Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
4/25/2017 7:42:44 PM
Posted: 6/4/2002 7:27:42 PM EDT
Date: June 4, 2002 Source: KRQE News 13 Location: Santa Fe, NM The state Supreme Court has declared a concealed weapons law passed by the legislature last year as unconstitutional. The law would have allowed those who acquired a permit to carry a handgun in public. The unanimous decision was announced Tuesday afternoon. Former Albuquerque Mayor Jim Baca spearheaded legal action against the act, claiming it violated the state's constitution. Baca maintained carrying concealed weapons violated Section 6 of the constitution. Baca wanted municipalities to have a choice whether to regulate or stand for the act all together. Ironically, the provision in the law that allows for municipalities to choose weather to allow concealed weapons is what the court found unconstitutional. However Baca maintains that today's decision is a victory that will keep New Mexicans safe and he's confidant concealed weapons won't become an issue again. Baca says he doubts another revised concealed carry law will be passed again. Baca says a number of legislators voted for the original bill because of the very clause that was declared unconstitutional today. The state lawmaker who initially sponsored the bill was Judy Vanderstar Russell. Vanderstar Russell is a candidate for the GOP lieutenant governor nomination in Tuesday's primary election. The way the laws stand now, it is still legal to carry a gun in New Mexico as long as it is not concealed.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 8:07:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NYPatriot: Date: June 4, 2002 Source: KRQE News 13 Location: Santa Fe, NM However Baca maintains that today's decision is a victory that will keep New Mexicans safe
View Quote
Somebody pleae back slap his ass.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 8:22:40 PM EDT
This really chaps me. We're safer because law abiding citizens cannot carry concealed...only criminals can do that. Does this makes sense to ANYONE? [%|]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 8:28:32 PM EDT
Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] There is no need for a state or municipality to deem us lowly peons worthy of carrying concealed, as the BOR already grants that right as well as others.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 8:33:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2002 8:34:51 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
I'm a bit confused. Was the law declared unconstitutional BECAUSE it allowed [u]local municipalities[/u] to decide whether to grant or ban CCW (which IMO clearly IS unconstitutional)? Is that really altogether a bad thing? Would you WANT the court to say that the law is okay and that cities CAN ban CCW if they want?? Maybe I'm just missing something (probably) Can someone clarify.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 9:26:32 PM EDT
This really stinks! I spend alot of time in NM and hoped they would receive ccw privledge, especially if they would recognize AZ ccw permits. I feel bad for many people in NM that have already taken classes and spent money counting on ccw passing. My father in law and brother in law both live there and took classes, so when the law changed they could immediately apply for their permit. I guess it's back to the usual in NM. It basically a parking ticket for a citizen with a clean record getting caught carrying conceiled.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 10:13:53 PM EDT
Baca maintained carrying concealed weapons violated Section 6 of the constitution.
View Quote
What's section 6?
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 10:24:06 PM EDT
Kaliburz, section 6 of the NM constitution states: [i]No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.[/i] I love the "we recognize the right, but we don't really" part.z
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 10:40:04 PM EDT
zoom, Thanks for the info. Granted, I'm not from NM, but it still sucks. I bet the odds of redoing the state constitution is like [u]'A snow ball's chance in a very, very, very, hot place....'[/u]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 11:42:05 PM EDT
Aren't they going to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court? Or is it a "states rights" issue?
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 11:57:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2002 11:58:16 PM EDT by Wiggins]
Well at least you have open carry, so you are not totally out in the cold. A lot of people don't even have that. It sucks, but it could be worse. Kyle
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 4:49:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 5:26:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By zoom: Kaliburz, section 6 of the NM constitution states: [i]No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.[/i] I love the "we recognize the right, but we don't really" part.z
View Quote
To me, that reads that people have this right, but it doesn't grant concealed carry. Well, it doesn't PROHIBIT it, either, it just says that 'in this article, it doesn't provide for concealed carry'... which to me means that another article, or law, COULD.
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 6:24:44 AM EDT
Here in PA it's just the opposite... Not allowed open carry, but concealed carry is allowed with a $19 permit... Go figure ???
Top Top