “The Whiskey Rebellion” by William Hogeland. Simon & Schuster, 2006.
- “The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution” by Thomas P. Slaughter. Oxford University Press, 1986.
- Brackenridge, Hugh Henry (1795). Incidents of the Insurrection in Western Pennsylvania in the Year 1794. Philadelphia: Printed and sold by John M’Culloch.
- “The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition” by W.J. Rorabaugh. Oxford University Press, 1979.
Thanks to Dave Budinger, Tracie Liberatore and Denise Cummins at the Bradford House Museum for their help in writing this article.
Please no hang all the minorities & other nonsense! Thanks Grumpy
Categories
This kid is a HERO
Eugene Stoner is one of the most influential firearm designers of all time. While he was not as prolific as John Moses Browning, Stoner’s inventions were a dramatic departure from traditional gun design in the post-WWII years, and they drastically changed the entire course of firearm design in the latter half of the 20th century.
Stoner is best known for the AR rifle platform that he developed in the 1950s while working for ArmaLite. The rifle was revolutionary not only for its modularity and simplicity, but also because it incorporated modern materials that Stoner used in the aircraft industry—materials that had never before been seen in firearms.
When guns were still made of wood and steel, Stoner built his two-part AR receivers from lightweight aluminum alloys. The furniture on his new in-line rifles was weather-resistant fiberglass and later polymer, colored brown, green, or black instead of being shaped from moisture-absorbing walnut.
The AR-10 chambered in .308 Win. came first. Stoner then downsized it to accommodate the new .223 Rem. cartridge and the military’s correspondingly new philosophy of using small caliber, high velocity ammo over larger calibers like the old .30-06. The result was the AR-15, which would become the military’s M16 rifle. It is still in service today as the M16A4, making it the longest serving rifle in U.S. military history by far.
Over the next 60 years, the modular design of the AR-10 and AR-15 would become the basis for an array of modern firearms now used for military and law enforcement applications, hunting, competition shooting, long-range shooting, plinking, and home- and self-defense.
Stoner’s Early Years Colt acquired the proprietary rights to the AR-15 in 1959 from ArmaLite’s parent company, and Stoner soon followed leaving ArmaLite for Colt in 1961. There he worked on a number of projects, primarily the Stoner 63 machine gun system.
A decade later, Stoner left Colt and co-founded Ares Inc., where he worked on various machine gun projects and the Future Assault Rifle Concept (FARC). In 1989, he left Ares and joined Knight’s Armament Company a year later.
He continued working on machine-gun designs at KA and also developed the SR-25 rifle, an improved version of the AR-10 that was built for accuracy. The rifle would become the Mark 11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System used by U.S. Navy SEALs.
Sidearm Upgrades for Law Enforcement In the early ’90s, law enforcement was regularly finding itself outgunned in metro areas where gang violence was high. At this time, many local and state police officers, as well as federal agents, were still carrying .38 Special revolvers.
Departments that could afford to do so began transitioning to semi-automatic 9mm pistols. In 1985, the U.S. military adopted the 9mm M9 pistol, known to the civilian world as the Beretta 92FS. A number of police departments, like the LAPD, soon followed.
While some departments and agencies adopted modern semi-autos like the SIG Sauer P226 and P229, others chose the Glock 17 or 19. Understandably, Colt wanted a piece of the sales from police departments updating their arsenals and saw an opportunity to get ahead of the technological curve in the handgun world.
A Happy Coincidence While Colt launched the Double Eagle pistol series in 1989 (a double-action version of the 1911), the storied gunmaker wanted something to compete directly against Glock: a high-tech 9mm with a polymer frame.
Coincidentally, around that time, Stoner and C. Reed Knight at KA had designed a prototype intended to be a versatile, rugged, and lightweight compact handgun.
What they came up with was solid. Colt saw a gun they thought could be molded into what they wanted to bring to market. KA sold the production rights for Stoner and Knight’s design to Colt, who proceeded to transform it into the Colt All American Model 2000 pistol.
Word spread that this would be a revolutionary new firearm redefining how people thought about American-made semi-auto handguns. Colt put a lot of cash behind a huge, far-reaching ad blitz before the Model 2000’s formal introduction at SHOT Show 1990. It was supposed to be the gun that would carry Colt into a new millennium.
Instead, the Model 2000 wound up being one of the most hated modern handguns ever. It was an absolute and utter failure.
The Design The Stoner/Knight prototype was an interesting gun that used a rotating barrel and five locking lugs instead of a tilting Browning-type design. It also had an interesting trigger, which we’ll get to later.
Once the gun left Stoner and Knight’s hands, Colt’s engineers started changing things. The gun that went into production was a lot different from the KA prototype.
On paper, the Model 2000 was pretty close to what we expect from a 9mm pistol. Even today, some features were a little ahead of their time.
It was striker fired instead of being a DA/SA or DA-only design, something pretty much only Glock was producing at the time, and what likely drew Colt to the prototype.
The gun Stoner and Knight built had a steel frame and a single-stack magazine, which became a polymer frame and a double-stack 15-round magazine. It had the same capacity as the Beretta 92FS. The Model 2000 would also be offered with an aluminum-alloy frame.
The 2000 was easier to field strip than the Beretta or the Glock 17 for that matter. Once the slide was removed, the two-piece trigger assembly could simply be lifted out of the frame, foreshadowing the modular design of the SIG Sauer P320 and its fire control unit.
The trigger mechanism on the Model 2000 that Stoner and Knight came up with was certainly unique. It used a patented roller bearing system to create a trigger that didn’t hinge, but instead pulled straight back into the frame of the gun. This created a somewhat long, but extremely smooth, trigger pull.
Where It Went Off the Rails That all sounds great, so what the hell went wrong?
Well, a number of things which were all the result of Colt’s re-engineering and production methods. In order to make the Model 2000 marketable as a duty pistol, Colt lengthened the barrel and also added length to the grip, making the pistol larger overall.
The prototype gun had a one-piece slide, but Colt’s longer slide was actually two pieces. The narrow front piece acted like a large barrel bushing that was removed when the gun was disassembled. Astonishingly, the gun’s front sight was mounted on this removable part, and that’s bad for accuracy.
The Model 2000’s trigger was, by far, its biggest problem. The original specs called for a 6-pound trigger pull weight, which is a little heavy but totally acceptable on a duty gun. For the production gun, Colt increased the pull weight to a knuckle-battering 12 pounds on the recommendation of the company’s liability attorneys. Combined with the long pull of the gun’s odd trigger mechanism and an equally lengthy reset, the Model 2000 was exceptionally difficult to shoot accurately or quickly. That’s a problem for law enforcement.If the pistol had functioned well, it may have been possible to overlook its aesthetics—which is why people assumedly buy Hi-Point pistols. But since the Colt 2000 was an absolute horror to shoot, people came down on its looks hard, and deservedly so.
The thing was objectively hideous. The muzzle end looked like it came off an old Browning Hi-Power pistol, while the grip and frame are a cross between Beretta and FN frames of the era, with a generic and bulky steel slide on top. It looked awkward and by all accounts, didn’t feel much better.
The Model 2000 also suffered from reliability issues as well as accuracy issues—even beyond what a heavy trigger caused. In short, the gun was a damn mess.
The way Colt built the All American 2000 is partially to blame for its shoddy construction. Colt contracted the creation of the gun’s parts to an outside vendor instead of creating them in house. The components were then assembled in Colt’s West Hartford factory. That’s right, Colt took a gun they didn’t design, tweaked it to meet a set of specs, farmed out its production, and then slapped it together for sale with the Colt Pony Logo on it. What could go wrong? Pretty much everything.
It didn’t take long for word about Colt’s new gun to get around. Sales following the gun’s release in 1991 were terrible and never picked up. The Model 2000’s short life ended in a death rattle when it was recalled in 1993 for safety issues.
By 1994, it was all over. Colt ceased production and the Model 2000 went down among the worst failures in the gunmaker’s long history. The Double Eagle pistol line got some traction for being one of the few guns at the time offered in 10mm Auto, but it too proved to be a failed enterprise. Things were getting rocky for Colt at that point.
Sadly, it was also the final major firearm design from Eugene Stoner before he passed away April 24, 1997. The Model 2000 was a lousy final entry for one of the world’s greatest gun designers and inventors, and its failures weren’t even his fault.
FILE – New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham speaks at the Arcosa Wind Towers, Aug. 9, 2023, in Belen, N.M. Grisham on Friday, Sept. 8, issued an emergency public health order that suspends the open and permitted concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque for 30 days in the midst of a spate of gun violence. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday issued an emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least 30 days in response to a spate of gun violence.
The Democratic governor said she expects legal challenges but was compelled to act because of recent shootings, including the death of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium this week.
Lujan Grisham said state police would be responsible for enforcing what amount to civil violations. Albuquerque police Chief Harold Medina said he won’t enforce it, and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he’s uneasy about it because it raises too many questions about constitutional rights.
The firearms suspension, classified as an emergency public health order, applies to open and concealed carry in most public places, from city sidewalks to urban recreational parks. The restriction is tied to a threshold for violent crime rates currently only met by the metropolitan Albuquerque. Police and licensed security guards are exempt from the temporary ban.
Violators could face civil penalties and a fine of up to $5,000, gubernatorial spokeswoman Caroline Sweeney said. Under the order, residents still can transport guns to some private locations, such as a gun range or gun store, provided the firearm has a trigger lock or some other container or mechanism making it impossible to discharge.
“I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer,” she said at a news conference, flanked by law enforcement officials, including the district attorney for the Albuquerque area.
John Allen said in a statement late Friday that he has reservations about the order but is ready to cooperate to tackle gun violence.
“While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold,” Allen said. “I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.”
Enforcing the governor’s order also could put Albuquerque police in a difficult position with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding a police reform settlement, said police spokesman Gilbert Gallegos.
“All of those are unsettled questions,” he said late Friday.
Lujan Grisham referenced several recent shootings in Albuquerque in issuing the order. Among them was a suspected road rage shooting Wednesday outside a minor league baseball stadium that killed 11-year-old Froyland Villegas and critically wounded a woman as their vehicle was peppered with bullets while people left the game.
Last month, 5-year-old Galilea Samaniego was fatally shot while asleep in a motor home. Four teens entered the mobile home community in two stolen vehicles early on Aug. 13 and opened fire on the trailer, according to police. The girl was struck in the head and later died at a hospital.
The governor also cited an August shooting death in Taos County of 13-year-old Amber Archuleta. A 14-year-old boy shot and killed the girl with his father’s gun while they were at his home, authorities said.
“When New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game — when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn — something is very wrong,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement.
The top-ranked Republican in the state Senate swiftly denounced the governor’s actions Friday to restrict guns as a way to stem violent crime.
“A child is murdered, the perpetrator is still on the loose, and what does the governor do? She … targets law-abiding citizens with an unconstitutional gun order,” Sen. Greg Baca of Belen said.
Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, applauded the governor’s order as a courageous and necessary step to curbing gun violence, even if the measure’s legal fate is uncertain.
“If it saves one life, then it’s worth doing,” Viscoli said.
Since 2019, Lujan Grisham has signed a raft of legislation restricting access to guns, including a 2020 “red flag” law allowing police or sheriff’s deputies to ask a court to temporarily remove guns from people who might hurt themselves or others, an extension of background-check requirements to nearly all private gun sales.
She also signed a ban on firearms possession for people under permanent protective orders for domestic violence.
Friday’s order directs state regulators to conduct monthly inspections of firearms dealers statewide to ensure compliance with gun laws.
The state Department of Health will compile a report on gunshot victims at New Mexico hospitals that includes age, race, gender and ethnicity, along with the brand and caliber of firearm involved and other general circumstances.
___
Associated Press writers Scott Sonner and Gabe Stern in Reno, Nevada; Terry Tang in Phoenix; Rio Yamat in Las Vegas; and Felicia Fonseca in Flagstaff, Arizona, contributed to this story. Stern is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America places journalists in local newsrooms across the country to report on undercovered issues.
Taya Gray/USA TODAY NETWORK file
California lawmakers will send a state excise tax on guns and ammunition to Gov. Gavin Newsom after years of failed attempts by Democratic legislators.
The Senate voted 27-9 on Thursday to approve Assembly Bill 28, which would require manufacturers, vendors and dealers to pay an 11% tax on guns and ammunition to fund violence prevention efforts. The bill passed with exactly the two-thirds threshold needed for approval of a tax.
Gun and ammunition-sellers would pay the new state tax on top of the 10 to 11% federal excise tax they already pay to fund wildlife conservation efforts.
Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, D-Woodland Hills, authored the bill after former Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, failed multiple times to get excise tax bills through the Legislature.
Prior to Levine’s attempts, at least three other lawmakers had pushed similar taxes on guns and ammunition since 2013. Gabriel’s bill was the first of its kind to pass out of the Assembly.
When the assemblyman first put the bill forward, there were questions about whether it was “in the realm of possibility,” he said after the Senate vote.
“I introduced this bill at the very beginning of session,” Gabriel said. “A few weeks later, we have mass shootings in Half Moon Bay and in Monterey Park and in all these places.”
“Frankly, I think part of the reason the bill passed is the public is demanding this of us,” he added. “They are demanding that we have more solutions that will do more to protect their kids, to protect their communities.”
Lawmakers debate tax effectiveness
Many senators on Thursday cited their children and grandchildren and school safety concerns in their arguments for backing the bill. Floor debate lasted for about an hour before lawmakers voted.
Sen. Angelique Ashby, D-Sacramento, urged her colleagues to support AB 28 as a “mechanism to address gun violence.” She made her plea in the name of her school-age daughter and California children, as well as Amber Clark, a Natomas librarian who was fatally shot in 2018.
“Like so many Americans, I do hug my little daughter each morning as I drop her off at school,” Ashby said. “And as I drive away, I push out of my mind the unthinkable. Otherwise, it would be impossible for me to face the tasks I’m responsible for every day.”
But Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, said the tax would do little to prevent gun violence, and retailers would pass on the added cost on to customers. In this way, it would penalize law-abiding firearm owners, hunters and students taking part in shooting sports, they said.
“When you add another 11% on, all it’s going do is decrease the number of hunters,” said Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa. “Sooner or later, this will be like the tobacco tax. And sooner or later, this money’s going to go down, down, down.”
Gun control groups cheered AB 28’s passage and urged Newsom to sign it.
“This bill is an innovative approach in tackling gun violence and a crucial step to improve the safety of all California families,” said Cassandra Whetstone, a volunteer with the California chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, in a statement.
Gun rights advocates said they plan to sue the state over the legislation if the governor makes it law.
“The passage of this bill will be seen for what it is … an unconstitutional tax on an enumerated right,” said Rick Travis, legislative director for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, in an email.
The measure now heads to Newsom, who must sign or veto bills by Oct. 14.
(Yup, you read that right – California is going to tax one of our Constitutionally protected Rights.)