You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NM CCW Opinion Posted
- Thread starter LonWilson
- Start date
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
Thanks, Lon, for providing the facts.
No problem, Gary.
I think the next on the agenda is to convince Gary Johnson to call a special session of the Legislature. Even though Bill Richardson said he would sign the bill, Governor Taft of Ohio said the same thing.
I'd rather get it done with Johnson as governor. Oh, and it would be great if NM's permits can last a bit longer (say, 5 years?) and perhaps have Utah style recognition?
I think the next on the agenda is to convince Gary Johnson to call a special session of the Legislature. Even though Bill Richardson said he would sign the bill, Governor Taft of Ohio said the same thing.
I'd rather get it done with Johnson as governor. Oh, and it would be great if NM's permits can last a bit longer (say, 5 years?) and perhaps have Utah style recognition?
Is there a provision for a constitutional amendment by popular vote?
If so, I'd be considering it were I in NM.
Here's why:
Y'all got a problem over there, because according to this, if NM passes a shall-issue law that doesn't allow city opt-out, some grabber mayor will start the whole thing over again on the ORIGINAL basis of the suit, the one that got all the publicity: the state Constitution's so-called "ban" on concealed carry (which is no such thing).
Granted, they should NOT win on those grounds, but the damn court could have SAID that and spared y'all another round of this crap. That they didn't, suggests that they're such die-hard-flaming-liberal-grabbers that they MIGHT actually buy into that dumb argument.
If so, I'd be considering it were I in NM.
Here's why:
Y'all got a problem over there, because according to this, if NM passes a shall-issue law that doesn't allow city opt-out, some grabber mayor will start the whole thing over again on the ORIGINAL basis of the suit, the one that got all the publicity: the state Constitution's so-called "ban" on concealed carry (which is no such thing).
Granted, they should NOT win on those grounds, but the damn court could have SAID that and spared y'all another round of this crap. That they didn't, suggests that they're such die-hard-flaming-liberal-grabbers that they MIGHT actually buy into that dumb argument.