Replies

>Not being a lawyer I don’t feel capable of arguing for or against it.

That is the BIG LIE currently in our judicial system; you don’t *need* to be a lawyer in a matter such as I presented.
You merely need to read AND reject violations of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

As I’ve shown the state constitution forbids laws “abridg[ing] the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense.”

If you ask, what authority put the State Statute in place the answer is: the legislature.
If you ask what authority put the legislature in place the answer is: the State Constitution.

Now if the State Constitution which establishes the legislature also forbids the creation/recognition/validity of laws which abridges the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense does the legislature have the [legitimate] authority to pass a law that does?

Also according to my State Constitution the argument against weapon infringement may be made indirectly:
Art II, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.]
All persons are born equally free, and have certain
natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among
which are the rights of enjoying and defending life
and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and
protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining
safety and happiness.

Inalienable –adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.

Repudiate –verb (used with object), -ated, -ating.
1. — to reject as having no authority or binding force: to repudiate a claim.
2. — to cast off or disown: to repudiate a son.
3. — to reject with disapproval or condemnation: to repudiate a new doctrine.
4. — to reject with denial: to repudiate a charge as untrue.
5. — to refuse to acknowledge and pay (a debt), as a state, municipality, etc.

So then, Art II Sec 4 declares that the “rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty” is not capable of being rejected [as having no authority/force]. Therefore the restriction of implements with which to defend “life and liberty” cannot be seen as valid.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE! [;)]
I can also argue from greater authority from the State Constitution:
Art II, Sec. 1. [Supreme law of the land.]
The state of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the
federal union, and the constitution of the United
States is the supreme law of the land.

[insert Amendment 2 to the constitution of the United States here]

...and the best part of going this route is that those who oppose you have a far greater burden: they have to try to prove that the law [in this case the Constitution] does not say what it says. That so many have rejected the Law of Non-Contradiction is what allows them to get away with their games.