Abstract
State v. Romero marked the first time the New Mexico Court of Appeals considered whether a New Mexico law disarming every person with a state felony conviction was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court upheld the law, but only to the extent that it disarmed dangerous felons. The court found that the appellant was dangerous because he was previously convicted of dangerous crimes. This note questions whether prior convictions alone are sufficient to prove dangerousness. Criminal justice data and constitutional theory caution against dangerousness findings based on criminal history alone. Courts should determine dangerousness under the disarmament law using a wide scope of evidence, like the broad factors they use to decide whether to detain a person pending their trial. Considering more evidence—not less—would help courts more accurately predict unsafe behavior while making good on Romero’s promise to disarm people based on their conduct, not their status as felons.
Recommended Citation
Alexander Guel-James,
What’s Past is Prologue: Prior Convictions as Evidence of Dangerousness in State v. Romero,
56
N.M. L. Rev.
397
(2026).
Available at:
https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol56/iss2/6
