by Dave Workman
Senior Editor

It took the five justices on New Mexico’s Supreme Court only 30 minutes to deliberate behind closed doors before rejecting, without comment, a challenge to that state’s new concealed carry statute on Jan. 6.

New Mexico Chief Justice Petra Maes said a written opinion detailing the court’s decision would be issued later.

A major national gun rights group quickly called upon the Missouri State Supreme Court to “follow the lead” of the New Mexico court, and reject a similar challenge of Missouri’s recently-passed concealed carry statute. Missouri justices are scheduled to hear arguments in that case on Jan. 22. Missouri’s law has been held up after St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer ruled in November that the new CCW statute violated the state constitution.

The arguments in that case are similar to the unsuccessful challenge in New Mexico, where attorney Stephen Halbrook of Virginia, considered to be an authority on constitutional law relating to the right to bear arms, was present for the high court’s action. Halbrook told Gun Week that the Missouri lawsuit—much the same as the New Mexico challenge—was “frivolous.”

Halbrook will be in Jefferson City, MO, for the Supreme Court hearing.

Opposition to the New Mexico statute was mounted by a physician, Dr. Victor LaCerva, and a children’s advocacy group called New Mexico Voices for Children. After the ruling, LaCerva was quoted by Associated Press (AP), threatening to compile data on murders and suicides after the law takes effect, and work to repeal the statute. An attorney for the children’s group, David Campbell, said, “I think this will be a more dangerous place for children and other living beings.”

But Joe Waldron, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), issued a statement calling the decision “a monument to common sense.”

“Opponents of this new law have a hidden agenda,” Waldron contended. “They’re not simply against concealed carry; they wanted to prevent New Mexico residents from learning just how well such a law can work.”

Waldron noted that residents of other states, including law enforcement officials who may have initially opposed such laws, change their opinion once the laws have been in place. He said they “learn from experience” that concealed carry laws are effective in reducing crime.

“Studies, and crime statistics, suggest that states with concealed carry laws enjoy lower crime rates. Anti-self-defense zealots should have to explain what’s wrong with that,” he said.

Under the law, New Mexico residents age 25 and older may apply for a two-year concealed pistol license. They must go through training and a background check.

The challenge was based on the argument that New Mexico’s was an absolute prohibition against carrying concealed firearms.

However, in defending the statute, Assistant Attorney General Jerome Marshak said this merely means carrying concealed weapons is not a constitutional right, but that the practice can be allowed, and regulated by the legislature.