Jackson v. King
| Decision Date | 17 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:12-CV-00421-MCA-RHS,2:12-CV-00421-MCA-RHS |
| Parties | JOHN W. JACKSON and SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., Plaintiffs, v. GARY KING, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of New Mexico, and BILL HUBBARD, in his Official Capacity as Director of the Special Investigations Division of the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Hubbard and King's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 31] Having considered the submissions, the relevant case law, and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion.
On April 21, 2012, Plaintiffs John W. Jackson and the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (SAF), filed their Complaint [Doc. 1] "pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of civil rights under color of law, [seeking] equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief challenging the State of New Mexico's prohibition on otherwise qualified non-U.S. citizens who legally reside in New Mexico from obtaining a concealed handgun license, pursuant to section NMSA 1978, § 29-19-4(A)(1) of the New Mexico Concealed Handgun Carry Act." [Doc. 1 at 1] Plaintiffs allege that the citizenship requirement in Section 29-19-4(A)(1) violates the right to keep and bear firearms in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and is preempted by federal immigration law. [Doc. 1 at 6-7]
On January 8, 2013, Defendants Hubbard and King filed the present motion for summary judgment. [See Doc. 31] Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' Second Amendment claim because the Second Amendment does not protect the concealed carrying of handguns. [Doc. 31 at 12-13] With respect to Plaintiffs' Equal Protection claim, Defendants contend that even though New Mexico's Concealed Handgun Carry Act distinguishes between individuals on the basis of citizenship, strict scrutiny is inapplicable because the Act does not deny aliens an economic benefit or other fundamental right. [Doc. 31 at 7] Even if strict scrutiny is applicable, Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the government has a compelling governmental interest in public safety and the Act isnarrowly tailored to serve this interest. [Doc. 31 at 9-12] Lastly, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' preemption claim must fail because New Mexico's Concealed Handgun Carry Act does not does not intrude upon federal immigration policy. [Doc. 31 at 13-15]
On March 30, 2013, the Court granted Defendant Gary King's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted and For Lack of Standing. [See Docs. 28 and 41] The Court held that Defendant Gary King, Attorney General of the State of New Mexico, was not a proper party litigant because he has "discretion to refuse to defend this action on behalf of the state." [Doc. 41 at 5] Accordingly, Defendant King is no longer a party to the present action.
On March 30, 2013, the Court also granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [See Docs. 18 and 42] The Court rejected Plaintiffs' Second Amendment claim on the basis of Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013), which held that "the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed weapons." Id. at 1211. However, the Court held that Plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Equal Protection claim because alienage is a suspect classification and the citizenship requirement in Section 29-19-4 was not narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. The Court recognized that protecting the public from the dangers inherent in concealed weapons is a compelling governmental interest. However, the Court determined that Defendant Hubbard failed to demonstrate a close fit between the citizenship requirement and the state's compelling interest because "[t]here is no argument made, much less any evidence proffered, that apermanent resident alien, such as Mr. Jackson, who resides in this country legally, poses a greater danger by virtue of his or her status alone, when carrying a concealed loaded firearm, than do United States citizens." [Doc. 42 at 18] Because Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm as a consequence of the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and because the public interest and balance of the harms supported the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief, this Court preliminarily enjoined Defendant Hubbard from enforcing the citizenship provision in Section 29-19-14(A)(1) of the Concealed Handgun Carry Act pending resolution of this action. [Id. at 24]
Summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 shall be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. " Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, the adverse party must cite "particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials" or show "that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). Judgment is appropriate "as a matter of law" if the nonmoving party has failed to make an adequate showing on an essential element of its case, as to which it has the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.317, 322-23 (1986); Lopez v. LeMaster, 172 F.3d 756, 759 (10th Cir. 1999).
In order to warrant consideration by the Court, the factual materials accompanying a motion for summary judgment must be admissible or usable at trial (although they do not necessarily need to be presented in a form admissible at trial). See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. It is not the court's role, however, to weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or make factual findings in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Rather, the Court assumes the evidence of the non-moving party to be true, resolves all doubts against the moving party, construes all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and draws all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party's favor. See Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 551-52 (1999).
Plaintiffs may openly carry a loaded firearm in accordance with Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution. See N.M. Const. art. II, § 6 ( ). However, the State of New Mexico's Concealed Handgun Carry Act does not permit non-United States citizens to carry a loaded concealed firearm. Specifically, Section 29-19-4 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial