Call to Action: New Mexico

[Keith B]

...but when there is a law enforcement training facility at your school, where they have sniffer dogs come in on a regular basis, its hard to conceal things from those dogs...unless I have been misled as to the power of those dogs' sniffers. Thank goodness I am almost done with the program I am enrolled in.

I do understand that there needs to be changes in the laws to allow college students a way to protect themselves. I am all for 'Campus carry'.

As for the dogs, a clean gun in a holster will not trigger a dog from outside the vehicle, and I would think they would even have a hard time inside the vehicle as the powder is contained in sealed cartridges. Bomb dogs are also usually trained to sniff for large quantities of powder, not the bullets in a gun. Just think about this, the dog handlers and others searching usually have a pistol on their hip that is very close to the dog, so for them to be able to smell a gun inside a locked vehicle is a little over the top as I know it. And, drug dogs are usually trained for just that, drugs. There are 'dual purpose' dogs, but they are usually few and far between.

I think unless they were specifically looking for a bomb, then the dogs that will be on most school campuses will be drug dogs; there is a much higher chance of payoff on those searches. Now, if they trained a dog to trigger on Hoppe's, then maybe.....

And, we are way off topic and need to get back on for this thread.

[speedsix]

...that makes more sense...about 85% of our currency would test + for cocaine traces, I've read several times...and, once a dog hits on drugs, the other items might show up...even at the high school level, a hunting knife, bow and arrows, or gun or shells in a locked vehicle should be safe from search...but then I'm not one of those zero tolerance kind of guys...I believe educators should stick to educating, and quit pokin' round on the parking lot...when I was a cop, I caught as many college professors and school teachers whiffin' wacky weed as teens...those WERE different days, though...sad to say...

[Skiprr]

The previous New Mexico update--the one that excluded Texas among other states--was dated April 21. I know because I checked the NM state reciprocity page last week in light of a possible trip to Nevada.

I tried to search just now to see if I could locate the text of the NM reciprocity page prior to April 21, but no luck; doesn't seem to be cached anywhere. I wanted to see what it said previously about under-21 and GC license holders. Handgunlaw.us has already updated their info to the current situation (evidently some of the other states that NM dropped on the 21st had already reciprocated by announcing that they would no longer recognize NM licenses...more sticky wickets for NM), and other sources like USACarry.com explain only the state licensing requirements, not reciprocity agreements.

Does anyone know for certain what NM said about TX reciprocity prior to April 21 regarding under-21 and Resident Alien license holders?

BTW, if you do plan to go to or through New Mexico, it will behoove you to read their laws carefully. There are some no-carry zones that could be gotchas, like Native American Tribal lands (29-19-10, NMSA) and state parks (NM Admin Code, 19.5.2.20).

[chartreuse]

Yeah, really. I'm not throwing anyone under the buss. But since you like analogies, this one is a lot more accurate. We just ran into a burning building and pulled out 535,000 CHLs but couldn't rescue 306 ages 18 to 20. That's a pretty successful rescue operation in most folks' opinion.

There are an estimated 306 Texas CHL's between 18 and 20 years of age. I calculated this by taking the number of licenses issued to people in that age range for the five year period from 2006 through 2010 (latest figures published). DPS Fiscal Year ReportsThe number of Green Card aliens with a Texas CHL is not published, but I suspect it is equally low.

Here is the problem with your proposal to keep the pressure on because of the age and citizenship issues. While it is my belief that the audit criteria the New Mexico DPS chose to use is arbitrary, that can't be said for eligibility requirements; that's in statute. Attempts to pressure a state police agency disregard it's own state's eligibility requirements when determining if another state's laws are "substantially similar" is doomed to failure. That change needs to be made legislatively in New Mexico.

Texas law on reciprocity was virtually identical and it was a huge problem. Another states eligibility and background check procedures had to be substantially similar or more stringent than Texas'. We had reciprocity with only about six states prior to changing the law. The change involved fist reassigning the responsibility for evaluating other states' carry laws and negotiating reciprocity agreements from DPS to the AG and the Governor. Secondly, reciprocity eligibility was reduced to simply having a criminal history background check performed before the other state issues a carry license. Tex. Gov't Code §411.173(b). After these two changes, Texas was able to grant reciprocity to numerous states, thus making Texas eligible to enter into dozens of agreements.

The change you want is going to have to come from the New Mexico Legislature.

Chas.

Thanks for the considered reply, Charles. The history of Texas reciprocity law was particularly enlightening. I do agree that any legislative change in NM must come from within NM (or at the behest of the US Supreme Court).

Here's the nub of my problem, though: What just happened in NM wasn't a legislative matter and isn't directly related to NM's internal eligibility requirements. It was some bureaucrat making work for himself and his department, with no regard for who might suffer as a result of what's either a grab for a chunk of budget or an attack on the Second Amendment.

As such it's worthy of contempt and, as long as one Texan is put at risk by the actions of this bureaucrat, I think it's entirely legitimate to continue to hold his masters' feet to the fire.

You're right that under 21s and Legal Aliens make up a small proportion of Texas CHL holders. IMHO, that makes it even more important that we stand up for them - it's the little guys that need the help, not the 800 pound gorillas.

I'll admit to an interest. I came by my US Citizenship the hard way, via a Green Card and a lot of work, time and expense. I applaud the process - it left me with a deep and abiding love and respect for our country and the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. It left me thankful that I live in Texas, where LPRs are acknowledged to have as much right to protect themselves and others as anybody else. But it also left me believing that, now that I've got mine (I regard US Citizenship as a great boon), I should stand up for the decent folk who have yet to get theirs (because US Citizenship is also a great responsibility).

Does anyone know for certain what NM said about TX reciprocity prior to April 21 regarding under-21 and Resident Alien license holders?

I don't have the text available but I clearly recall that, when I was a Green Card holder, I made a detailed study of NM law and encountered nothing that led me to believe that it would be unlawful for me to carry there with a Texas CHL.

That's one reason that I'm mad. Up until a couple of weeks ago, every Texan with a CHL was fine in NM. Then, by administrative fiat, none of us were. And now, only some of us are, all at the whim of a faceless bureaucrat with a hidden agenda.

That's not right.

[chartreuse]

I'm disappointed to see that this thread has become moribund.

I guess that either (a) folks who love this country and make incredible efforts to come from overseas to make it their home, or (b) young folks who love this country and go out and put themselves in harms way to defend it, or both, don't happen to be a big enough donor pool to figure in the plans of the various political machines that we're all supposed to go along with, these days.

I'd suggest that anybody who claims to fight for liberty should support the Quixotic causes, at least occasionally, if for no other reason than to guard against becoming that which they purport to oppose.

[Keith B]

I'm disappointed to see that this thread has become moribund.

I guess that either (a) folks who love this country and make incredible efforts to come from overseas to make it their home, or (b) young folks who love this country and go out and put themselves in harms way to defend it, or both, don't happen to be a big enough donor pool to figure in the plans of the various political machines that we're all supposed to go along with, these days.

I'd suggest that anybody who claims to fight for liberty should support the Quixotic causes, at least occasionally, if for no other reason than to guard against becoming that which they purport to oppose.

The problem is people who are not residents of the state will have little to no weight in changing the law of another state. The only reason we were able to rally the forces and saber rattle this one down was it was in interpretation by the NM DPS, and not making a change in their actual statute. To get the statute changed, you will have to get a member of their legislature on board and garner the drive by his and other members voting constituents to even have any chance of getting a bill introduced to change the rules. In simpler terms, if you aren't a person who can vote for them and keep them in office, then your cry will more than likely fall on deaf ears.

[Oldgringo]

Good job, people!

[gringo pistolero]

I'm disappointed to see that this thread has become moribund.

I guess that either (a) folks who love this country and make incredible efforts to come from overseas to make it their home, or (b) young folks who love this country and go out and put themselves in harms way to defend it, or both, don't happen to be a big enough donor pool to figure in the plans of the various political machines that we're all supposed to go along with, these days.

I'd suggest that anybody who claims to fight for liberty should support the Quixotic causes, at least occasionally, if for no other reason than to guard against becoming that which they purport to oppose.

The problem is people who are not residents of the state will have little to no weight in changing the law of another state. The only reason we were able to rally the forces and saber rattle this one down was it was in interpretation by the NM DPS, and not making a change in their actual statute. To get the statute changed, you will have to get a member of their legislature on board and garner the drive by his and other members voting constituents to even have any chance of getting a bill introduced to change the rules. In simpler terms, if you aren't a person who can vote for them and keep them in office, then your cry will more than likely fall on deaf ears.

We have plenty of work getting the carry restrictions lifted in Texas. Schools. Sports. Gun shows.

Meanwhile, IANAL but I'm pretty sure open carry is legal in NM without reciprocity, so that's an option for the 1% Texas CHLers.

[sjfcontrol]

Meanwhile, IANAL but I'm pretty sure open carry is legal in NM without reciprocity, so that's an option for the 1% Texas CHLers.

Does that make the rest of us "ninety-nine percenters"?

[recaffeination]

Meanwhile, IANAL but I'm pretty sure open carry is legal in NM without reciprocity, so that's an option for the 1% Texas CHLers.

Does that make the rest of us "ninety-nine percenters"?

I can't get worked up that NM allows US citizens and noncitizens to carry a handgun openly but only allows citizens to conceal, when Texas doesn't even allow citizens the option to not hide their handguns.

If I'm going to get worked up that the average 20yo Texan has more right to carry a handgun in NM than the average 20yo New Mexican has in Texas. Well, it's not NM that deserves my scorn.