City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 485 P.2d 737 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 485 P.2d 737 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Christian (orctapp, 2012-03-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Christian (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597 , 70 P. 609, 609 (1902) (ban on open carry of firearms within "limits or confines of any city, town or village" violated state constitutional right to bear arms); State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295 , 55 A. 610, 610 (1903) (law banning carrying of pistols within city limits, without first obtaining a discretionary permit issued by city officials, violated state constitutional right to bear arms); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626 , 485 P.2d 737, 738 (N.M.Ct.App.1971) (municipal ordinance banning open carry of firearms violated state constitutional right …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nordyke v. King
9th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g., City of Junction City v. Mevis, 226 Kan. 526 , 601 P.2d 1145, 1152 (1979); City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744, 745 (1972); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626 , 485 P.2d 737, 738 (Ct.App.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nordyke v. King
9th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g., City of Junction City v. Mevis, 226 Kan. 526 , 601 P.2d 1145, 1152 (1979); City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20 , 501 P.2d 744, 745 (1972); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626 , 485 P.2d 737, 738 (Ct. App.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mosby v. Devine (2×)
R.I. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Zerillo, 189 N.W. at 928 ; City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626 , 485 P.2d 737, 738-39 (Ct.App.1971); Kerner, 107 S.E. at 225 ; State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255 , 630 P.2d 824, 827 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lake
N.M. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Defendant suggests that carrying Dees forward under the circumstances of this case conflicts with City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 627 , 485 P.2d 737, 738 (Ct.App.1971) (ordinance prohibiting the carrying of a deadly weapon anywhere in city limits deprived citizens of the right to bear arms).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robertson v. City and County of Denver (2×)
Colo. · 1994 · confidence medium
City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626 , 485 P.2d 737, 738 (Ct.App. 1971) (statute which completely prohibits the right to bear arms is unconstitutional; it denies the right as opposed to regulating it); In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597 , 70 P. 609 (1902) (invalidating statute prohibiting the carrying of any weapon in the state's cities, towns, and villages, concluding that the legislature may regulate but not prohibit the right to bear arms).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Slesarik v. Luna County
10th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Vol. III, Tab 66 (quoting City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 485 P.2d 737, 738 (N.M.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Comeau
Neb. · 1989 · confidence medium
See, e.g., In Re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 599 , 70 P. 609, 609 (1902); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 627 , 485 P.2d 737, 738 (Ct.App.1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State Ex Rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner
W. Va. · 1988 · confidence medium
See, e.g., In Re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 599 , 70 P. 609, 609 (1902); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 627 , 485 P.2d 737, 738 (Ct.App.1971).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Leland James MOBERG, Defendant-Appellant
639.
New Mexico Court of Appeals.
May 14, 1971.
485 P.2d 737
Leon1 -Karelitz, Las Vegas, for defendant-appéllant., Roberto' L. Armijo, Las Vegas, for plaintiff-appellee.
Spiess, Wood, Sutin.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

SPIESS, Chief Judge.

The defendant, Moberg, was convicted by the municipal court of the City of Las Vegas of violating the city, ordinance No.-3 — 3, which reads as follows:

“DEADLY WEAPONS. It shall be unlawful ' for any person to carry deadly weapons, concealed or otherwise, on or about their persons, within the corporate limits of the City of East Las Vegas. Deadly weapons shall consist of all kinds of guns, pistols, knives with blades longer than two and half inches, slingshots, sandbags, metallic knuckles, concealed rocks, and all other weapons, by .whatever name ■ known, with which dangerous wotinds can be inflicted.”

The complaint charged the defendant with the violation of the ordinance by number and specifically by “carrying a concealed and deadly weapon.” Following conviction by the municipal court, defendant appealed to the district court and was there accorded a trial “de novo” (§ 38 — 1— 13, N.M.S.A.1953, (Rpl. Vol. 6).

The evidence presented at the trial in the district court established, without dispute, that defendant went to the booking room' of the city police department of the city of Las Vegas to report the theft of certain items from his automobile. At the time, defendant was carrying a pistol in a holster. The pistol was in plain view at all times. It appears that both parties at the trial in the'district court treated the-complaint as charging simply the carrying of a deadly weapon. No contention is rnáde that the evidence supported the carrying of a concealed weapon. Defendant was found guilty by the district court of violating the particular ordinance through carrying a deadly weapon, which, in this case, as stated, was in plain view. Sentence was imposed.

Defendant has appealed and challenges the constitutionality of the ordinance as it is applied to carrying arms openly and in plain view. He asserts that in this respect the ordinance is repugnant to Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico. This section provides:

“The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”

It is a generally accepted principle that a municipal ordinance which denies rights protected by constitutional guaranty is void to the extent, at least, that it purports to deny such rights. Berger v. City and County of Denver, 142 Colo. 72, 350 P.2d 192 (1960); City of Fort Worth v. Atlas Enterprises, 311 S.W.2d 922 (Tex.Civ.App.1958); State v. Hart, 66 Idaho 217, 157 P.2d 72 (1945). 5 E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 19.03, (1969 Revised Edition).

Ordinances prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons have generally been held to be a proper exercise of police power. State v. Hart, supra; Davis v. State, 146 So.2d 892 (Fla.1962).

Such ordinances do not deprive citizens of the right to bear arms; their effect is only to regulate the right. As applied to arms, other than those concealed, the ordinance under consideration purports to completely prohibit the “right to bear arms.”

It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny the people the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to that' extent the ordinance under consideration is void. State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295, 55 A. 510 (1903); and see In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 70 P. 609 (1902); State v. Woodward, 58 Idaho 385, 74 P.2d 92 (1937); State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 (1921).

The case against defendant should be dismissed and defendant discharged.

It is so ordered.

WOOD and SUTIN, JJ., concur.