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 Defendant was approached by Albuquerque Police Department officers at a gas station at 1:30 a.m. and fled on foot. Upon apprehension, officers found a loaded semi-automatic 9mm handgun in his pocket. The Defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. A jury convicted him on both counts (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison with three years suspended (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The Defendant argued that the New Mexico statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, because there is no historical tradition of disarming felons (paras 1, 3).
- Appellee: The State contended that it is not required to conduct a historical analysis to justify prohibiting felons from possessing firearms and that the Defendant's criminal history demonstrates he poses a risk to public safety (paras 3-4).
Legal Issues
- Whether the New Mexico statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms is consistent with the Second Amendment and the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- Whether the statute can be constitutionally applied to the Defendant given his criminal history.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the constitutionality of the statute as applied to the Defendant (para 19).
Reasons
Per Wray J. (Hanisee and Baca JJ. concurring):
The Court assumed that the Second Amendment's plain text covers the Defendant's conduct and focused on whether the statute is consistent with historical firearm regulation traditions. The Court found that historical precedents support disarming individuals deemed dangerous, and the Defendant's criminal history demonstrated he posed a threat to public safety. The Court concluded that the statute is constitutional both facially and as applied to the Defendant, as it aligns with the principles underlying the Second Amendment (paras 5-18).