Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: New Mexico Judge Rules For OCer

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lexington KY, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Great article. A New Mexico Judge rules in favor of an OCer who was removed from a movie theater, disarmed, searched, etc.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gu...-carrying-guns


    The police officers were denied "qualified immunity"

    This was in Federal court.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Gamaliel, Kentucky, United States
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    great story, glad the judge ruled the way it should be as the law and constitution says. i wished more police officers would get better informed about open carry, it seems alot of people lately are having their rights violated. as many people have gone thru this it looks like the police would finaly get it, i think some just don't like open carry and try to inforce their own law to suit them.

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

    Post imported post

    New Mexico and Arizona share a common heritage. I find it nearly impossible for a LEO in either state to harrass anyone for bearing arms in the traditional mode. It's doubtful that the Alamagodo PD personnel are 'native' or would they would not be be ignorant of the culture. Either thru ignorance or at the alter of 'politically correct' opinion... they chose to deliberately ignore the New Mexico Constitution:

    "New Mexico: 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. Art. II, § 6 (first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986).
    1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Art. II, § 6. [Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

    Clearly... this was a violation of a citizens rights under color of law. I hope St John owns a goodly piece of Alamagordo and the LEO's involved after due process.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lexington KY, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    What I found interesting in the article: The PD was essentially being used to back up the rules of a private business, instead of protecting the Constitution. AND that the judge denied the LEO's immunity from a civil action. AWESOME!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    The theatre was not posted. Theatre management did not advise him to leave the premises... instead... the LEO's over-reacted to the histronic projections of the 'manager'. That is not RAS or PC for anything further than a 'look-see'.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Very good. Let that be a lesson on Constitutional Rights!! You better know the laws if you are going to be responsible for enforcing them.

Posting Permissions

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