...did you read the portions of the Constitution I cited? It's obvious that the administration, and the state as well, is acting in an unlawful manner; if that is not reason enough to be 'snippy,' then might I ask what is? You'll also note that the portion of your post I quoted was the portion of the article/administrator that you quoted and so it is more a response to him.
But since we're on the topic; perhaps you would care to explain why so many people think that you or I or other citizens need to obtain government permission to exercise what the [state] Constitution recognizes as an INHERENT & INALIENABLE *RIGHT*? (Pleas read the definitions in post 108 again; but this time consider what these words mean; especially when they're applied to yourself.) This administrator whining that "it was done secretly" and without [governmental/his] permission is merely one such instance. Another would be our all municipal/county regulations or requirements concerning weapons AS WELL AS many State Statutes:
| New Mexico State Constitution Art II, Sec 6 |
|---|
| No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. |
| Contrary State Statutes |
| 30-7-2.1. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises. A. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises consists of carrying a deadly weapon on school premises except by: (1) a peace officer; (2) school security personnel; (3) a student, instructor or other school-authorized personnel engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or state-authorized hunter safety training instruction; (4) a person conducting or participating in a school-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a deadly weapon; or (5) a person older than nineteen years of age on school premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property. B. As used in this section, "school premises" means: (1) the buildings and grounds, including playgrounds, playing fields and parking areas and any school bus of any public elementary, secondary, junior high or high school in or on which school or school-related activities are being operated under the supervision of a local school board; or (2) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not public school property, in or on which public school-related and sanctioned activities are being performed. C. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises is guilty of a fourth degree felony. |
| 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty. A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises. C. As used in this section:
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. |
| See the whole list of New Mexico Weapons Laws. |
Now, according to the last sentence in Art 2, Sec 6 no municipality or county may regulate incidents of the right to bear arms; this means that ALL city laws against "brandishing" or "discharging" a weapon are Null and Void; not only this but the pig-ol` signs on Municipal and County Courthouses are of none effect (according to the State Constitution). The statute regarding the university is particularly sinister; not only does it abridge the right of all faculty, staff, students, and visitors to bear weapons, but it also abridges the right of those who live in on-campus housing from keeping weapons -- But then they justify it by making irrelevant claims:
The first is utterly irrelevant to the law's existence: Art 2, Sec6 says "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense[...]" but furthermore, Art 2, Sec 4 explicitly says that everyone has the right to protect themselves.
The second will quickly get you into a circular argument where "we ban weapons from courthouses" supports banning them from schoolgrounds & "we ban them from schools" supports banning them from courthouses... utterly ignoring that the words 'all' and 'no'/'not' and 'shall' are words with actual, fixed meanings. Utterly ignoring that the Constitution, the very authority that set up the branches of the government to make laws, enforce laws, and adjudicate is what is prohibiting those same authorities from acting in such a manner {in other words, the contempt of the various branches of government to the Constitution's authority [which they show by their actions] is nothing less than a repudiation of that authority itself}.
That doesn't apply to my post, which you obviously didn't read. Don't bother to reply, you obviously have some sort of cognitive difficulty and I don't want to waste my time with you.