AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Concealed Handgun Carry Act, which allows individuals to carry concealed weapons under certain conditions. The Petitioner argued that the Act violates the New Mexico Constitution by permitting municipalities and counties to regulate an incident of the right to bear arms, contrary to Article II, Section 6, which prohibits such local regulation. The Petitioner also contended that the Act's provisions allowing concealed carry are unconstitutional (paras 1, 5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the Concealed Handgun Carry Act violates Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution by allowing local governments to regulate an incident of the right to bear arms. Additionally, the Petitioner claimed that the Act is unconstitutional because it permits the carrying of concealed weapons, which is explicitly excluded from the constitutional right to bear arms (paras 1, 5).
• Respondent (New Mexico Department of Public Safety): Contended that the Act's delegation of authority to local governments is permissible because the carrying of concealed weapons is not an incident of the right to bear arms under Article II, Section 6. The Respondent also argued that the unconstitutional provision could be severed from the rest of the Act, allowing the remaining provisions to stand (paras 7-8).

Legal Issues

• Does the Concealed Handgun Carry Act violate Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution by allowing municipalities and counties to regulate an incident of the right to bear arms?
• Can the unconstitutional provision of the Act be severed, allowing the remainder of the Act to remain valid?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the Concealed Handgun Carry Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because it violates Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution by delegating authority to local governments to regulate an incident of the right to bear arms. The Court also determined that the unconstitutional provision could not be severed from the rest of the Act (paras 13-14).

Reasons

Per Patricio M. Serna, Chief Justice (with Baca, Franchini, Minzner, and Maes JJ. concurring):

• The Court found that the Act's provision allowing municipalities and counties to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons violates the prohibition in Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution against local regulation of an incident of the right to bear arms. The constitutional language explicitly precludes local governments from regulating this right "in any way," ensuring uniformity in firearm regulation across the state (paras 5-6).
• The Court rejected the Respondent's argument that the carrying of concealed weapons is not an incident of the right to bear arms. It reasoned that the manner in which a weapon is carried, whether concealed or in plain view, is an incident of the right to bear arms (para 7).
• On the issue of severability, the Court applied the test from Bradbury & Stamm Constr. Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, concluding that the unconstitutional provision could not be severed without frustrating the Legislature's intent. The Act was designed as an optional scheme allowing local governments to opt out of permitting concealed carry. Without the local opt-out provision, the Act would become a mandatory scheme, contrary to legislative intent (paras 8-11).
• The Court refrained from addressing the broader constitutional question of whether Article II, Section 6 prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons, as the Act was already found unconstitutional on narrower grounds (para 12).