Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Open Carry Harrassment in Corrales, NM and pending village resolution.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Corrales
    Posts
    6

    Open Carry Harrassment in Corrales, NM and pending village resolution.

    Sorry to just jump in here with a lengthy post as my first post. BTW... Hello.

    I don't know if many have heard about this issue, but my Corrales Village council is making noises that require attention.

    Here are two sides to the story :

    As reported by our local newspaper : http://www.corralescomment.com/index...=2148&Itemid=2

    As reported by the Independant American Party of NM: http://newworldorder.mywebteks.net/?e=13

    Because of this, there has been a formal resolution proposed by my village council and they will be voting on this tomorrow. If you want to attend the meeting, it will be Tuesday, Aug 14, 2012, meeting start at 6:30pm. Meetings are held in the Village of Corrales Council/Municipal Chambers at 4324 Corrales Road, but occasionally special events require relocation to another building.

    I've been in communication with a councilor who is opposed to this resolution. Unfortunately, in Corrales we ALWAYS have a 3:3 tie, and the mayor votes with his group of cronies. This particular councilor is not supported by the mayor.

    In speaking with my councilor this morning, he pointed out that this is a resolution and not an ordinance. An ordinance is a law, enforceable by police. A resolution is more along the lines of "teacher appreciation day" sort of thing.

    I'm speculating that perhaps my village knows that they would be in violation of the NM state constitution by passing a control law, and as such they are voting on a resolution to post signage ONLY. The signs would say that it is illegal to open carry, even though our village would not have passed a law supporting that sign.

    My councilor said that he may ask to take the meeting into private session in order to discuss the purpose of this resolution. If they take it into private session, we may not be allowed to speak during the meeting....I just don't know. My intent is to provide them with my opinion, to be civil and polite and a good representative of the OC community.

    So.... I am going to attend. I am considering wearing an empty holster as a statement. My councilor has told me that police will be present at the meeting, and that citizens in attendance will be required to pass through a metal detector to gain access.

    Please attend if you can. We need as much civil and respectful objection as we can muster. Keep in mind we might be asked to all leave if this goes into closed session.

    Here is a copy of the resolution :








  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    "No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."

    It really is unbelievable how these morons can't seem to understand the most basic terms. IN ANY WAY means- IN ANY WAY. Period, end of story. Call it a resolution, it's still a a form of regulation.

    Complete morons.

    Edit:

    OK, I found the resolution online and was able to read it:

    http://www.corrales-nm.org/Council/2...cket-DRAFT.pdf

    They are attempting to justify this by saying the village is the "landowner" -such as private landowners are able to post their property. Wrong- the village is a public entity. Village property is public property, not private.

    They are also attempting to restrict guns in vehicles to be unloaded on village property. That is ridiculous.

    These people really are idiots.
    Last edited by AH.74; 08-13-2012 at 12:45 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    I smell a lawsuit and a payday.

    If they do post signs that are not supported by law just ignore them. They can't do anything to you and if they try then sue for a "million dollars" and tell the taxpayers thanks when they write you the check.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    The more I think about this the more I can't believe it.

    You can't just decide to call something illegal when it is not. What are these people thinking?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Corrales
    Posts
    6
    From Wiki :

    Answer ordinance vs.resolution

    An ordinance is a local law. Although the method of enacting an ordinance will vary from municipality to municipality, they are generally passed by a legislative body (city council) and signed by a city executive (mayor), and subsequently enforced by local police and district attorneys.

    Resolutions are non-binding, unenforcible, statements made by a municipalities legislative body. They are often not signed or endorsed by the city executive. Resolutions are often used to persuade other legislative bodies (State or Federal) to adopt legislation that is beyond the powers of the local body.



    Hmmmmm... I wonder if they are trying to gain a toe hold in passing a resolution, which they hope will be further adopted by other communities, and then evolved into something that affects state law?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    State law cannot be affected without amending the State's Constitution in this case. And "that ain't happ'nin" without a major undertaking.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    To ALL Whom are Concerned:

    The City of Corrales, New Mexico Understands The Limitations of The New Mexico Constitution, because; They Themselves, under Their Own Resolution, Incorporate its Plain Terms into Their Proposed Illegal City Policy-Resolution Memoradum.

    The Resolution is Illegal and Unenforceable, Period.

    Except for Courthouses, The State of New Mexico ALLOWS Firearms into Public Buildings, AND onto Public Property.

    aadvark

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    This sounds like the same thing the city of Seattle tried up here to ban guns in parks. The city was sued, lost, appealed, lost, appealed to the State Supreme court, who basically shook there heads and refused to even consider the case.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Corrales
    Posts
    6
    It will be interesting to see how this all turns out. We have some councilors and a mayor who apparently believe that they are much bigger fish than they are.

    My councilor sent me a copy of a letter that was written to him by a person who I believe is an attorney. I have removed the name of the author from this, but this is a verbatim copy otherwise.

    To: Corrales Village Mayor and Councilors
    From: XXXXXXXXXXXXX: Village Resident

    Subject: Proposed Resolution Banning Open Carry of Firearms on Village Property on the August 14, 2012 Council Agenda

    I am sending each of you my thoughts on the proposed Resolution because 3 minutes is not enough time to explain why this resolution is not only a violation of the state constitution and laws, but also a very bad idea. I don’t think any of you should be put in the position of having to vote on this resolution without the chance to understand why this proposal should be defeated. This e-mail also puts you on notice of legal liabilities if you pass this Resolution.
    I don’t know what legal analysis you have been provided. I am not giving you a legal analysis as the question is not that hard to figure out. Consider this:
    Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution states:
    RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
    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. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (Emphasis added)
    Now that is very clear. Case law which I assume your lawyer has provided you makes it even clearer that this language means exactly what it says.
    How can anyone say that this proposed resolution does not violate the state constitution?
    This resolution is also a very bad idea regardless of its illegality.
    Because a few paranoid people have an irrational fear of firearms Pandora’s Box has been opened.
    In doing so, attention has been given to people who have an agenda of confrontation. That is their right, but ignoring the exercise of their right to open carry could have avoided some confrontations. Merely carrying a gun openly is not a crime or a threat but confronting those who do simply inflames a side show. It is now too late to let sleeping dogs lie. But the best way out of this drama is to recognize the rights people have to free speech and to carry firearms, and to gracefully move on without any more ill advised confrontations.

    I understand that this is not being proposed as an ordinance. Therefore, it may be argued that this is not a regulation of the right to keep and bear arms. I find this argument specious.
    The Municipal league states that the difference between a resolution and an ordinance is that a resolution “does not have the force of law…” but is instead a “formal declaration of the governing body concerning a certain subject which it cannot or does not wish to control by ordinance” The language of the so called proposed resolution actually prohibits and by application makes criminal the open carrying of firearms on village property. This still boils down to regulating, unconstitutionally and illegally, the open carry rights guaranteed by the New Mexico Constitution.
    This resolution seems to be an ordinance cloaked in a façade of a resolution. In so doing it denies the public the right of three hearings and their input required for any ordinance. Why is this ordinance cloaked as a resolution?
    This so called resolution actually proclaims prohibited conduct. Such prohibitions then become laws the violations of which ultimately lead to criminal arrests. It is wrong to propose this newly created criminal conduct as a mere resolution when it will operate as an ordinance making otherwise constitutionally protected actions illegal.
    A regulation of the right to keep and bear arms which prohibits otherwise protected conduct is by any other name still unconstitutional.
    In addition, the ‘Whereas’ clauses either state the obvious without supporting the proposed regulation or state facts that are not true.
    The fourth ‘Whereas’ states the fact that the right is not absolute and can be regulated but misses the point that the regulation cannot be done by this body. It can only be done by the state legislature for the entire state. Furthermore such regulation must have some compelling state interest and public good or welfare to overcome the right to keep and bear arms. In this case the irrational fears of a person do not provide a rational reason to regulate this right.
    The fifth ‘Whereas’ regarding the right to post lands ignores the fact that this applies to private, not public lands. Access cannot be denied to public lands when that access is guaranteed by the constitution. Access cannot be denied to people on the basis of race, or color. Nor can access be denied to someone who openly carries a firearm in compliance with state law and constitutional rights. This premise is fundamentally flawed.

    The sixth ‘Whereas’ is legally insufficient. I would even say it is irrelevant. As pointed out by Mr. Ron Reder in a letter in the Corrales comment, …“I think it is well over the line for government to limit innocent, law abiding citizens rights just to make other people feel more comfortable; to assuage their irrational fears.” I could not say this any better.
    The next ‘Whereas’ recounts a so called incident to which I say, so what? The mere sight of a firearm in a holster being carried may cause apprehension to some people but that apprehension is irrational. If a firearm is worn by a plainclothes officer unknown as an officer to the viewer is it any more fearful than one worn by a law abiding citizen? Irrational fears do not get to rule this world or this village.
    The next ‘Whereas’ declares this regulation does not interfere with exercising constitutional rights. Many beg to differ The law is not on the villages side.. This resolution recognizes the right of concealed carry license holder’s to carry on Corrales property while denying that right to those who carry openly. But, the right belongs to everybody, equally.
    This resolution creates two classes of citizens based on the same exercise of a constitutional right. This resolution criminalizes one who carries openly but approves of and acknowledges the rights of those who carry concealed. There is no rational basis for this distinction.
    The next ‘Whereas’ is unsupported. How in the world is this attempted prohibition against open carry of firearms on Corrales property necessary for the public safety? No facts are presented for this inflammatory claim. The mentioned incidents do not rise to that level, especially considering how they became inflamed.
    The only conduct that is said to be a threat to public safety is that some paranoid people will become irrationally afraid if they see a gun carried in a holster. This is not a public safety issue. That may be a mental health issue.
    Under paragraph 2 c this resolution actually changes and limits rights already guaranteed by state law. The resolution will prohibit keeping a loaded firearm in a person’s vehicle. However, consider NMSA1978 chapter 30, article 7, Section 2:
    “Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon.
    A. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon consists of carrying a concealed loaded firearm… anywhere, except in the following cases:

    … in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance for lawful protection of the persons or another’s property.”
    Once again this resolution rewrites and fundamentally changes state law in an obvious violation of existing rights.
    Finally this resolution purports to give the village power to put up signs prohibiting firearms on public property contrary to state law. If these prohibitions are illegal or unconstitutional then the village can’t post illegal signs. Isn’t this going to set up our police into making unlawful arrests?
    The people of this village cherish all of their constitutional rights. There are principals to be upheld. Whether 10 or 20 come to speak, a very diverse group of people is being stirred up. They will consume time and energy and invoke passion and disagreements. This will take time away from other more meaningful discussions.
    If this resolution passes there will be substantial opposition in the community as a matter of principal.
    Individuals and organizations like the NRA and the Gun Owners of America can take legal action. I have it on good authority that they are already looking at this situation. A regional rep of the NRA is planning on attending the council meeting.
    They can sue civilly before anyone gets arrested. They can sue when anyone gets arrested. Those who get arrested can also sue not only to have their charges dismissed but also for damages for illegal arrest.
    Why are we going to incur these great expenses? Isn’t this a waste of time, energy and a whole lot of money?
    A few weeks ago I spoke in favor of the half mill tax increase. I did so to provide much needed and earned raises for the village police, fire, roads, maintenance and clerical people in our village. I did not support these taxes so this council can waste money on substantial legal fees on an issue that is limited to and driven by irrational paranoids or antagonistic individuals. Someone has to be the adult here.
    How much tax payer money has already been consumed in drafting this resolution? How much more money will be wasted fighting the many lawsuits and legal challenges. How much will the village have to pay for damages for illegal arrests? And even if no damages are awarded against us, how much will it cost to just defend these suits?

    And all this expense is for what? These expenses are because somebody is irrationally afraid of the sight of a firearm legally carried. Won’t these people be just as irrationally fearful at the sight of a citizen walking down the street carrying a gun, but are not in a public park? Is the village next going to attempt to prohibit legal open carry on the streets because the streets are public village property? Where does this madness end? End it now.
    Enough time and energy has been wasted on this matter. As a matter of law, and as a matter of what is right, and in good common sense, you need to vote this resolution down.
    As a citizen of this village I feel a duty to share my observations. I urge this village to not stray down this acrimonious and meaningless path. I share these observations in hopes that sanity will prevail and the lid for Pandora’s Box can be found and returned to its proper place.

    I do not ask for any reply to these comments. I fear that if I discuss this with several councilors before the meeting, and inadvertently pass on a councilors view, I may improperly facilitate a rolling quorum.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Washington soon to return to N.M.
    Posts
    38
    Way back when, in the '70s I had always considered Corrales the land of " OOOOOOs and AAAAAAHs and LAAAAADEEEEDAASS, those people there could not grasp common sense with 10 arms. A lady did stop me one time and made me shut my tractor off so she could pass with her horse, but, Wagners did have good corn on the cob with butter.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by AH.74 View Post
    OK, I found the resolution online and was able to read it:

    http://www.corrales-nm.org/Council/2...cket-DRAFT.pdf
    58 pages!

    I made my own for easier reading if anyone wants it
    http://www.facebook.com/download/474...448/12-032.pdf

    or for our non-facebook friends: http://www1.zippyshare.com/v/96120678/file.html

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Corrales
    Posts
    6
    I am hoping that the mayor and his cronies come to their senses and pull this thing from the agenda and strike it forever.

    Otherwise the meeting tomorrow is going to be a complete zoo. I really would much rather be watching the Eastdale girls softball game on ESPN2.

    I sent some email questions to my councilor, and have not heard back. He is a good advocate for us, and I suspect that he is currently up to his eyeballs in alligators.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    197
    Is the mayor of Corrales related to the mayor of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque? I thought that guy (Los Ranchos) was the most arrogant leader of an area where most people weren't aware there was a leader;. He actually goes around to local businesses and threatens them if they don't change their business cards to read "Los Ranchos de..." instead of just "Albuquerque". Way to sway the voters.

    Anywho, this really takes the cake. If this goes into effect I might have a really hard time not being one of those guys who goes out with his digital camera set on stun. The wife and I will do our best to make it there in support tonight, even though we live next door. If there's anything else that can be done to help, keep us posted.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    63
    Looks like there's a little more to the story...

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/2754...6975355985634/

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Corrales
    Posts
    6
    Hmmmmmmm........

    Dusty is making assertions that he can not prove. Reporting that “First, neither the officer nor the Chief said they don't care about the constitution.” is inaccurate. Dusty can speculate, but if he was not there, then he can not say with certainty what was or was not said.

    It is reported that Vigil was not around at the time of the initial conversation when officer Fuentes allegedly made his initial comments regarding the constitution and the disparaging remarks about women, so I am not sure why he is so confident. Fuentes also has a reputation for being a bit of a loose cannon.

    Unfortunately, this turns into a he said / she said sort of thing. A reminder that it is not a bad idea to keep your voice recorders running if you are going to OC.

    Furthermore, the “hubbub” is not merely about allowing citizens to have guns in the council meetings. To state this as such is severely under-informed.

    The situation at the park on father’s day is not the issue. That might have been the catalyst, but the issue is much, much larger.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    Corrales reminds me of the Silver City and Ruidoso incidents a while back:


    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ds-ban-on-guns

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ayor-Bans-Guns


    Don't these mayors ever keep up with current events or talk to each other?
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 08-14-2012 at 07:49 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    392
    As of a little bit ago, and after an entertaining meeting; the Village Council of Corrales took the vote and it was 4 to 2 against adopting the "resolution".

    Woooo Hooo .... we had an effect, (it was standing room only and well over 220 in attendance...and yeah, I took count).
    Last edited by para_org; 08-14-2012 at 11:26 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Corrales
    Posts
    6
    Yeah!!!!!!!

    Resolution defeated!!! 4 to 2

    To hear our village attorney defend his writing as enforceable under trespass laws was revolting.

    The chambers was absolutely packed, with folks sitting on the floor, and standing in the foyer and the side rooms as well. I was struck that it looked a bit like a Rockwell painting as people were jockeying for position to peer in the windows. The TV crews added to the circus.

    There were about 25 people voicing their objection, which helped me get over my case of mike-fright. I said my 3 minutes and sat down as quick as I could (I was the nervous guy in the black shirt and grey hair near the end who sat down as quick as he could). Only three people showed up to voice support for this resolution.

    When the vote came, and Hoyt Hart started to speak, I was terrified. He was the swing vote who usually votes with Harper and Fahey, and then the mayor votes with them. Hart was pissed, probably rightly so. Many in attendance were not as polite as they should have been. I had heard he was going to abstain from voting, and then he started to talk and I was sure we had pissed him off into supporting the resolution. He started off by saying that he was almost 80, and basically didn't need to be abused. He finished and said that he was not going to sacrafice a right in exchange for the appearance of safety, and voted no. The relief was palpable.

    When the final vote was cast, the chambers erupted into a standing ovation. They then took a break, and I suspect that when they re-entered session the room was dang near empty.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    It's good to hear of all the support, and the fact that reason ended up prevailing. It's too bad that that seems like a lot to ask on occasions such as these.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    ABQ
    Posts
    9
    Good to see some New Mexican politicians using some common sense!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    ABQ, NM
    Posts
    2
    I thought it to be in the interest of everybody here that has wieghed in on this and I appreciate everybody's support for what lead up to the Corrales city council's attempt to infringe on our rights. I went to the facebook page that is "supposedly" a New Mexico gun rights group. It turns out they are not for gun rights at all. The is what I had to say in response to Dusty's false and inaccurate account of everything that happened on Father's day 2012 and then a few days later When Jon Barrie and I went to speak with chief Vigil after scheduling a meeting with him. Here is what I said in response to Dusty.

    How about asking the person that was actually there? I am that person and I can tell you exactly what happened and I can also say that the chief is a damn liar and Dusty, you were NOT there. I am the one that got harrassed that day and there was a female friend of mine that was there with me getting signatures that saw and heard everything that happened. The account shown at http://newworldorder.mywebteks.net/?e=13 is the truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately "peace officer" (and I say that with disgust) Fuentes does not care about his oath and said to me when I mentioned to him that he and I both took the same oath (I am ex Navy as is he) that he quote "I dont care about the Constitution". This was obvious from his attitude and the way he treated me and the derogatory remarks he made during our encounter.

    As far as the chief contacting the political campaign, again this is completely false and an outright lie. While the chief was talking to officer Fuentes on the side, I called the campaign HQ and handed my phone off to the chief to speak with Jon Barrie after the chief was finished speaking with officer Fuentes. At no time did Jon or the chief tell me that I HAD to leave. After talking to Jon, the chief came back and told me that he could not force me to leave or put my gun away but was simply asking if I would do it. It was MY decision to leave because the police, due to their actions, had already poisoned the atmosphere for us to get signatures. The chief asked if I would take my gun back to my vehicle and come back at which time I told him that I wasn't going to disarm myself for the same reasons that he and the other officers do not disarm themselves. Not to mention it is my Constitutional right and duty to keep and bear arms as well as New Mexico is an open carry state. Something that one of the other officers there did not seem to understand because he kept asking me for my permit and insisting that I needed a permit to open carry which is totally false and only showed his ignorance. I told the chief and the other cops there that I would rather leave than be surrounded by a bunch of people that don't uphold the Constitution or respect the God given rights of others.

    Dusty you also stated that Jon and I came back days later and demanded to see the chief alone in his office. This is another outright lie. Were we armed? Yes. I am always armed everywhere I go and so is Jon. We are both Oath Keepers and uphold the Constitution and our rights. Jon had called a day earlier to schedule a meeting with the chief and we were not upset then and we did NOT demand that he allow us in his office. It was US that told the chief that since he did not want to allow us in the back that we would be fine talking to him in the front entry. Our intention for going there as as an informative and educational meeting and to seek an apology from officer Fuentes for his actions. To this day it has never came. We left the chief with several copies of pocket Constitutions with the chief stating that he would have Fuentes contact me when he sees him. Fuentes never did contact me and I doubt that the chief ever told him to. The chief tried to apologize for Fuentes but I told the chief that since he wasn't there when it happened and he wasn't the one that did it, how could he apologize for it? He didn't really know what to say to that.

    I definitely did NOT get the impression that the police of Corrales, with the exception of one officer, knew anything about the laws of New Mexico or the Constitution and the chief was NOT friendly to Jon and I when we went to go see him. I can see where his officers get their attitudes.
    Actually the chief did not apologize. He simply stated that "if" any of his officers did anything wrong, then he would apologize for that.

    There was some girl named Juli Adcock that made this comment after I posted:

    Based on your statement, I'd say that the Chief was a bigger man than you appear to be. Doesn't seem like you've learned the difference between winning a battle versus winning the war
    I had to respond to that:

    What the hell is that supposed to mean Juli? Standing up for your rights is not something you do part time. If you ever took the oath you would know that. I did nothing wrong that day. The ones that are in the wrong is Fuentes who does not know what it means to uphold his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Statements like what you just made are nothing but platitudes that people throw out when they have nothing of substance to add.
    This is when Dusty showed his true colors and kicked me out of the group for speaking the truth. Something which he is incapable of doing.

    I sent Dusty a message after he kicked me out:

    Dusty you claim to be a supporter of gun rights yet when faced with the truth of what happened that day in Corrales you have no answer except to kick me from the group? Is ok with me as I would not want to be a part of a group that does not really support our rights or the truth.
    He never replied back.
    Last edited by Bobby Bridgewater; 09-29-2012 at 05:45 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •