Where in the NM statutes does it state that loaded open carry is legal?

Cloudcroft, there is no need to be defensive or to justify yourself to me, nor I to you. We're all here together.

I answered the question you were posing. If you go way back you know as people have been saying that it would be impossible to categorize the laws according to what IS legal. It's just simply impossible.

AFA why I said that, I feel it's true. Just as I don't know you, you also don't know me. I'm originally from an Eastern state that has very restrictive gun laws. I truly feel that if you choose not to take advantage of existing laws and do something you have the right to legally do, it really IS your loss. So I didn't mean you directly, I meant "you" collectively.

If a gathering does happen and I'm able to make it I will. It would be a pleasure to meet you and everyone.

The propensity, or inclination to ASK THE GOVERNMENT FOR PERMISSION to freely exercise a right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED by the government constitutes THE SURRENDER of that RIGHT to the government. Slow but sure unabated deference to government authority has brought us to the brink of potentially losing ALL of our liberties.

I understand , and appreciate the corner that we have worked ourselves into, but we are going to have to realize at some point that WE will have to remove these self-imposed "chains" -OURSELVES.

THAT is precisely WHY the OPEN CARRY MOVEMENT is important . If we do not ASSERT THE RIGHT TO SPEAK simply because some people may not like what we have to say - we in effect surrender the RIGHT TO SPEAK. By the same logic if we to not ASSERT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS - we have surrendered THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Simply citing and referencing our 2A protected RTKBA DOES NOT ASSERT THE RIGHT, DOES NOT EXERCISE THE RIGHT, OR PRESERVE RESPECT FOR THE RIGHT.

The judiciary has been allowed to insert a "wedge" under our constitutionally protected rights in the form of the often repeated cliche that our rights "are not absolute", and to case-by-case take upon itself presumptive authority to chew on, savor, digest, and eventually regurgitate our rights back to us-ALWAYS in a slightly diluted form. This amounts to nothing less than " SHALL NOT BE then INFRINGED - unless it becomes expedient for some agency of the government to do so."

We have to shift away from this "Simon Says" mentality and restore respect for our freedoms by actually ASSERTING them. Like muscle mass - ANY FREEDOM can be lost through atrophy.

I understand the hesitancy to assert a right - and actually exercise a freedom - in the midst of a concerted conspiracy to suppress the free exercise of the " inconvenient right" and the benefit that right affords - preservation of our lives. Unfortunately that is the history of human civilization and it is not going to ever change.

If WE ARE UNWILLING TO UNDERTAKE THE TASK (AND RISKS)OF EXERCISING OUR FREEDOMS IN ORDER TO RESTORE RESPECT FOR THEM - who will ?

I remember a time when there were no "fire ants " in Central Texas. Then slowly but surely they just started "showing up". The government didn't "allow" them in. Ofcourse whenever they annoy people enough - they are apt to get "treated" with extreme prejudice.

shooter505 said:

Was my question really that stupid?

Click to expand...

Yes, yes it was. But that's doesn't mean you're stupid. Lots of people are raised by the Gov under the false impression that the law 'allows.'

shooter505 said:

I keep reading and hearing how it's legal to open carry a loaded handgun in NM.

But, I've scoured the statutes and can't find anything that specifically states it is legal.

Can anyone help?

Thanks!

Shooter

Click to expand...

Many others have answered... so I'll just add this..

Read the book "ANTHEM" by Ayn Rand, if you like audiobooks it is under 2 1/2 hours listening time, public domain and can be downloaded into an IPOD or other mp3 player for FREE.

Basicly, our society has collapsed and the UGLY regime that follows has made it so that for something to be LEGAL there must be a regulation stating so....

If my memory is correct, NM didn't have a CCW type permit until 2004. I think that was mainly for reciprocity with Texas (for most) so you didn't have to get a non-resident permit from someplace else. Open carry has been the norm in NM since 1911 (statehood) and prior... 'same as AZ (1912) upon ratification of the state constitutions. Many people are under the false assumption that the government has to allow the exercise of a right. No. What government does is deny, restrict or regulate the exercise of a right (any).

In the absence of something being specifically prohibited... anything else is 'legal'. Carrying a sidearm here is just part of getting dressed.

cloudcroft said:

Well, I for one would like to see something clearly stated, too. Besides a sometimes dimwit like Yours Truly, I think lots of cops (and DAs who twist things every which way but loose) probably would find something clearly stated in black & white easier to find and remember/check on the street.

Click to expand...

As already noted - our Constitution is actually pretty clear.

That said, hit this link http://www.dps.nm.org/lawEnforcement/ccw/ccwFaq.php

"Question: If I have my gun holstered in “plain view” on my belt will I be breaking the law?

Answer: New Mexico is an Open Carry State, meaning it is legal to carry a loaded weapon as long as it is not concealed. However, it is not legal to carry any firearm in any federal building or school. It is the responsibility of the person carrying the firearm to be informed as to when/where carrying is prohibited."

rushcreek2 said:

The propensity, or inclination to ASK THE GOVERNMENT FOR PERMISSION to freely exercise a right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED by the government constitutes THE SURRENDER of that RIGHT to the government. Slow but sure unabated deference to government authority has brought us to the brink of potentially losing ALL of our liberties.

I understand , and appreciate the corner that we have worked ourselves into, but we are going to have to realize at some point that WE will have to remove these self-imposed "chains" -OURSELVES.

THAT is precisely WHY the OPEN CARRY MOVEMENT is important . If we do not ASSERT THE RIGHT TO SPEAK simply because some people may not like what we have to say - we in effect surrender the RIGHT TO SPEAK. By the same logic if we to not ASSERT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS - we have surrendered THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Simply citing and referencing our 2A protected RTKBA DOES NOT ASSERT THE RIGHT, DOES NOT EXERCISE THE RIGHT, OR PRESERVE RESPECT FOR THE RIGHT.

The judiciary has been allowed to insert a "wedge" under our constitutionally protected rights in the form of the often repeated cliche that our rights "are not absolute", and to case-by-case take upon itself presumptive authority to chew on, savor, digest, and eventually regurgitate our rights back to us-ALWAYS in a slightly diluted form. This amounts to nothing less than " SHALL NOT BE then INFRINGED - unless it becomes expedient for some agency of the government to do so."

We have to shift away from this "Simon Says" mentality and restore respect for our freedoms by actually ASSERTING them. Like muscle mass - ANY FREEDOM can be lost through atrophy.

I understand the hesitancy to assert a right - and actually exercise a freedom - in the midst of a concerted conspiracy to suppress the free exercise of the " inconvenient right" and the benefit that right affords - preservation of our lives. Unfortunately that is the history of human civilization and it is not going to ever change.

If WE ARE UNWILLING TO UNDERTAKE THE TASK (AND RISKS)OF EXERCISING OUR FREEDOMS IN ORDER TO RESTORE RESPECT FOR THEM - who will ?

I remember a time when there were no "fire ants " in Central Texas. Then slowly but surely they just started "showing up". The government didn't "allow" them in. Ofcourse whenever they annoy people enough - they are apt to get "treated" with extreme prejudice.

Click to expand...

Bravo! Please... I encourage everyone here to read this (rushcreek2) post again... slowly. Many people (far too many) have been conditioned to expect some sort of written permission to 'do' things. We're all familiar with the adage: 'Whatever the law allows..." Laws do not 'allow'... laws deny or restrict actions, not 'allow' anything. I think this originates from the way we were taught... or mis-educated early on. Deference to government authority is endemic. We submit to unconstitutional 'laws' everyday... and it matters not what SCotUS opines... SCotUS cannot enforce anything and the DOJ seems to do so selectively... when/if at all. Rights are either recognized or denied... When people say... 'You don't have the right to carry a gun in... New Jersey (for example); Oh... the right exists... it's quite simply and unconstitutionally denied. We didn't witness U.S. Marshals dispatched to enforce compliance of the
2A in the wake of the McDonald vs Chicago decision did we? (As in Brown vs Board of Education.) Nope...