[mvpel]

Here's the New Mexico Constitution's RKBA clause:

Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]

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. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

It would appear that the NM Supreme Court is operating under the principle of "anything not permitted is forbidden," just like you might find in a typical police state. It's a bad ruling. At least they still have open carry there.

[inquest]

Well, I guess you answered my question from #4. You're right, that is a really tortured interpretation. I think this is the first time I've ever heard of a court striking down a permissive law. Very bizarre.

[matrix]

"...but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."

Hmmmm. Then if I carry it on my hip cowboy style, it should be okay. Right?

[Shooter 2.5]

If I recall, New Mexico already has open carry.
That said, the way the CCW law was written, it gave the cities the ability to ban CCW holders within their borders which made getting a license a waste of time and dangerous if a CCW holder would wander across a certain street without realizing the laws or in what locality they were in.
If they were smart, which they aren't, the legislators would have copied Florida's law. It works and it opens the door to reciprosity.
There has always been an excuse for gunowners to ignore the dems in their state governments. The residents of Ohio, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Illinois are finding out how important it is to get rid of them.