SAF sues New Mexico over legal resident alien CCW permits

In regards to the "renewable" green cards, that only applies to green card holders via marriage. To cut back on "marry for money" operations, the INS required a marriage to last for 2 years, and they did a follow-on interview to assert that the couple was actually living together and not just staying married on paper. A regular green card becomes permanent immediately, so you have to renew your card every 10 years (no interview or review, just fees).
 
Last Thursday, Aug. 9th, David Sigale filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the State. You can read it here.

I found it very well plead, but of course we will have to wait and see how New Mexico answers in opposition.

The docket may be viewed, here.
 
I completely agree with you, but you know you would think people would be more upset.

What if I just walked on over to texas and took you right to carry a firearm open or consealed? took all your mags over 10/15 rounds and made any pistol grip shotgun or rifle with a threaded muzzle/bayo lug/moveable stock illegal? what if you could only buy one gun per month? and that only after waiting 1-6 months for the permit to do so and pay 20 dollars for the permit you just waited for.

You as a free man would be awfully upset...but it seems like "hey its not happening to me and they can move" mindset if stopping there from being a massive outrage and outcry.

I wish more people truly understood what it was like to not be free to protect yourself or your family. It's not just an inconvience its an injustice.
Click to expand...

My crack defense force of full auto wiener dogs would insure not all of you would survive the attempt, and they would be parts you would miss. :eek:

I also can't get worked up about it. We elect the politicians we get. You (generic) wouldn't have those laws as a potential issue in the first place if you had a supportive politicians.

Don't like those laws, sue for your rights. Work for legislators more understanding of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Mike38,

If Constitutional rights did not apply to non-citizens, then the government could: incarcerate or execute non-citizens without trial or legal representation, bug their hotel rooms and conduct warrantless searches of their possessions or persons at will, throw them in jail if a government agent didn't like something they said, torture them with impunity, etc.

Would this then be a country in which you would care to live? Is this what America stands for?

I think poptime nailed it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're intending that I take umbrage that that could occur. With all respect to your opinion, I could care less than nothing if they are not citizens. I will bow to the requirements of the 14th Amendment, however, but I am nt going to act like I care a whit.
 
Last edited:
so Zinc...who do you know (or their ancestor) that did not come to where they are, from somewhere else.

My wife's family has been in the US since 1640, my family has been in the US since (first resident entry) 1955...Guess what...both families orgiinally came from Europe.

Where did your family come from? If you don't say Mexico then there are many "original" Texans that were there before your family was. Eh?

Oh yes, I'm here now, close the doors, we don't want any more people to come and compete with those that are already here....shame on you.
 
Nonsense. If you are a citizen here you have rights. If you're (generic not you personally) not a US citizen I couldn't care less about you.
 
zincwarrior, why do you have a problem with legal visitors or resident aliens?

I see the attitude you espouse reflected whenever I have to go someplace such as Saudi Arabia; generally, I tend to think our outlook here is much better than theirs (example: get in a traffic accident, it's automatically your fault because you are not a Saudi).

But, based on your recent posts, I guess we have more in common with that region than I'd thought.
 
zincwarrior said:
...With all respect to your opinion, I could care less than nothing if they are not citizens. I will bow to the requirements of the 14th Amendment, however, but I am nt going to act like I care a whit.
Click to expand...
In any case, your opinion, which you're entitled to, is meaningless in the real world. What counts is the opinion of the courts, and they have not adopted your view of things.

The opinions of courts on matters of law affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
 
Getting back on topic --- The weakness in the argument is that nobody has declared the right to carry concealed protected by the 2A and I'm sure the state will point this out. I'm not versed enough in Equal Protection law to know if the classification of citizen vs. legal resident aliens is sufficient where a constitutional right is not involved (yes, I'm assuming the 2A does not protect concealed carry if open carry is legal).
 
In any case, your opinion, which you're entitled to, is meaningless in the real world. What counts is the opinion of the courts, and they have not adopted your view of things.

The opinions of courts on matters of law affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Click to expand...

I never said otherwise. Of course, all our opinions are actually meaningless. Only the courts and who gets elected count.
 
Here's a very brief recap of the docket:

03/30/2013 41 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge M. Christina Armijo granting 28[RECAP] Motion to Dismiss (cab) (Entered: 04/01/2013)

03/30/2013 42 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge M. Christina Armijo granting 18[RECAP] Motion for Preliminary Injunction (cab) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
Click to expand...

Doc #41 and #42 should show up in a short time. The Docket is here: Internet Archive

Briefly, Mr. King was dismissed as a defendant (doc 41) but the overall injunction was granted.
 

Attachments

relevant part:

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED and Defendant Hubbard is preliminarily enjoined
from enforcing the citizenship provision in Section 29-19-14(A)(1) of the Concealed
Handgun Carry Act pending resolution of this action.
SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2013 in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Click to expand...
 
But wait, I thought there was no right to carry a concealed weapon per Heller.
Click to expand...
The court here did not rely upon the Second Amendment. In fact, it cited the 10th Circuit Peterson case and held:
Pursuant to Peterson, the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed weapons. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim.
Click to expand...
Opinion at p. 13.

The court based its ruling on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It applied strict scrutiny:
Although New Mexico’s Concealed Handgun Carry Act does not burden a fundamental right, it nonetheless may be subject to strict scrutiny if it targets a suspect class. . . . Alienage is a suspect classification and state statutes that discriminate on the basis of alienage are subject to strict scrutiny. . . . New Mexico’s Concealed Handgun Carry Act discriminates on the basis of alienage and, therefore, strict scrutiny is the applicable standard.
Click to expand...
Opinion at p. 14 (citations omitted).

The court relied on the Kachalsky opinion from the 2nd Circuit and held that their was a compelling state in protecting “the public from concealed carry of firearms because of the inherent danger that unregulated concealed weapons pose to the public.” Opinion at 17. It concluded, however, that the legislation was not narrowly tailored to serve that interest:
Defendant Hubbard has failed to demonstrate a close fit between the means chosen and the state’s compelling interest. There is no argument made, much less any evidence proffered, that a permanent resident alien, such as Mr. Jackson, who resides in this country legally, poses a greater danger by virtue of his or her status alone, when carrying a concealed loaded firearm, than do United States citizens"
Click to expand...
Opinion at p. 18.

That was the heart of the decision and again illustrates why the standard of review is so darned important.
 
Sort of odd that alienage discrimination gets a CCW(in a gold star open carry state), while Gray Peterson as a Washington resident can't get one in a place where open carry isn't available. But at least the equal protection argument was understood by the court. Someone ought to tell the 10th Circuit:mad:
 
It took 8 months to go from filing the motion for preliminary injunction to actual grant of the injunction.

It took nearly a year for the same to occur in Ezell.

It should now be clear to all concerned that preliminary injunctions are useless for preventing infringement of rights in the face of legislatures which are determined to infringe upon those rights. While PI action is indeed faster than the normal judicial approach, that is small comfort given the sheer amount of time it takes for even a PI to be had, because the end result is that the legislature will be able to infringe upon the rights of the citizenry for at least 2/3 of the time in any given year (8 months is 2/3 of a year).


I cannot regard that as an effective defense. Hence, it seems to me that the rights-infringing legislatures will win in the end, since they have no legal liability for their infringement efforts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top