NM Supreme Court allows temp gun seizures

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) - The state Supreme Court has ruled that police can temporarily remove a visible gun from a car during a traffic stop even if they have no suspicion the occupants are dangerous.

The justices said that ensuring the safety of law enforcement officers justifies removal of the gun from a vehicle.

The court issued the unanimous ruling on Friday in a case involving a traffic stop in Hobbs in 2008.


http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2124429.shtml?cat=500





Out of sight, out of mind...

This is more European socialist thinking from our appointed judges, appointed by socialist elected officials, elected by welfare addicts and people who are spineless worms, who are ashamed of American success and accomplishment.

I can see some serious litigation coming out of this shit.

I can see some podunk cops,

sitting in their cruiser,

with your $1000-$2000 firearm on the seat next to them,

writing you a traffic ticket...









...and racking their brains to come up with any piss poor excuse to make the seizure permanent.






While I can see the argument for officer safety, I think it will be strong motivation to escalate a minor traffic infraction into an arrest situation. Hell, almost any physical movement you make, could be considered "threatening" to the cop.

looks like ill stop handing over my CHP license with my drivers license when im pulled over

The officer knows you have a permit before he even walks up to your vehicle.

Some guy named Marconi (sp) invented a thing called a radio.

I thought Al Gore invented the radio?

That wuz the innawebs.

Sheesh, didn't you learn anything in skool?

Not when I'm in the fiances car

He inbented the innawebs too?
That guy should have been president.

Thank god my car is considered an extension of my home and I can conceal all I want, license or no(I'm pretty sure that's still the law). I have a CCL but still would never volunteer any information about my carry status unless it was absolutely necessary. Regardless it's a bullshit situation that's attempting to circumvent basic 2nd amendment rights, which I do not like!

Absolute madness. The people the cops need to worry about are not going to have a gun in the open. They're going to shoot him as soon as he walks up to their door, if not sooner.

Fascinating discussion.
I'll be passing through NM and am looking up the various state laws.
This thread is interesting because you don't volunteer your CCW status when you identify yourselves to LEO's. That is the opposite of what we do here. Most of our LEO Community is supportive of the CHL laws. We no longer have to volunteer when we are in a traffic stop but the general thinking is that you go ahead and show a LEO your CHL whenever you show him your DL.

I'm still a little uncertain about crossing tribal lands but everything I see suggests that if you are passing through and abiding by the law, you are OK. Just don't CCW outside of your car.

Thanks.

112

Your vehicle is NOT an extension of your home.

Here is the law:

30-7-2. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon.

A. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon consists of carrying a concealed loaded firearm or any other type of deadly weapon anywhere, except in the following cases:

(1) in the person's residence or on real property belonging to him as owner, lessee, tenant or licensee;

(2) in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property;

(3) by a peace officer in accordance with the policies of his law enforcement agency who is certified pursuant to the Law Enforcement Training Act [29-7-1 NMSA 1978];

(4) by a peace officer in accordance with the policies of his law enforcement agency who is employed on a temporary basis by that agency and who has successfully completed a course of firearms instruction prescribed by the New Mexico law enforcement academy or provided by a certified firearms instructor who is employed on a permanent basis by a law enforcement agency; or

(5) by a person in possession of a valid concealed handgun license issued to him by the department of public safety pursuant to the provisions of the Concealed Handgun Carry Act [29-19-1 NMSA 1978].

B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the carrying of any unloaded firearm.

C. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. "

The words 'extension of your home' are nowhere to be found.

Read line 2. I believe that it is worded that way so you are safe in your or somebody elses vehicle.

I am not a lawyer, but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express a few times.

so according to line 2 "or other private means of conveyance" could i be in a wheel chair and carry where ever i want?

Line 2 means that you can ride your bicycle through a school yard and as long as you don't get off can have whatever gun you want on you locked and loaded. Just like you can have a gun in your vehicle when you pick your kid up from school. You just can't have a gun on your person while you are on foot on school grounds.

Crap. Does that mean that Hop-Sing is breaking the law when he delivers my kid to school on his rickshaw?

Personally, I wouldn't be riding my bike through school grounds OCing. The heartaches that might follow would be a mofo.

(2) in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property;

Gotcha. So currently not an extension of the home, but for most intents and practices it seems like it might as well be(although I certainly am aware that the law is all about semantics). Good to know, but as long as the ultimate point is I can carry in my car, I'm happy. I remember at some point that the wording was still "extension of the home", but they revise these things every year so who knows how long it's been since that was the case. I'm definitely not a lawyer, and it's been a few months since I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express

NM has much more stringent rules regarding a personal auto than most other states & the Feds. Under Fed rules, there is what is called a "bright line exception" to the requirement for a search warrant when it concerns automobiles as they can be easily moved or evidence of a crime can be driven off. NM requires that you have the consent of the owner to search the car, get a search warrant or have a very, very strong case that there are 'exigent circumstances' that allowed to you to get into the vehicle without a warrant.

Most of the cops I know are not totally freaked out by guns in cars but it depends on the officer in question & his feeling on the mindset of the persons they have stopped. In San Juan County, unless you come across the very occasional 'obey my authority' cop, you should not have any issues with firearms in vehicles.

Having read the actual decision, rather than the watered down KOB version, I think the decision was both surprising for the NM Supreme Court & a bad ruling. You may read the full decision here: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/nm-gungrab.pdf

If I was involved in that traffic stop, once the occupants were out of the vehicle, I would not have been too terribly concerned about the firearm on the floor boards. I could properly run the driver for wants & warrants, registration & drivers license check but until or unless the passenger interfered with the investigation or admitted that the vehicle was his, he was off limits for questions.

Let's presume that the passenger admitted that the vehicle was his & that the gun also belongs to him; run him, find he has a felony conviction from TX. Now you legitimately have the authority to arrest him for felon in possession of a firearm & there is no possibility of a suppression hearing.

I commend the NRA for backing this appeal & I would really hope that they take this to the 10th circuit court of appeals & see if this can't be overturned. Again, I am REALLY surprised that the very liberal court went for this.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.