Mexico’s Gunshop

124243-125087

I ran across this story recently, and at face value I found it hard to believe, but after some digging it turns out to be true. I’d certainly like some of our Mexican readers to weigh in on it, but within the entire country of Mexico there is one legally operating gunshop, from which qualifying citizens can purchase firearms. Of course I am aware that Mexico has a large illegal firearms problem, but this is about legal firearms. The gunshop is on a military base, in Mexico City, and by Mexico’s constitution, the shop cannot even advertise its existence to the Mexican public. It is completely run by the military, with even military clerks behind the counter. It sells around six thousand firearms a year, mostly handguns in .22 LR to .38 caliber, and sporting rifles and shotguns, of which most are single shot if I read correctly. The display cases also appear to hold a number of modern day battle rifles such as ARs and Galils, but these seem to be just for display and not for sale. The prices are much higher than in the United States for the same firearms. This is probably because of the import taxes and similar regulations. They also have optics and various other accessories for sale.

In the gun shop here, soldiers keep a wary eye on customers as they pass through a metal detector. Once inside, clients seeking protection for their homes are each permitted to buy one small-caliber handgun. They also can obtain 200 rounds of ammunition a year.

“Normally, we have 70 or 100 visitors a day,” army Col. Raul Manzano Velez said as he took a visitor past rows of wooden cabinets displaying Belgian-, German-, Turkish- and U.S.-made handguns and single-shot hunting rifles.

The shop’s existence is unknown to many citizens. “The federal firearms law forbids us from advertising so as not to promote rampant gun buying,” Manzano said.

….

Obtaining a gun involves first getting a permit. Requirements include an official photo ID, proof of residency and employment, a document showing fulfillment of military service and a declaration of a clean criminal record.

“When you have all these documents, you take them to the federal firearms registry, and within five to 10 working days you get the license,” Manzano said.

For those seeking guns for home protection, the law requires that the firearms never leave the permit holders’ primary residences. The firearm can be from .22 to .380 caliber. It can be a pistol or a revolver, but can’t be a rifle. Only a single gun is allowed.

A different permit is given to marksmen and hunters, allowing them each to own up to nine single-shot rifles or shotguns and one small-caliber handgun. Mexico has 89 gun and hunting clubs and 20 government offices that sell hunting licenses.

Mexico’s 289 private security companies also have a different regimen: They can buy semiautomatic weapons or higher-caliber pistols and revolvers.

No matter how far buyers live from Mexico City, they must travel to the capital to obtain the licenses, give fingerprints and purchase the weapons.

090401.Mexe-gun.store l113395-1 news_thumb_47121_630



Miles V

Former Infantry Marine, and currently studying at Indiana University. I’ve written for Small Arms Review and Small Arms Defense Journal, and have had a teenie tiny photo that appeared in GQ. Specifically, I’m very interested in small arms history, development, and Military/LE usage within the Middle East, and Central Asia.

If you want to reach out, let me know about an error I’ve made, something I can add to the post, or just talk guns and how much Grunts love naps, hit me up at miles@tfb.tv


Advertisement

  • Theo Braunohler

    > They also can obtain 200 rounds of ammunition a year.

    lolwut

    • Kristoff

      That’s about 15 minutes of shooting for me.

  • Walter E. Kurtz

    I spent about 5 years traveling back and forth to Mexico. My clients were all very wealthy businessmen. Many of them had all manner of long arms and pistols/revolvers. I had one client whose arms collection would rival that of any advanced collector in the US, literally an underground bank vault (in his home) housing hundreds and hundreds of weapons including many classic and collectible full autos (e.g. Thompson submachine guns). Lots of pre-war Colt 1911s. None of them were legally registered. Most of them had been brought in illegally from the US by his “contrabandista”. I am sure he had every police and military officer in his town (a fairly large one) paid off. He and I became fast friends— and he became an excellent client— in part because we both enjoyed firearms. Every Christmas I would send him the latest Gun Digest instead of a calendar. Oh, BTW, he also enjoyed reloading and had an extensive reloading operation and a test range at his business warehouse.

    • Aleksandr Kamarov

      This is how the 3rd world rolls out. Here in Chile centerfire semiauto rifles are prohibited for the common populace; with the exception of “notable sportsmen” who coincidentally happen to be politicians and biz fat cats only

      • RICH

        I sincerely feel your pain, Aleksandr.

      • nadnerbus

        I think this is how any restrictive society rolls out. Any law that is passed to restrain the rights of the citizen is always applied only to the unconnected people without influence. The wealthy and connected always find their way around the law, while the criminal class doesn’t care about the law.

        • fishydude

          Every member of the NYC city counsel has a carry permit or can easily get one. Or has armed security.
          Socialism is never for the socialists.

      • Daniel M. Ramos

        I worked for a tech company that did business in Mexico. I will never forget a quote from one of the Mexican nationals I worked with. “A Mexican’s worst enemy is another Mexican,” I’m not kidding that is what he said. I think he was referring to the culture of accepted corruption at all levels.

      • RICH

        Kind of like some of Obummers ‘laws’ ….. they only seem to apply to select groups of individuals……

    • Daniel M. Ramos

      I grew up on the Texas border and my father did quite a bit of business with Mexican nationals. When you grow up on the border you learn that the law in Mexico is a tool that is used very selectively when it is convenient to those that it would benefit. The real law in Mexico is very simple. If you have money you can acquire just about anything you want. That would include weapons, power, position, favors, and status. The same could be said about the U.S. side of the border, but it requires much more money and better connections; consequently, it is only the ultra-rich that play the game. In Mexico the “mordida” culture is pervasive and understood down to the lowest levels of society. Oh, and you better know what level of society you are in.

      So after reading this article it made me think that those in Mexico that truly want a real firearm only ever go to the “undocumented” firearms market. Wait, can firearms be called illegal? I lose track of what the P.C. rule of the week is these days.

      • RICH

        P.C. should be considered a ‘four lettered word’. I think that P.C. is what is tearing the U.S. apart. It’s about time for people to become Un-Politically Correct and start applying ‘REASON’ ! !

  • Cal.Bar

    So…. the peasants can come to the shop to press their snotty noses against the glass to see all the “real” weapons while they can only (hopefully) buy a single, minor caliber, pistol while the drug cartels run wild over much of the country will all manner of fully automatic military weapons. Nice. Gun control at its finest.

    • Esh325

      Adding more guns to the situation would be a bit akin to throwing gasoline on a house fire. I like guns and all don’t think they should be banned, but there has to be proper measures in place. Something most people in the USA don’t want to understand.

      • Hse523

        @@esh325:disqus looks like you have never heard of the Constitution of United States of America!

      • mechanically

        Honest question Esh325, I’m curious to hear your thoughs on why the 2nd ammendment was written.

        And, if that explanation has anything to do with limiting the control of government, how governmental control isa good thing.

        Contrasting with Mexico, it would be an interesting conversation.

        Also, I’d prepare yourself for some… strongly-worded responses to your post.

        • Esh325

          I’m curious to hear where it says in the 2A that you’re allowed to use guns against the US government?

          • Critter

            “being necessary to the security of a free State”

          • Esh325

            “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Uncle cletus with his “Ey R” is not a well regulated militia.

          • mosinman

            yeah but when Uncle Cletus and family group up along with the neighbors you now have a militia… and a militia is going to need military weapons

          • Esh325

            You can think you have a militia, but you don’t. The 2A today doesn’t recognize it. It’s an individual right.

          • mosinman

            yes it does dude

          • milesfortis

            Haw, Haw, Haw.

            But the Militia Act of 1903 defined the Reserve Militia as all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45.

            And taking into consideration the Civil Right Act of 1964, and the The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, being ‘able-bodied’, ‘male’, and ‘between 17 and 45 years old’ is today mooted.
            So, EVERY American living is a Militia Man!
            And, EVERY American STILL has the individual right!
            HAW, HAW, HAW.
            Now go back to whatever two bit foreign despot nation you dwell in and consider WE, just the citizens of the U.S., outgun YOU!

          • Sho Rembo

            What does “The Right of the People” mean? Why is it different only in the Second, when it means the Individual in all the rest?

          • Esh325

            Argue it with the Supreme Court. They ruled the 2A is an individual right to bear arms unconnected to the militia.

          • Cal.Bar

            And that case was HELLER – in 2008

          • KestrelBike

            Go and read the 46th Federalist Paper written by James Madison.

          • Esh325

            It doesn’t change that the 2A is a Individual right.

          • Vanns40

            The militia is the people. How can you separate the two. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. Nice try, however, most of us don’t really care what your opinion is. We know you’re an ideologue and have no intention of ever being swayed by facts that are contrary to your unfounded opinion.

            Like wrestling with a pig, you’ll only get muddy and the pig enjoys it.

          • Tom

            There is a comma in the 2nd for a very important reason. There are some misunderstandings because language changes over time. We think of regulated as in legal or business regulations whereas in the context of the 2nd it refers to equipment (i.e. arms) and militia which we tend to think of as an informal armed group comes from the Latin for military or other public service which would of been very much under government control.

            The framers of the constitution where “British” and as such they understood the history of Britain and England in particular, since Anglo-Saxon times free men were required to keep arms and respond as necessary at times of crisis be it a group of bandits causing trouble or upstart Vikings pillaging the countryside. The English Bill of Rights (which the framers would of been aware off and consider a legitimate legal foundation much like Magna Carta or Habeas Corpus) gave free men (well the Protestant ones anyway) the right to arms. There is a reason that the colonist where so pissed off at the British Government trying to confiscate their arms which they had ever right to possess under the law much as their ancestors had for hundreds of years.

            It [the 2nd Amendment recognises the necessity of a well regulated militia which requires that “the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed” so its the people that get arms not the militia.

            You can argue the 2nd is no longer necessary or that it needs tightening up or changing but to argue that it gives anything else than the right of private individuals to bare arms is intellectually dishonest.

          • Mark

            So, you have made a grammar error (“…there has to be proper measures in place.”) and now you cannot correctly parse an English sentence. The prefatory phrase of the Second Amendment is NOT a conditional phrase.

          • Sianmink

            The only comma in the ratified version of the text is between state and the.

            Not that it changes the meaning any.

          • bbies1973

            I really don’t want to get into a political argument on this site. However, if you can point out the well regulated militia portion, you must also take note of the significance of “shall not be infringed”. A very specific phrase that appears in only that one single place.

            Regulated does not necessarily mean restricted and controlled. In the use at that time, it means standardized. In it’s use at that time, the word regulated comes from the same basis as old Army units called “regulars”, as opposed to the “irregular” folk who did not have standardized equipment or standardized training. In that context, since the “Ey R” as you put it, is the standard weapon of the military, then the militia should also be equipped with that same platform for commonality of ammunition and other components for that time “when in the course of human events, it becomes necessary” for the militia to be called into action – against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

          • bbies1973

            P.S. The constitution was written not to empower the government, but to enumerate the responsibilities of it. “A well regulated militia” was written as a requirement of the government to provide the regulation, rather than a restriction upon the citizenry.

          • Esh325

            If any of the you knew jack about the 2A you would know that it’s been long settled that the 2A is an individual right in the USA and not connected to the militia.

          • Cal.Bar

            Actually, THAT was only established conclusively the the SCOTUS in Heller just a few years ago. Prior to that it was open to (legal)interpretation.

          • milesfortis

            Haw, haw, haw.
            Funny, funny.
            All you’re trying to do with THAT was attempting to turn our words against us.
            You little foreign twerp.
            Come to the U.S.
            Apply for citizenship.
            Be naturalized.
            Then, THEN your meretricious and mendacious wit will be taken into consideration.

          • Cal.Bar

            Well, it was ILLEGAL for “us” to use them against the government at the time (King George) wasn’t it? Revolution is ALWAYS by definition ILLEGAL.

          • Tom

            Arguable the colonist were protecting their legally held property from confiscation by the government, an illegal act. Less a revolution and more of a conservative act.

            Of course the causes of the Revolution were complex numerous and varied. Its a very interesting period in history.

          • milesfortis

            Ever read ALL of the bill of rights, including the entire preamble?

            Just in case you haven’t, I’ll help you out. The first clause is most to the point:

            “THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

            Those first ten ‘amendments’ were specifically meant as a restriction on the federal government that had just been formed.

            The enumerated right to keep and bear arms was a check against government abuse. In other words, securing the right from government interference, for the purpose, among other things of opposing an abusive goverment.

            But you knew that already

          • Dan

            I am curious where it says anywhere to stick your nose into American business? You haven’t said you want guns banned in those words but you pretty much narrow it down to who and how they should be obtained. Go away. You are a troll. Your opinions on what you think causes American crime fall on deaf ears. I don’t listen to people with a doctorate in google search. Go preach your anti 2A crap elsewhere or only chime in when it actually affects you. To answer your question use your google search degree and look up why the founders believed being armed was a right. Until then shove off.

          • Francisco Machado

            The Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights) does not tell the citizens what they can and cannot do. It tells the government what it cannot do, and – in the case of the Second Amendment – it tells the government, in one remarkably clear and unambiguous sentence that it cannot infringe upon the rights of the citizens to have and to bear arms.

      • Cal.Bar

        I simply don’t understand your logic here. If giving law abiding and honest citizens more powerful firearms to protect themselves would be throwing gasoline on it, then by the same logic, all they have to do is take those minor pistols away from the populace and the drug and violence problem would be solved (or lessened)? It simply doesn’t make sense until you realize that the guns and the honest citizens HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! The Drug lords will ALWAYS get EVERYTHING they want. They have fully operational submarines for god’s sake! They have more money than the government. Just how would you propose stopping people like that from getting whatever arms they want? No logical argument can be made that by keeping the peasant from having better guns they drug lords are somehow also denied those guns. (they already have all they want)

        • M.M.D.C.

          “I simply don’t understand your logic here.”

          In the words of Bob Weir, “give it up just don’t try to understand.”

        • Esh325

          Because the idea that guns are used for protecting people is not true in the vast majority. They are used a lot more for intimidation,crimes, and murder than they are self defense. Studies and statistics in the USA back this up. You’re basically suggesting that instead of drug cartels obtaining weapons illegally, you’re saying they should be out in the open and obtain them from the legal market? Why make it easier for evil people?

          • Sho Rembo

            Well, our government sells weapons to the drug cartels. Ask Eric Holder about it and Fast & Furious.

          • xtphreak

            bullS41t
            there are “studies and statistics” that show exactly the opposite.
            lots of crimes stopped by the display of a weapon are never reported.

          • Tom

            PSA people “Studies and statistics” show what ever bullshit and witchcraft the authors (or the people paying them) want.

          • Cal.Bar

            If we start with the proposition (undeniable) that Cartels will ALWAYS get WHATEVER weapons THEY want…. how can allowing regular people access to guns make the situation WORSE? It’s logically impossible. Do you think that after ALL of the major laws IGNORED by the cartels, the mass murder, drug running, extortion etc. etc. by making their access to the guns they ALREADY have any easier is going to cause more problems? Perhaps when the peasants can actually STAND UP to the cartels with equal firepower, something will change.

          • ozzallos .

            Google “Autodefensas” research and get back to us, kk?

          • Mark

            You are repeating your rubbish. You have NO evidence.

          • Sandydog

            Once again, the trite but true statement, ‘When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,’ serves as the response to your first two sentences: They are used a lot more for intimidation, crimes, and murder only when the evil aggressor has the advantage of having them, and the recipient of the evil does not. As firearms ARE available in our civilization, there is no way of making them simply disappear, and their superiority of force is unquestionable, we must deal with that reality. Evil people will obtain them one way or another to use against the good, so the good must obtain them to protect themselves and their loved ones from evil. Unless and until firearms can be removed from the hands of evil people, or the evil people eliminated, good people simply MUST have them.
            If, as a downside, evil people obtain firearms through legal venues, that’s the price that must be paid. In any event, evil people will get their firearms no matter what laws are in place to hinder the good citizens; In Mexico, as well as US inner cities, it is only the good citizens who are unarmed, while the evil people have no difficulty whatsoever.

          • @Esh325,

            I live in Mexico. Your assertion that drug cartels obtain weapons illegally is fraudulent. Some of them do but the vast majority of the various cartel’s weapons are bought on the international market from international arms dealers. Most come from Asia. It is not uncommon for an entire shipload of weapons, including ammunition and explosives, to arrive in a Mexican port.

            You, like most people, underestimate the budgets the drug cartels have for weapons and the number of them that they have.

          • John Smith

            That is illegally, but it’s on a whole different scale than the limited perspective of the typical anti-gun lobby about what “illegal” means, which to them is some guys buying off the street corner or sending their girlfriends into a store to buy a half-dozen guns at a time.

          • Lt_Scrounge

            What studies? Of the 32,000 people killed by firearms annually in the US, over 60% are SUICIDES. Roughly 11,000 are homicides and many of those are justified. The Dept of Justice estimates that at least 2000 violent crimes are stopped DAILY by private citizens armed with firearms. That’s over 700,000 violent crimes stopped annually. If only 2% of those crimes resulted in the death of the victim, the homicide rate would more than double. Additional statistics show that you are twice as likely to be beaten to death by an “Unarmed Assailant” than shot by anyone with a rifle, including the ones like the AR 15s and semi automatic AKs that the Democraps are so anxious to ban. In fact, you are more likely to be killed by an “unarmed assailant” than killed by a rifle OR a shotgun COMBINED.

            What you are saying is that it is better to protect the felon from his victim than to allow the intended victim to own the means by which to defend themselves from the felon. If you think that works, tell it to Carol Bowne. She was stabbed to death in her own driveway by the felon ex-boyfriend who she had a restraining order against. The state of New Jersey had taken over 6 weeks to process her permit to PURCHASE a firearm and left her defenseless against her attacker.

          • Vanns40

            Cite to fact your assertions please. If you cannot you’re wasting everyone’s time.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Your statement is incorrect and repeatedly disproven. This is the wrong forum to bleat soundbites. You will persuade no one with that intellectual dishonesty.

          • LeslieFish

            Note the FBI figures, which show that firearms are used in America to *prevent* crime at least 90 times more often than they’re used for crime.

          • Cian Smith

            Prove it. Show us a study that backs you up. You can’t because it’s not true. 5 minutes on Google disprove what you are saying. That’s what makes antigunners and libtards so hilariously sad is that their arguments and “facts” are so easily disproven yet they cling to them like a drowning rat to a board.

          • J-Rod

            Yup, most of what you said is correct… In Chicago, New York, Baltimore and DC. All places with the most severe gun laws and highest rates of gun violence. What have these laws done there besides keeping guns out of lawful residents.

          • Esh325

            Because it’s easy as hell to buy a gun from surrounding states DUH. Just look at where the guns used in Chicago come from.

        • Dan

          It’s best to just ignore him. He likes gun and doesn’t think they should be banned, but he pretty much advocates that.

      • Anton Gray Basson

        Dude, guns can save lives. These rules in Mexico aren’t aimed at saving lives and they make the bull we have to deal with in South Africa look like a walk in a park. They have effectively disarmed the vast majority of people from a means of defending themselves from violent criminals. They are limited to very poor tools and can not effectively train if they are lucky enough to own a gun. What is now happening in Mexico and South Africa are civilians dropped by their nations firearms policies acquiring arms illegally to defend their families from violence.

        • Esh325

          They do a hell of a lot more taking lives than saving.

          • Anton Gray Basson

            By that logic we should ban all knives since they are the leading cause of unnatural deaths globally. In my country where we have 55 murders per day only about 20% are caused by firearms.

          • Esh325

            Did I say all firearms should be banned? Where did I say that?

          • Anton Gray Basson

            Ban/ restrict ownership beyond the means of the average law abiding citizen. Its effectively the same thing.

          • Twilight sparkle

            The numbers you’re looking at from the us are largely botched because of suicides, the number one form of death with firearms is self inflicted and the antiguners do a very good job of hiding that fact. Using regulations like these would only lessen suicide by firearms, the murder rate and violent crime Rate would go up along with suicides by other means… guns are used a lot more for self defence than they are for an actual murder.

          • RayJN

            I would also be surprised if this did not include criminals killed in the commission of a crime.

          • Mark

            “…but there has [sic] to be proper measures in place.”

            We understand what is meant by “proper measures,” “reasonable gun control,” and the rest of the code-word euphemisms.

            If you want to use bait, go fishing.

          • LeslieFish

            IIRC, Britain is now trying to ban knives with blades longer than 3 inches.

          • Anton Gray Basson

            I thought the knife laws in the UK prevented the carrying of blades longer than 2 inches in towns? I was visiting friends in London earlier and it was weird not having a knife on me during that trip. I always have one on me because its a useful tool. I dont know why we cant get in to our heads a planet that people, not things do evil.

          • RICH

            If I’m not mistaken Great Britain is having an issue with knives being used to commit homicides since they put such a restriction on firearms.

          • Anton Gray Basson

            Its an issue that every country has, the use of knives in homicides is always greater than the use of firearms even in nations with high firearm ownership rates

          • xtphreak

            You know (and we do too) that you can’t back that claim up with anything verifiable because if a gun stops a crime it’s seldom reported unless someone gets shot.
            Just showing a weapon can and does stop criminals in lots of cases.

          • fishydude

            That is also why those who are determined to kill as many people as possible choose place they know are mandated gun free zones.

          • LeslieFish

            According to the FBI, every year Americans use firearms to *prevent* crime at least 900,000 times. These are only the police-reported incidents. The CDC estimates that the actual figure is much higher, somewhere between 2 million and 3 million incidents per year, because most such are not reported to the police. Compare that to the (FBI stats) 11,000 gun homicides per year.

          • xtphreak

            thanks for the backup, I usually research and post facts & links, but was in a bit of a rush this time

          • Mark

            Rubbish. There have been about 15 studies of the DEFENSIVE uses of firearms. Every one of those studies shows that DEFENSIVE uses far outweigh criminal use (unless one includes the deaths by government). Guns are used to SAVE lives, PREVENT injuries, AVERT medical costs, and PROTECT property.

          • Sandydog

            They very well may do so; Often, however, the taking of one life is done to preserve another. Granted that guns can be used to take life; If they prevent the death of one, or two, or ten, or a hundred in the process, are they evil in that context? Surely, no.

          • RICH

            A ‘gun’, or any weapon for that matter, CAN NOT be ‘evil’ in itself….. it is always the individual possessing that particular weapon that is the ‘evil’!

          • fishydude

            Only when it is illegal for the jaw abiding to protect themselves.
            The criminal and the corrupt rule Mexico, Chicago, New York, New Jersey. All because the law abiding cannot fight back.

          • Francisco Machado

            If, for the sake of this question, we take that as valid – at least consider this: If the law abiding public had no guns, many of the lives taken (and do not assume that most lives are taken by guns) would be the victims of criminals, would be those who obey the law. Banning guns would protect the criminals by eliminating a significant means of self defense against their acts. If private ownership of guns by the law abiding were encouraged, far more of those being killed would be the criminals – and fewer law abiding citizens would be killed by them. More criminal lives taken wouldn’t be so bad a thing, particularly insofar as it’s in defense of the innocent.

          • jcitizen

            If you look at the murder rate per capita, the most restrictive gun law countries have the highest rates – and I’d bet a lot of them are committed by illegal guns too!

            http://chartsbin(dot)com/view/1454

          • RICH

            Hitlers idea of ‘gun control’ worked pretty well, didn’t it ? I believe that it worked for Stalin also !

          • Esh325

            So when I can’t come up with a smart counter argument I just yell “HITLER!” and that makes me right!

          • RICH

            Pretty much so. You haven’t come up with a valid arguement as of yet other than guns should be restricted. Wake up fool, it’s the mental deficients that need to be controled ! The U.S. thought it was so great that back in the 80’s they started closing all of the mental facilities….. where did that bring us ? Exactly where we are today as nobody in this country is helping or housing those with mental health issues. Show me one, just one, mass shooter that hasn’t had psychological problems in their past.
            Individuals of your Ilk can’y keep blaming firearms or the people that legally own them any longer. PLEASE… put the blame where the blame belongs. If you can’t see that, ESH325, you have become part of the problem….!

          • Esh325

            I totally support reopening those mental facilities as I do not want to see people like you walking the streets.

          • RICH

            By the way… I can come up with a whole hell of a lot more than the ‘FACISISTS’ that murdered millions….. so can you . Just read a little bit of history.

      • Tassiebush

        I disagree that it could exacerbate the situation. The cartels are well armed and funded. The authorities are in a large number of situations hopelessly corrupt and lack capacity or willingness to protect the community. The idea that regular people should be defenceless and reliant on those authorities for protection is unreasonable.

      • KestrelBike

        esh likes his victims unarmed.

      • Sandydog

        For the present, all that Mexico’s strict gun-control laws have accomplished is to place the ‘cartels,’ both legal (the government) and illegal (the ‘other cartels’) in possession of lethal power over the unarmed citizenry, to do as they please. Being in the position of having the power of life and death at their disposal, the government sends its corrupt police, its paramilitaries, and its actual military (complete with its soldiers and officers having a penchant to desert, taking their arms with them) out to do its work of oppression when necessary with little fear of resistance. The ‘other cartels,’ having the firearms that the government cannot prevent them from obtaining but that the government denies lawful citizens, uses their lethal power to form quasi-governments, once again ruling the countryside with impunity.
        This is an exact parallel to America’s inner cities: Ruled by corrupt Leftist governments, replete with ‘cartels,’ with the citizenry at their mercy.
        Has it ever occurred to you that arming the citizens appropriately might serve to break the stranglehold of the ‘other cartels’ in the countryside, while presenting a threat to your oppressive government? Surely you know Mexican history, do you not? When the ‘peasants’ were allowed to obtain the necessary firearms, the government had a hard time oppressing them. The only reason that Mexico now has Draconian gun laws is to keep the government, and its auxiliaries in the ‘other cartels,’ in power.
        What Mexico sorely needs is a 2nd Amendment, not the other way around; Its problem is corrupt government, corrupt law enforcement, and unchecked ‘gang’ activity–not armed citizens.

        • marathag

          like this?
          Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States are entitled to have arms of any kind in their possession for their protection and legitimate defense, except such as are expressly forbidden by law, or which the nation may reserve for the exclusive use of the army, navy, or national guard; but they may not carry arms within inhabited places without complying with police regulations

          amazing what a few laws did with that ‘except such as are expressly forbidden by law’ to completely gut it.

      • RICH

        Apparently you don’t have much of an understanding of the ‘gun situation’ either ! There are more gun laws on the books in our country that you obviously are aware of. The big issue here is that the politicians want to keep writing more and more laws ( it makes them look like they’re doing something !) yet they don’t want to enforce the laws that are already in place.
        More laws are not what we need in this country…. ENFORCEMENT of the existing laws is what’s needed….. !

      • Lascivious Joy Monkey

        Wow you really are a special kind of stupid. Your obviously not an American but some UK euro trash liberal Derpy McDerpster trying to spew gun control dogma on a website dedicated to the discussion & information of firearms and related equipment. Our 2nd amendment means we don’t have to understand your pathetically twisted weak anti-gun logic. We won the revolution remember? That means you tards had to go back across the pond for good and we don’t have to put up with your BS anymore.

    • KestrelBike

      Not to mention the ammo restrictions. 200rds a year will not do much to maintain decent accuracy skills that are useful in a fight for your life.

      Brass banditos, indeed.

    • J-Rod

      Sounds a little like Chicago eh?

  • Vitsaus

    Great article, but it falls squarely under the category: Politics

    • M.M.D.C.

      It might get close to politics but it certainly doesn’t “fall squarely under the category” of politics.

    • I disagree. I realize the whole politics in Mexico thing, cartels, etc… But in this case, I am focusing on an interesting topic, that of there being only one gunshop in the entire country of Mexico, and how that is run.

    • I’ve railed and snarked here about just such things on several occasions. This time however I don’t think this article falls into the political realm. It does come close I grant. It’d have been ridiculously easy to slide into politics. But the author keeps it in the information-only tip pretty well I think.

      • Dan

        I think the comments section will drag it those final few feet across Politics boundary. Especially if Esh the expert on American Gun crime chimes in

  • JT-AP

    Hi, i am a mexican citizen and honestly i support your 2a i may not be a US citizen, but i do live in the border and travel to US most of my days to shop or visit. i think that if here in mexico we could have a an amendment like you guys have, the cartels and corrupt goverment we have wouldnt have the power they have right now in our nation and over our people, because we could fight back the tyranny we suffer from them, simple as that. i encourage to all the US citizens that read this that do nnot let the govt take your right to bear arms, because i´ve seen of first hand what its like not to have it

    P.S. i know there shouldnt be politics here but i had to say it.

    • simon

      Bless you-I wish everyone in my country understood this hard truth as well as you. Stay safe.

    • RICH

      GOD BLESS YOU JT-AP. I HOPE THAT SOME DAY MEXICO WILL ALLOW THEIR ‘HONEST CITIZENS’ TO HAVE LEGAL FIREARMS AND NOT ONLY THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT AND THE CARTELS. THE ENTIRE BASIS FOR OUR 2nd AMENDMENT IS TO ‘PROTECT US FROM GOVERNMENT TYRANNY’ SUCH AS YOU HAVE IN MEXICO.
      MY PRAYERS ARE WITH YOU……… STAY TOUGH .

      • JT-AP

        I really appreciate the blessings, thanks, happy holidays to you and yours, stay safe, here in my city in new years eve looks like warzone honestly… ak´s and ar´s with drums magazine, 9mm , .45 acp, .38 super, all of them fired to the air to ” celebrate” dont know if their stupidity or new year….
        that is weird in a country where those calibers are banned to honest citizens
        P.S. Note the sarcasm in the last line

    • gregge

      In a few Mexican villages the people have just decided they’ve had enough and armed themselves to run off both the drug lords and the corrupt police. The army has told them they can’t do that but hasn’t tried disarming them.

      • AzureRaptor

        I think the autodefensas are wonderful, and I hope they survive and grow, but … I think there’s been a horrible pogrom against them just recently. I forget where I read that, and googling mostly finds info about historical paramilitary groups in Colombia. :{

      • fishydude

        But in some areas, the military is assassinating the leaders in these defense groups. They are a threat to government power and corruption.

        • John Smith

          The cartels couldn’t exist without govt. collusion….

          • GenEarly

            in the USSA too!

    • fishydude

      You are absolutely correct. The ruling class in Mexico knew they could not hold power long if they did not first disarm the people.
      Gun control, throughout human history, only benefits two groups. The criminal and the corrupt.
      The Mexican government promotes illegal migration to the US because they don’t want people staying that might have the energy to push and fight for change. While at the same time trading those who cross their southern border illegally very harshly.
      Mexico is what Democrats in the US want the US to become.

      • RICH

        I like your comparison of the Mexican government and Democrats…. it’s right on!!

      • JT-AP

        you are right, i´ve read one article about gun control in special, not so long ago, it happened in Germany in 1938 if i remember right, by orders of Hitler and we all know how that ended.

        And about inmigration, you are almost right too, but add to that earning roughly 5 bucks a day, when the basic basket as known here, which its just the necessary food to live a day, cost about 10 bucks,
        a deplorable health system and every thing we have already wrote.
        Its a rough life. thats why there is so many illegal inmigration, im not saying that its correct but sometimes they have no other choice that to risk their lives to find something better for them. Neither im saying that all of them are good people because it is impossible.

  • RP

    Gun Control in Mexico is for the purpose to prevent another “Revolution”. It was changed in 1917 after the revolution.

    It was further restricted in 1971.

    Can’t have the people rising up to replace us. We learned that in 1917.

    • marathag

      But they have the Right to Bear Arms, in their Constitution.

      It just got whittled away to nothing.

      • John Smith

        A right you have to petition your govt. to use is no right at all.

  • SP mclaughlin

    Well it aint stopping the Michoacan vigilante militias.

  • I honestly thought Mexico’s lonely gov’t gun store was a fairly widely known fact in the US. I live in the southwest though, so maybe it’s just more known down here.

  • Dan

    “But i am also fairly sure that if we could disappear all the guns in America they would simply stab and bludgeon each other to death anyway”
    You sir actually understand the problem, you have my respect. We have a violent people problem not a gun problem.

  • Mexico is difficult for many people to understand. The best way to describe it is to say that everything is illegal here but enforcement is lax. It is up to the officer or government employee at the scene to determine whether a law has been broken. They can ignore a violation or they can charge you falsely. Speed limits and traffic signs are treated as suggestions by both motorists and the police. If you are stopped it is usually possible to negotiate.

  • Mike Gibson

    Remove all the guns, and the problems go away, right? Only problem is…you can only take away the guns you know about, which are the ones law-abiding folks (NOT the ones who are the problem) possess. The gangs, organized crime, drug dealers, terrorists, etc., are affected…how?…by gun laws? They’re not. End of story. So…more and more gun laws accomplish what, exactly? They don’t reduce crime, they don’t deter criminals…they serve only to disarm those who are not the problem, and leave them defenseless. So…is that the goal? It sure seems to be working everywhere it’s been tried!

  • tads

    Mexican gun laws, like the ones recently passed here in the Peoples Republic of Bolivia not to prevent crime but are designed so you may not use civilian weapons against the regime running the government. Until 2013, Bolivia had NO gun laws and you could pretty much own whatever you wanted. (Believe me when i tell you it was a lot of fun growing up here). Due to recent legislation, we had to register our weapons with “the amnesty”. We can own AR’s and semi autos, so long as you give the government a registered address so that they may take them into custody “in times of national emergency and social upheaval” under a specific provision in the law.

    • John Smith

      Even if Morales and his leftists go, I doubt you’ll ever get your lost freedoms back.

    • Nathan

      Too bad you lost all your guns in that boating accident and couldn’t register them, huh?

  • mxprivateer

    I bet reading this article would give liberals the biggest hard on they ever had.

  • Lt_Scrounge

    Honestly, you should probably be more worried about the average person being able to buy a WWI SMLE and walking out the door with it than an AR. The SMLE fires a far more powerful round and reloads fairly quickly with practice. It has better range too. I know, I have both in my gun safe. The AR was originally developed as a target rifle. It was adopted by the military in a selective fire configuration as the M16 after the impact of the high velocity .223/5.56 round was demonstrated to an Air Force general at a holiday picnic. The general thought it would make a good rifle for the Security Police to use while guarding air fields since it was a lot lighter than the M1s and M14s and more powerful than the M1 Carbines that they had in the inventory at the time. For those who don’t know, AR stands for Armalite Rifle. Armalite being the company that first developed the design before selling it to Colt. Armalite is still in business and producing ARs.

    For that matter, if you REALLY want to shoot up something, few things beat a 12 gauge pump action or semiautomatic shotgun. You can put more 32 caliber pellets in the air with one of those in under a minute than you can 22 caliber bullets with an AR. With an extended tube magazine, you can fire 8 shots without reloading and each shell contains between 9 and 15 “00” buck projectiles. That’s 72 to 120 32 caliber pellets in under a minute. Most of those killed or injured at the “gun free” theater in Aurora, CO were shot with a shotgun because the shooter’s AR had jammed. If you REALLY wanted to do a lot of damage in a hurry, there are a number of steel shot goose rounds that have a lot more slightly smaller diameter pellets per round that have very good penetration due to higher velocities and non spherical pellet shapes.

  • Bill

    Coming soon to a Liberal state near you (if it hasn’t already). Little taste of home for our new undocumented Americans, say what?

    • John Smith

      The problem is that they bring the ways of their homeland with them and will vote the same when given amnesty.

      • Bill

        Yes. That is 110% correct. I lived on the Tex-Mex border for several years and that is exactly what I saw. Disregard for the rule of law is cultural in Latin America and the arrest demographics bore that out each and every time. Oh, and one interesting thing that you never, ever hear about-too PI, you know-is that many legal born Latinos and Latinas along the border do NOT love and cherish their cousins from across the river. La Raza is a Liberal invention, not a cultural norm.

        • John Smith

          I know that Hispanics are far from monolithic and they can be white, or mixed black and/or native. Some are conservative and pro-American and pro-BOR, pro-RKBA. The problem is that my knowledge of voting patterns indicates that many are not that conservative (or far from it) and my anecdotal experience shows me many have more loyalty to their homeland than their adopted nation, even as a second-generation, and their loyalty to “blood” is stronger still. Mexico, for example, is a country where the people ought to have a high standard of living, based on their natural mineral, petroleum and agricultural resources, along with ready access to some of the greatest markets in the world, so it’s obviously something cultural that holds it back as a nation, something we are going to be importing.

  • Jackson

    obama, democrats, and the anti-gun crowd would like us to have their gun laws or worse just remove all guns. Yet,obama,holder, were running guns at the border illegallys elling them. They lost track of the guns and got people killed with them. They were selling them to drug cartels members, a really nice crowd to arm with illegal guns dont you think? They got border patrol,and Mexican families killed with those guns. No arrests to date for those illegal acts. Wonder when the indictment is coming down for holder and obama? Dont hold your breath.

  • GenEarly

    Frau Hitlery’s plan isn’t as “Liberal” as Mexico’s regimen.

    • Finkster

      When it’s all said and done. The Progressive Liberal Religions bans on Fire Arms in the United States will cause worse Criminal Activity here. Especially when the convert our Self Governance into their Tyrannical Regimen worse than Mexico’s.

  • Mikial

    Interesting to note what an absolute failure the Mexican gun control laws are. The citizens are legally expected to be defenseless and yet the criminal groups are armed to the teeth and the murder rate is astronomical. It would be no different here is we had those kind of laws.

  • supergun

    It looks like they have one of the most restrictive gun bans in North America. Wonder why all the gun violence then? Poor people.

  • LeslieFish

    More than that, if all guns were made to disappear tomorrow, underground gun-factories would emerge by the day after. The famous Springfield rifle was invented — and the prototype built — by a prisoner, out materials he could find in prison. The infamous “zip-gun” was invented by teenagers in the slums of New York. And today there’s the “Liberator II”, created by 3D printing, which has already been built and tested. There is no getting rid of guns; we simply have to find rational ways to live with them, and the best evidence shows that society is safest when all its citizens are armed, *and trained*, and capable of defending themselves.

  • jcitizen

    Since 2009 when Obama took office 65,376,372 firearms transactions have taken place; the population of gun owners is now well over 45 million people, and yet the murder rate has been dropping every since. It seems all those guns didn’t kill anybody today. Sounds like this is like dumping water on the fire, not gasoline!

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    A .22 or .380 is all that’s allowed for home defense? In Mexico, where the drug cartels are armed with ARs, AKs and all manner of military weapons courtesy of the United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives?

    As an American gun owner, when I read what the Mexican people must endure to have a .22 LR pistol in their home, all I could think was, “Don’t they have 3D printers and internet access?”

  • Indiana Mike

    Sounds like Bloomberg’s wet dream…One gunshop in the Country, run by Soldiers , with ANY firearms purchased from the Army only at his express permission..Stalin’s wet dream as well as Hillary’s, Bernies, Cuomo’s, Gates, Immelt’s, Cook’s, et al. Tyrants all.

  • Robert Griffith

    This is exactly where all gun control leads. The idea being
    to make it so onerous to exercise your rights that no one bothers to try. I
    could easily see a situation like this here in this country. This would allow a
    draconian gun control regime in this country while still allowing the government
    that administers it to claim that they are abiding by the Constitution. It
    would also provide that same government with an excuse to begin implementing a
    confiscation effort, which is becoming clearer by the day that this is the
    direction they’re heading.