Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: New Mexico and LEOSA

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    I plan on visiting New Mexico June. I will be carrying under LEOSA credentials. DO any of you have any information concerning visiting LEOs carrying in this manner. I would like to open carry part of the time, but I realize that this particular law governs only concealed carry. Thank you for any insight

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    102

    Post imported post

    We are an open carry state, regardless of permits, etc., as long as one is not a felon and does not open carry in a business that sells alcohol for off site consumption. No firearms are permitted in liquor serving establishments, unless law enforcement.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque, ,
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    30-7-3 states (1 )" by a law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of the officer's duties"; (2) " by a law enforcement officer who is certified pursuant to the Law Enforcemant Training Act acting in accordance with the policies of the officer's law enforcement agency".You said you will be visiting as in vacation? Play it safe DO NOT open carry into any business that sells alcohol.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    Well said. Thanks.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    Thank you to each response. Just trying to plan a safe and enjoyable honeymoon. We plan on spending most of our time in the Clovis, San Patricia, Hondo, Carrizozo areas visiting friends.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    NMGlock26 wrote:
    30-7-3 states (1 )" by a law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of the officer's duties"; (2) " by a law enforcement officer who is certified pursuant to the Law Enforcemant Training Act acting in accordance with the policies of the officer's law enforcement agency".You said you will be visiting as in vacation? Play it safe DO NOT open carry into any business that sells alcohol.


    LEOSA trumps this section of law. There is nothing to play safe here. As long as he does not consume alcohol, he will be exempted from this law. The posted private property exception to the LEOSA does not apply here because in New Mexico all bars must post a notice to 30-7-3. If that was the case and this restriction was legally binding on the LEOSA then New Jersey could require that every business be posted.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Horse Thief, New Mexico
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    LEOSA trumps nothing, it states that Peace Officers must obey the laws of the state they are in and that includes No Gun signs AND can not carry in places where alcohol is served if it violates state law.

    Basically carrying under the LEOSA requires an officer to abide by all of the laws pertaining to concealed carry permits in the state they are in. If a person with a CCW can not carry there then one can't carry there under the LEOSA either.

    Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers
    • `(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
    • `(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
      • `(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
      • `(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.




  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque, ,
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    In the 14 years I have lived here, I have never seen a law enforcement officer open carry into an establishment that sells alcohol while off duty.In uniformyes, off duty never. It seems that some out of state people do not understand 30-7-3. If you are arrested and found guilty of violating 30-7-3 it is a 4th degree felony.It is a mandatory 1 year in prison. The charge CAN NOT be reduced or plea bargined to a lesser charge. Play it safe ?, you bet with a 4th degree felony. DO NOT OPEN CARRY INTO ANY ESTABLISHMENT THAT SELLS ALCOHOL IN NEW MEXICO. Gunscribe is 100% correct.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    gunscribe wrote:
    LEOSA trumps nothing, it states that Peace Officers must obey the laws of the state they are in and that includes No Gun signs AND can not carry in places where alcohol is served if it violates state law.
    No gun signs, yes. But where, exactly, does HR218 specifically say it doesn't cover concealed carry into a place that sells/serves alcohol?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    gunscribe, I'm waiting!





  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    Well, seeing that gunscribe has not made an appearance on these boards in almost 3 months, and will not answer the messages I sent, I will point out the incorrectness of his post without his input:

    gunscribe wrote:
    LEOSA trumps nothing
    Wrong. The wording of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act is:

    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

    The definition of "notwithstanding" is "in spite of". LEOSA most certainly does trump local and state laws.

    gunscribe wrote:
    LEOSA trumps nothing, it states that Peace Officers must obey the laws of the state they are in and that includes No Gun signs AND can not carry in places where alcohol is served if it violates state law.
    While he is correct about the no gun signs, nowhere in H.R.218 do I see any language that says an officer is not allowed to carry in a place that serves alcohol. The law does say one of the stipulations to qualify is that the officer`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance;
    But it does not mention places where alcohol is sold and/or served
    as being prohibited. therefore, gunscribe is incorrect in his statement.

    In fact, the only places the federal law specifically allows to be prohibited are:

    (b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
    `(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
    `(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.


    Notice it says ON government property or building. This wipes out "1000 feet school zone" laws.

    gunscribe wrote:
    Basically carrying under the LEOSA requires an officer to abide by all of the laws pertaining to concealed carry permits in the state they are in. If a person with a CCW can not carry there then one can't carry there under the LEOSA either.
    LEOSA says nothing of the sort! With only the listed exceptions of private property and government property, LEOSA does in fact trump local and state laws.

    I've included a link to the actual wording of the law, which is where I am taking my information from. I am not a lawyer, none of this was legal advice.

    http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Horse Thief, New Mexico
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
    Section 1. Section 30-7-3 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1975,
    Chapter 149, Section 1, as amended) is amended to read:
    "30-7-3. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF A FIREARM IN LICENSED
    LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS.--
    A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm in an
    establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages
    consists of carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm on any
    premises licensed by the regulation and licensing department
    for the dispensing of alcoholic beverages except:
    (1) by a law enforcement officer in the
    lawful discharge of the officer's duties
    ;
    (2) by a law enforcement officer who is
    certified pursuant to the Law Enforcement Training Act acting
    in accordance with the policies of the officer’s law
    enforcement agency;

    Since it is illegal for an OFF DUTY Peace Officer how would it be miraculously legal for an out of state officer carry under HR 218 in a liquor establishment in New Mexico?

    B. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm in an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages is guilty of a fourth degree felony.



    Wanna be a test case?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    gunscribe wrote:

    Since it is illegal for an OFF DUTY Peace Officer how would it be miraculously legal for an out of state officer carry under HR 218 in a liquor establishment in New Mexico?


    Federal law overrides state laws, and this specific Federal law even goes so far as to say it does!!!! No other argument is needed.

    Your previous posts insinuated that it was the other way around. Incorrect!



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Horse Thief, New Mexico
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    I'll tell you what, your so sure that an off duty Peace officer visiting New Mexico has more authority to go armed than an off duty resident officer why don't you prove it.

    Haul yourself down here, go to any place that sells alcohol for on premises consumption wearing your department issued sidearm, concealed or open and make sure the local gendarmes know what your doing.

    In other words don't just talk about it come down here and PROVE IT!

    Spout off all you want from a thousand miles away, but do you got the stones to back it up?

    I doubt it.

    I know lets make it an Applebee's and I'll even spring for the check.


    The one thing I know as sure as I am typing this is that you WILL be arrested, jailed and charged with a 4th degree felony.



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    gunscribe wrote:
    I'll tell you what, your so sure that an off duty Peace officer visiting New Mexico has more authority to go armed than an off duty resident officer why don't you prove it.

    Haul yourself down here, go to any place that sells alcohol for on premises consumption wearing your department issued sidearm, concealed or open and make sure the local gendarmes know what your doing.

    In other words don't just talk about it come down here and PROVE IT!

    Spout off all you want from a thousand miles away, but do you got the stones to back it up?

    I doubt it.

    I know lets make it an Applebee's and I'll even spring for the check.


    The one thing I know as sure as I am typing this is that you WILL be arrested, jailed and charged with a 4th degree felony.

    First of all, HR218 does not cover open carry.

    Second of all, you are still incorrect. I would beat that charge. You put up the money for the law suit and I'll do it!

    Federal law over rides local/state law. This was one of the things that some law makers did not like about the LEOSA.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    gunscribe wrote:
    I'll tell you what, your so sure that an off duty Peace officer visiting New Mexico has more authority to go armed than an off duty resident officer why don't you prove it.

    Haul yourself down here, go to any place that sells alcohol for on premises consumption wearing your department issued sidearm, concealed or open and make sure the local gendarmes know what your doing.

    In other words don't just talk about it come down here and PROVE IT!

    Spout off all you want from a thousand miles away, but do you got the stones to back it up?

    I doubt it.

    I know lets make it an Applebee's and I'll even spring for the check.


    The one thing I know as sure as I am typing this is that you WILL be arrested, jailed and charged with a 4th degree felony.



    Go back to your post about LEOSA and actually read it, see the word notwithstanding?

    New Mexico peace officers can carry concealed in places that sell drinks. LEOSA trumps New Mexico law.

    Think about what you are actually saying, if LESOA trumped nothing, then everyone carrying under LEOSA in Wisconsin could be prosecuted for CCW since it is illegal to CCW in Wisconsin.

    Taken from dictionary.com



    not⋅with⋅stand⋅ing 

    var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", " Show IPA

    –preposition



    1.
    in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by: Notwithstanding a brilliant defense, he was found guilty. She went to the game anyway, doctor's orders notwithstanding.
    –conjunction



    2.
    in spite of the fact that; although: It was the same material, notwithstanding the texture seemed different.
    –adverb



    3.
    nevertheless; anyway; yet: We were invited notwithstanding


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    I made contact with people from both the New Mexico Department of Public safety and the NM Attorney Generals office. However, both refused to make a statement because it would be legal advice or interpreting law.

    I wasn't surprised by the replies. But it was worth a shot anyway.

    Such a situation was already resolved, albeit not in New Mexico.

    Some out of state, off duty police officers got into a fight at a bar in South Dakota. Some of the charges against them was not only CCW, but also having a firearm in a place that serves alcohol. The judge dismissed the charges because the federal law trumps local and state law.

    Notice in the article that one of the guys involved was not a cop. His charge of having a gun in the bar stuck!

    Federal law trumps other laws.

    From the article:
    “While states retain the right to prohibit the possession of firearms on government property and to permit private persons and entities to prohibit the possession of firearms on their property, they cannot restrict qualified law enforcement officers in any other manner,”

    http://pafop38.com/2008/12/28/south-...rs-safety-act/

    This is the same thing that would happen in New Mexico or any other state. The LEOSA trumps local and state laws.

    The opponents of HR218 had brought up officers carrying in bars, and even tried to amend the bill with wording that forbade it. The bill passed into law without the amendment.


















  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    pkbites wrote:
    I made contact with people from both the New Mexico Department of Public safety and the NM Attorney Generals office. However, both refused to make a statement because it would be legal advice or interpreting law.

    I wasn't surprised by the replies. But it was worth a shot anyway.

    Such a situation was already resolved, albeit not in New Mexico.

    Some out of state, off duty police officers got into a fight at a bar in South Dakota. Some of the charges against them was not only CCW, but also having a firearm in a place that serves alcohol. The judge dismissed the charges because the federal law trumps local and state law.

    Notice in the article that one of the guys involved was not a cop. His charge of having a gun in the bar stuck!

    Federal law trumps other laws.

    From the article:
    “While states retain the right to prohibit the possession of firearms on government property and to permit private persons and entities to prohibit the possession of firearms on their property, they cannot restrict qualified law enforcement officers in any other manner,”

    http://pafop38.com/2008/12/28/south-...rs-safety-act/

    This is the same thing that would happen in New Mexico or any other state. The LEOSA trumps local and state laws.

    The opponents of HR218 had brought up officers carrying in bars, and even tried to amend the bill with wording that forbade it. The bill passed into law without the amendment.
















    That case in South Dakota illustrates how dumb some DA's and police can be. One of the men in the bar drinking is a Customs Officer. Customs can legally carry anywhere in the U.S. as a Federal LEO, it's better than LEOSA. They should have not even charged him. For the other guys if they were "intoxicated" (undefined) then LEOSA would not have covered them, but if they weren't then they would be good to go. Regarding the non-LEO, he should have just open carried as the bar restriction in SD only applies to concealed firearms, not unconcealed.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Holloman AFB, , USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    i hope you read the entire story because they where charge and pretty much had their lives totally screwed over before the charges got dropped. They are still paying the price for it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    Jizzzle wrote:
    i hope you read the entire story because they where charge and pretty much had their lives totally screwed over before the charges got dropped. They are still paying the price for it.
    Yes. And unfortunately sometimes that's what has to happen in the defense of our liberties.

    Please go to the Wisconsin forum and read what Brade Krause had to go through.

    A peace officer arrested for CCW in a bar in New Mexico might have to go through some **** before the dumb ass cops and prosecutors are put in their place. But contrary to what some here thinks, federal law does indeed override local & state laws. An off duty police officer CAN legally carry concealed in a place that serves alcohol in New Mexico!

    Hopefully HR218 will soon be expanded to include civilian CCW permit holders. And, hopefully, all states will go the way of Alaska and Vermont in obeying Constitutional rights without the unconstitutional need for licenses or permits.


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Holloman AFB, , USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    ya, have you seen the stuff I'm doing atm? The .40 = 7 cops thread in general discussion? I have depositions tomorrow. Cops can be slow.

Posting Permissions

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