"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." -- The passage of the New Mexico Constitution that anti-gun pro-crime activists plan to use to try to invalidate concealed carry.

Anyone with elementary grammar skills could point to this phrase and realize that it merely states that the government recognizes a person's right to keep and bear arms, however that does not necessarily mean they have the right to carry them concealed. The passage is very similar to the Missouri constitution which states: "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons". Nothing in either constitution says that the government cannot permit a person to carry a concealed firearm.

Just like nothing in either constitution shall be held to permit that people have the right to "free" internet access or "free" health care, that doesn't mean that the state cannot enact such legislation. Of course, if the court finds that the constitution really does say that the legislature cannot "grant" the "right" to concealed carry, that would include police officers and other members of the executive (i.e. enforcement) branch of government. They are not above the constitution, and just like Missouri, anyone currently in jail that was arrested by an officer with a concealed firearm should immediately have their conviction overturned because police violated their civil rights.