Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: NM Constitution Sec 6 Right to Bear Arms

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    Sec. 6. [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. (As
    amended November 2, 1971 and November
    2, 1986.)

    How did we come to the ability to get a CHL when the NM Constitution is very explicit about concealment?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Sec 6 does not allow it, nor does it preclude it. It does not deny the ability to cc, it simply states that:



    Sec 6 is NOT a statement that allows cc. Some other statute will need to provide for cc. Any such statute that provides for cc would not conflict with Sec 6.

    Sec 6 is NOT a statement that prevents cc. Some other statute will need to provide for cc.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    All it means is that the New Mexico state constitution does not recognize nor protect a "right" to carry concealed weapons. Thus,the Legislature can totally prohibit CC (as it did until 2003), license CC (as it has done since 2003), or even repeal the statute generally prohibiting CC and allow both OC and CC with no license required as Alaska and Vermont do.

    Several states have similar state constitutional provisions, most of which were responses to state supreme court decisions holding that both OC and CC were constitutionally protected. Most of the states that do not have similar "exceptions" in their respective RKBA provisions have state supreme court rulings that their respective constitutional provisions do not protect CC. Vermont is the only state where a state supreme court has interpreted the state RKBA provision to protect CC and where that ruling has not been reversed by a constitutional amendment.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  4. #4
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    It means... (as in Arizona) that you may openly bear arms... PERIOD! CC requires a permit. Not to 'bear' but to 'conceal'. Concealed arms used to be held in contempt in these parts. Also why there's no limit in knives 'n such openly carried. (Arms are not limited to 'firearms'. NM and AZ are closely tied by history and heritage. (use to be one and the same by name and government... including as a Confederate Territory)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    Many thanks to all for your input.

    Happy New Year!

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    If NM constitution only allows for the state to regulate concealed, how is it that they can prohibit open carrying in to a grocery store that sells alcohol?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    In actuality it was the lingo about "....no municipality shall regulate... " that resulted in our ability to carry in all cities in New Mexico.

    The original law had been written such that cities within New Mexico were allowed to 'opt-out' of allowing concealed carry. This was challenged by one politician to be un-constitutional and caused the original cc law to be struck down.

    This, from what I understand was his goal - as he was an anti-gun mayor - and he wanted the law to go away, and in true to lawyer form he challenged it on this merit and won.

    In the end, the law was re-written and it is what we have today in NM. It's pretty fair, with the exception that restaurants that serve liquor are off limits.

    It would (IMHO) make CCW permits more beneficial if restaurants were legal so long as the permit holder wasn't allowed to consume while carrying.

    I mean, the gov't expects you to be reasonable away from these places - yet they automatically assume that if you are in the PRESENCE of alcohol you won't obey the law.

    Anyway... the CCW law in NM has already been re-written to be legal once due to constitutional reasons.

    The law was revised once more to allow carrying concealed in establishments that sell alcohol for off site consumption, like wal-mart, albertsons, etc...



Posting Permissions

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