Letter To The Editor: ‘Constitutional Carry Petition’

Constitutional Carry Petition To Be Submitted To The Legislature
Researched And Presented by John DePaoli
Los Alamos
The concept of “Constitutional Carry” of firearms (or other weapons) for one’s personal protection is as old as this Constitutional Republic itself and it is an American’s “natural right”.
Defined, it is the ability to legally carry the firearm of your choice either openly or concealed, without permission/permit/license from the government, anywhere in the state of New Mexico that it’s not prohibited to do so by visible posted notice. (And yes, private individuals will be able to prohibit this activity on their own private property, businesses, etc.)
The Founders created this Constitutional Republic with a “Supreme Law” (the U.S. Constitution) in which the power resides with the people through their representatives.
The U.S. is not a democracy (majority or mob rule). They were leery of a standing military because of the power that it has and believed that an armed citizenry, or militia (People‘s Army) would be an important element for the preservation of “The People’s” liberty. They were so convinced of this fact that they included “The Right To Keep And Bear Arms” in “OUR” Bill Of Rights. (Please note that the first ten amendments of the of the U.S. Constitution are the Bill Of Rights and are “absolute” or “secured” rights and can not be easily altered or abolished. The Founders purposely made it that way.)
They had just won the revolutionary war against the forces of the tyrannical King George III of Great Britain and understood what tyranny was. They wrote the founding documents to ensure that “The People” would possess the ability to combat a tyrannical from of government if one ever came to power here.
Because they understood that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, the Second Amendment was a check included in the Bill Of Rights for the singular purpose of throwing off the yoke of tyranny that they knew could eventually rear its ugly head through the acts of an over-reaching and/or despotic governing body. (Anyone can come to this same conclusion by reading the Founder’s published thoughts on this subject in The Federalist Papers and the many other published quotes attributed to them.)
In the past century, the Founders suspicions have come true. Since the early 1900s, we have witnessed “The People’s” power diminish. From that time on, the government has grown its power with increasingly stifling regulation and over-reaching abuses of its constitutionally limited authority. This was evident with the passage of The Volstead Act in 1919 (Prohibition). They banned a commodity that “The People” wanted and then told us that it was “for our own good”. Sound familiar? The majority of “The People” didn’t take prohibition lying down which created a market for the newly banned substance. As a result, our government single handedly and inadvertently created “organized crime” entities that provided “The People” with what they wanted.
The United States was now at war with itself in the form of armed “rum-runners” vs. armed “revenuers” (Which is actually kinda confusing because even though booze was illegal, the govt. still demanded their tax revenue for the sale of it. How else could they have imprisoned Al Capone for tax evasion?). This also created the need for what we now know as “gun control”.
That began for two reasons:
1) To eliminate their agents from being shot in gunfights on the streets (which govt.’s over-reaching action had actually created), and
2) For their own preservation because I imaging that they believed that “The People” would come after their over-reaching backsides if they continued governing in this manner.
So once again they over-reached and in 1934 when they passed the National Firearms Act (NFA). This prohibited U.S. citizens from purchasing and owning automatic firearms (machineguns, sub-machineguns) and short barreled long guns, unless of course one paid a $200.00 dollar tax. (In 1934 dollars that was unaffordable for the common Joe, so evidentially it wasn’t about public safety as they claim, because the criminals and the wealthy were the only ones that could afford that cost. It was all about the govt. collecting their “tribute”. Consistent aren‘t they?)
The NFA, along with the Federal Firearms Act of 1968, was and is a clear infringement of the Second Amendment. Yes, our government can possess these arms, but we can’t legally do it unless we get on their list. So much for arms-equity and our ability to preserve our form of government from present and future threats or elected usurpers.
I imagine reason #2 in the last paragraph is still on their mind because their never ending attempts to strip us of our Second Amendment “secured” right continues to this day. One of the many results of this paranoia is that the govt. unconstitutionally requires us to obtain licenses/permits to exercise our “secured” natural right to self defense if we choose to carry a concealed firearm. They believe that they can continually regulate us wherever and whenever we exercise our Second Amendment right.
Sadly, we follow these regulations because either: 1) We’ve been indoctrinated to believe that these regulations are enforceable law, or 2) We don’t like the option of being dragged through expensive court proceedings and possible jail time for knowingly violating an unconstitutional law. And they will make that as painful as possible to further dissuade us from claiming our rights.
The undisputable legal truth is that “WE”, the sovereign citizens of these United States have the “secured” right to “KEEP” (own) and “BEAR” (carry) arms without the condition of acquiring a license, no mater what their regulations state. Or of course, unless or until an individual knowingly and intentionally relinquishes that right or loses it by demonstrating that he/she can’t be trusted to exercise it responsibly.
The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) confirms these facts. (The case law regarding “secured liberties” and the justification for “Constitutional Carry” is included in the body of my petition.)
For the reasons stated above, and in the body of the petition itself, I ask that all NM citizens to take your first step in reclaiming and asserting your “natural right” of unencumbered self defense and that you read and sign the petition for the adoption of “The New Mexico Constitutional Carry Act of 2015”.
If enacted, NM will be joining five other states that already recognize “Constitutional Carry”, with more on the way.
If you’d like to get further involved in this endeavor, please feel free to print copies of this article and the petition and circulate them for signatures.
Please return the entire signed copies to: John DePaoli, 187 Andanada St., Los Alamos, NM, 87544. If you have a website and would like to collect signatures with a online petition, please feel free to do so. They can be emailed to me at: b.zerker@live.com.
I will then deliver the signatures to a legislator that agrees with this cause at the Round House in Santa Fe when I think we’ve collected enough signatures.
In Liberty, John
Petition to the Legislature and Governor of the State of New Mexico
Pursuant to our right guaranteed to us by the First Amendment of the Constitution of these United States, and Article II, Sec 1 of the New Mexico (NM) Constitution which gives all Americans the right to: “… petition the Government for a redress of Grievances”, we hereby petition the NM state government on an issue of both individual and public safety regarding the inherent danger to the public at large in NM from both the home-grown and the foreign murderers that have or could have unlawfully infiltrated our porous southern border with Mexico that are affiliated with the vicious cult known as the “Islamic State” or “ISIS”.
Though OUR current misguided and impotent Federal Government fails to recognize it, this cult has declared war on the people of the United States which puts the people of NM in a de facto state of war with these killers. And because these cult members kill indiscriminately, we the undersigned residents of the state of NM, recognizing “The People’s” God given right to the preservation of one’s own life and wellbeing, hereby demand that the Legislature and the Governor acknowledge the people‘s right to the defense of themselves and others against this or any other threat that may present itself and drafting and pass legislation recognizing the individual’s Constitutional right to the unencumbered possession and carry of a firearm within the borders of NM. The proposed law to be called: “The New Mexico Constitutional Carry Act of 2015”.
“Constitutional Carry” to be defined in the NM code as: “The sovereign individual’s* right to lawfully carry a firearm for lawful purposes, either openly or concealed, without having to acquire prior permission (permit/license) from the state, everywhere in the state not prohibited by clearly visible posted notification.”
*(Excluding those having been convicted of a prior violent felony or violent misdemeanor or any having been adjudicated mentally defective.)
The constitutionality of “Constitutional Carry” is NOT in question in these United States. Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming already recognize the right in varying ways and many other states (12) are considering adopting their own versions of it at this time.
The U.S. Justice Dept. has yet to challenge any of the states that recognize it in court and being that it‘s been the law in Vermont since 1791, which was constitutionally confirmed by State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295 (1903), it‘s doubtful it will ever receive such a challenge federally, in any state in which it has already been adopted, or in any that is now considering its adoption.
Justification for “Constitutional Carry” to be recognized by the state of New Mexico: Other than the fact that we are in a de facto state of war with an enemy that wants to kill us all and that we share a open border with a country (Mexico) where the officials openly accept bribes, the NM Constitution currently permits “Open Carry” to all NM citizens with few restrictions, whereas “Concealed Carry” requires an individual to purchase a permit (license).
Three requirements are present in the NM code (law) for an applicant to be issued said permit/license: 1) The applicant must pass a background check, 2) He/she must then receive training at his/her own expense, and 3) He/she must then purchase said permit/license for a prescribed period of time. (It is beyond obvious that individuals with criminal intent don’t bother with any of these requirements, so what good are they!) NONE of these contingencies are required for legally carrying a firearm openly in NM, but let the weather get cold, cover your openly carried firearm with a coat which conceals it and one is then guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by jail time, fines and possibly expensive legal defense bills. This is an unacceptable penalty for exercising a “secured” right.
Also troubling is that the decision on whether one is to be issued a permit is left to the sole discretion (or whim) of a possibly arbitrary issuing body or agent that has the power to either confirm or deny any applicant’s ability to acquire a permit/license that would allow him/her to exercise a “secured” right that we all possess under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Sec 6, of the NM Constitution.
Furthermore: By requiring one to obtain a permit/license and pay fees, requirements 2&3 (above) of the NM code create a discrepancy in the lawThey are repugnant to the Constitution of these United States and are thus, null and void of law.
We cite Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) case law in the following instances as proof: 1) Norton v. Shelby County: 118 U.S. 425 (1886) which states: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”. 2)Murdock v. Pennsylvania: 319 U.S. 105: (1943) which states that: ‘No state may convert a secured liberty (constitutional right) into a privilege and issue a license or a fee for it.’ The Second Amendment, which guarantees the people’s right to “… keep and bear arms …” IS a “secured liberty”, yet NM would have one pay fees for the acquisition of a license and for training if they want to carry a concealed firearm.
Not only does Murdocknullify the requirement for the permit/license, but it also clearly states that charging fees for both the mandated training and the permit/license to freely exercise a “secured” right/liberty is unconstitutional. Has the SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of the Second Amendment?
Yes they have! We cite: District of Columbia v. Heller: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) which states that: “… the Second Amendment applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.” and McDonald v. Chicago: 561 U.S. 742 (2010) which states that: “… the right of an individual to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.” There we have it: We have the “secured right” to “self defense” with a “firearm” and it “applies to the states.” So says the SCOTUS.
Furthermore: Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, AL, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) states that: ‘A law subjecting a right in publicly owned places to the prior restraint of a license is unconstitutional … And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right for which the law purports to require a license.
The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of such an ordinance the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands.’ This SCOTUS ruling clearly makes the carrying of concealed firearms without a permit/license perfectly legal, law or no law allowing or restricting the activity. Since all of the SCOTUS cases cited above are the ARE in harmony with the U.S. Constitution and are therefore the Supreme law of the land which makes them the law of the state of New Mexico, no ifs, ands or buts.
So says the Supremacy Clause: Article II, Clause 2,: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Furthermore: Marbury v. Madison: 5 U.S. 137 (1803): States that if any subservient (state or federal) law (or any part of it) that IS in conflict with the supreme law, that that whole law is “A fiction of law” and therefore unconstitutional. Since the SCOTUS is the final interpreter of law, their rulings are absolute. Being that all of the laws cited above are SCOTUS interpretations that are in harmony with the U.S. Constitution and deal with rights guaranteed to “The People” by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, they are the law of this land and may not be subverted by inferior laws, regulations, codes, ordinances, statutes, etc.
Since we have determined that: 1) Under both Heller and McDonald, that Americans have the “individual”, “constitutionally secured right” to “defend themselves” with “firearms” and that this “secured right” “applies to the state”; 2) Under Murdock: It is unconstitutional for a state to convert a secured liberty (constitutional right) into a privilege and issue a license or a fee for it’; 3) Under Shuttlesworth: “A law subjecting a right in publicly owned places to the prior restraint of a license is unconstitutional …” and that “a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right for which the law purports to require a license.”; 4) Under Norton: “An unconstitutional act is not a law …”; and 5) Under Article II, Clause 2 and Marbury: The U.S. Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of which the Second Amendment is a part and that NO subservient laws can supersede the SUPREME LAW; it stands that laws requiring a New Mexican to obtain a permit/license to carry a concealed firearm and that charging him/her any fees for training and said permit/license when the right he/she simply seeks to engage in exercising in a “secured right”, makes the existing NM requirements to do either a “fiction of law” and therefore unconstitutional.
Furthermore: Being that NM currently offers concealed carry permits for firearms to the people of the state for a monetary fee (which is unlawful according to both Murdock andShuttlesworth) proves that the state concedes that carrying a concealed firearm IS a lawful and constitutional activity even though the NM Constitution forbids “… the carrying of concealed weapons.”
Therefore, the existing clause in Article II, Sec. 6, of the NM Constitution creates a number of additional discrepancies in the law: The state’s practice of issuing permits for an unconstitutional act according to the NM Constitution (but federally constitutional act) creates the a legal conundrum that can only have one or two answers: Is this violation of the U.S. Constitution done purely for the state’s monetary gain, or is it simply the state’s unconstitutional exercise of power over the “sheeple”, which overtly creates a class of people with more rights than others? Or is it done for both reasons? For whatever reason(s), we hereby require that the words: “… but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.” be stricken fromArticle II, Sec. 6 of the NM Constitution as unconstitutional.
Also to be addressed in “The New Mexico Constitutional Carry Act of 2015”: Since we have no objection for an automated and therefore “un-arbitrary” system to be used to conduct background checks on the purchasers of firearms and that the National Instant Check System (NICS) is already in place for such purchases through federally licensed firearms dealers, we further require that the NM Sheriffs departments (or other licensing agents) freely issue NM concealed carry permits for the use of NM citizens that travel to other states that recognize NM concealed carry permit reciprocity.
Being that firearms carry for self defense is a right and not a privilege, these permits to be issued FREE OF CHARGE following the NM resident’s passage of a NICS check. We also require the Governor to seek reciprocity agreements for the recognition and acceptance of NM concealed carry permits in ALL of the other forty-nine states and all of the federally controlled districts and/or territories.
For the reasons stated above and considering the ironclad SOFTUS case law presented in this petition to justify its adoption, we the undersigned people of the state of New Mexico require that “The New Mexico Constitutional Carry Act of 2015”, as defined in paragraph two, become the recognized law and practice of New Mexico.

ladailypost.com website support locally by OviNuppi Systems